Posted on 03/20/2016 11:46:56 AM PDT by conservativejoy
With all of the non-stop coverage of the 2016 presidential election, have you noticed as of late that Donald Trump has not said a peep about Ted Cruz not being eligible for the presidency? Earlier this year, Trump questioned whether Cruz was a natural born citizen because he was born in Calgary, Canada (to a U.S. citizen mother). Trump asserted this very question would be caught up in the court for years. Much editorial space was spent on major newspaper and TV networks discussing this issue. Many legal scholars even agreed that Trump may have a case against Cruz.
This weekend, it occurred to me, this issue has faded from the public eye. The major media outlets stopped talking about it (maybe because Trump has moved on to other things.) But, it remains an important and largely unresolved question. So, I decided to look through some of the filings in the lawsuits filed against Cruz, and discovered an opinion from a Pennsylvania Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini that gives an absolute smack down to all of these Ted Cruz birther claims. Judge Pellegrini in his 22 page memorandum opinion found that Ted Cruz was a natural born citizen thereby ruling that Cruz’s name can appear on the Republican primary ballot in Pennsylvania on April 26, 2016. Why this particular opinion piqued my interest is that it is the first I have seen anywhere that actually tackles the Constitutional questions surrounding Cruz’s eligibility. For example, cases in Utah and Florida, were recently dismissed on procedural technicalities (like standing). What is even more shocking - the opinion was issued last week - and I couldn't find any major network or newspaper covering it. (WSJ had a short blog post, and a few local newspapers covered it in PA). You would think that on the heels of such extensive coverage of the issue earlier this year, that the media would jump all over the first major opinion to addresses these important Constitutional questions that Trump brought up during the campaign. I guess, that's wishful thinking, but I will go through the opinion, anyway, as I think its illustrative of what will be found if/when this question is appealed to an even higher court, perhaps even the U.S. Supreme Court.
The heart of the question stems from Article II, Section I, of the U.S. Constitution which requires that a President be a "natural born" citizen. The challenge was filed by Carmon Elliot, a registered Republican in Pennsylvania. Elliot claimed Cruz should not be allowed to appear in the ballot because he is not a "natural born citizen."
Firstly, Cruz's attorneys argued that the Court should not address this issue at all because it is a "political question" that should not be addressed by the Judiciary. The judge found "no Constitutional provision places such power in Congress to determine Presidential eligibility." Bottom line (and this is important), the judge found that the courts can move forward with deciding the case.
So how did Judge Pellegrino of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania arrive at his decision that Cruz was eligible?
The judge relies on several pieces on legal scholarship. First, a memo produced in 1968 by Charles Gordon, then the General Counsel of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, which says: "The Framers were well aware of the need to assure full citizenship rights to the children born to American citizens in foreign countries." He also points out a 2011 Congressional Research Service Memo entitled the "Qualification for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement." The document concludes:
"The weight of legal and historical authority indicated that the term 'natural born' citizen would mean a person, who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth' either by being born 'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents."
Then the judge spends four pages quoting from the recent work of Paul Clement & Neal Katyal in the Harvard Law Review, in which the two Constitutional scholars (from different sides of the political aisle) conclude that "as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase 'natural born citizen' in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth."
In his conclusion, the Judge states:
Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in the opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a "natural born citizen" included any person who is a United States citizen from birth.Accordingly, because he was a citizen of the United States from birth, Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States..
The judge's decision is ripe for a higher court review, but it is significant nonetheless. As election law expert Dan Tokaji points out in the Election Law Blog this case could ultimately be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
"A state court ruling would be helpful, but only a Supreme Court ruling could dispel the uncertainty surrounding its meaning. The good news is that review of a state court decision on Cruz's eligibility could be sought in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to review federal law questions is broader than that of lower federal courts," he wrote.
So perhaps, one thing Trump said is correct that this question could end being caught up in the courts for some time. The petitioner, Mr. Elliot, already said he plans to appeal the Judge’s decision.
It may not be defined to your satisfaction, but it is defined. A natural born citizen is one whose claim to citizenship derives naturally from the circumstances of his or her birth so that there is a natural and abiding connection between the child and the society and nation into which he or she is born.
A stupid judge, or a political judge, or a stupid and political judge.
Good point - and if Cruz were not eligible then would not Obama get PA electoral votes? Would this be enough to invalidate his presidency?
To me this is the danger in letting the camel's nose get under the tent....a slippery slope away from being a sovereign country with sovereign citizens.
“And even then, birthers will simply proclaim that the court got it wrong.”
Is it possible for the Court to get anything wrong? What about Obamacare, gay marriage, etc.
A few Freepers who have researched the issue document that the courts have already ruled, and under those rulings, Cruz is not a natural born citizen.
Then you have the ORIGINAL birthers, the writers of the Constitution who were crass enough to include the “NATURAL BORN” concept into the Constitution as as requirement to be president of the United States. Why on earth would they abandon mere “citizen” and go to “natural born citizen”, the only time it is used in the Constitution?
And why were millions of us throughout the nation’s history taught in schools that “natural born” meant descent from citizen parents and born in the USA?
And, most telling, why won’t Cruz release any citizenship documentation, say, for instance, what he used to get his driver’s license.
Do you realize that Cruz and Obama could not even get a teaching job anywhere in the United States because the teaching applicants are required to submit birth certificates and EVERY OTHER documentation record that is possible for any person to have?
“No, it was defined in English common law prior to the adoption of the Constitution. The reading in the law of 1790 was actually an aberrant definition, and one which Madison succeeded in removing a mere five years later.”
You are so full of crap.
Remember these are the courts that held it OK to kill babies as long as their heads were still inside their mother and forced the States to “marry” homosexuals. Just saying.
Conflating “at” with “by” is a source of confusion and all too common.
“at” indicates a point in space or time
“by” indicates a causative agent
A person can be a citizen at birth either by statute or by nature.
Article II does not require “citizen at birth” - it requires “natural born citizen”.
Stupid headline. It was a Rubio supporter who filed that suit
Not a damn thing. These Judges don’t study the issue at all in depth, because it doesn’t matter to them to do so. Do you think they would slog through hundreds of hours of research for this?
“A natural born citizen is one whose claim to citizenship derives naturally from the circumstances of his or her birth so that there is a natural and abiding connection between the child and the society and nation into which he or she is born.”
And, according to the definition contained in the Naturalization Act of 1790, that means a child born of citizen parents.
Also, the same Act specified that citizenship descended from the father only. That concept held sway until 1930.
And since those definitions were locked into the Constitution, any following naturalization act cannot override what is written into the Constitution.
By the way, why does Cruz refuse to release his citizenship documentation, verification?
When he went to get his driver’s license when he turned 16, did he give them his mother’s birth certificate?
“It says they will be treated just like “natural born citizens.”
Yes, as in children whose parents are citizens, i.e. natural born. The reference was to children born overseas of American citizens.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed five years later. The wording for Natural Born citizen was absent. I wonder why?
ALL Cruz has to do to end this argument is hand over his CBRA.
He's hung his hat on this---that he was born abroad of US citizen mother. That works but the parents must go to the U.S. embassy within two years of the birth and declare the child a citizen via the CBRA form.
So why won't Ted provide this? Yet another similarity between him and Obama: BOTH born in other countries, both foreigners in every way: Ted=Cuban born in Canada.
Obviously there IS no CBRA for Ted. He's a STEALTH, Manchurian Candidate poseur as was Obama, the New World Order candidate (TPP, CFR, TAP, etc. etc. ...His wife is his partner in this Globalist Twofer. For gosh sakes look at her resume!)
This alone should make every Cruzer realize what a sneaky liar Ted is (and stealth candidate, not even an American, but the Washington Insider Political Class Goldman Sachs candidate. Wake up! )
Granted, at this point it PROBABLY doesn't matter except for Cruz's pesky hanging-around despite Trump beating the living crap out of him in EVERY debate and polls. As has been noted, ANY other presidential year, a candidate with Trump's lead would have already been declared the de facto winner. Cruz thinks, correctly, he's still in the running with Mitt and Jeb and maybe Ryan for the Globalist nominee the GOP (Globalist Oligarch Party) will foist on us at the convention.
(I do admit that Beck's "Fulfillment of the Prophecy" stuff is really annoying and THAT is what world leaders should worry about, that such nutcase cultish Jonestown crap is a factor in the race and COULD deliver our next president---not likely, but COULD if the New World Order stands by their man....The Globalists have elevated Ted and Heidi for fifteen years and in return they have done EXACTLY what they have been asked to do with open borders and "free" trade.)
I have long had this unanswered question: Cruz’s father had applied for Canadian citizenship. Did his mother also apply? And, if she did, was she then a Canadian citizen by the time Rafael “Ted” was born?
8 U.S. Code § 1401 deals with the question of “Nationals and citizens of United States at birth”, however does not take up a Constitutional definition of “natural born Citizen”.
It seems we’ll just have to wait until if Cruz is nominated, that the democrats will definitely petition the USSC in the matter.
And just bear in mind, Roberts is their boy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.