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.
I believe it does not change since the term Natural Born Citizen, as recommended by John Jay, was written into the Constitution. In order for it to change, you need a Constitutional Amendment. No law written by Congress can change that meaning. None. Remember, Constitutional Amendment. End of story.
“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?”
Yes, what I’ve seen just presents the arguments. Some say whe was on a Canadian voter list. Not sure what I think of it, except this. They were in Canada, England, Cuba, pledging allegiance to all of them before they finally landed in the US. BTW, Ted is NO Texan! I was born in Texas. He’s NOT a Texan. He’s a Cubnadian! lol
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ted-cruz-mother-canadian-voter-list
“The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed five years later. The wording for Natural Born citizen was absent. I wonder why?”
It doesn’t matter as far as the Constitution is concerned. The present naturalization act, I would assume, is much different that the one that replaced the Act of 1790. The only thing important with the 1790 Act is explanation of terms used in the Constitution.
Well I agree.
So Ted is not just Cuban/Canadian---his father was a commie.
The similarities of this stealth candidate to OBAMA are very eerie. (no documents, father a foreigner, family included commies, entered USA as an illegal...)
No, not "i.e." .
Is is more like "non natural citizens" who will be treated like "natural citizens."
It does not speak to them being natural citizens. It just says they will be treated the same.
Precisely. If a real legal pursuit of Ted Cruz’s eligibility were made, there would also be a look the precedent set by Obama. When if means going over to Hawaii and looking at Obama’s birth documents, that will be a very messy situation. What I was hoping for is that legal pursuit of Cruz’s eligibility. Of course, it would mean a different type of judges not bought out by the Democrats Socialists.
An act passed three years later cannot affect the meaning of a Constitution written three years earlier.
This is not over by a LONG SHOT.
The DNC/GOPe will find a judge to disqualify Cruz.
They are baiting conservatives to still have false hope in Cruz to continue to siphon conservative votes from Trump in order to make it to a brokered convention to VOID THE VOTES of the WILL of the majority of Republican voters.
No matter how bad you wish it to go away.... it will not.
Cruz is just being used to beat Trump. He serves no other purpose.
“Is is more like “non natural citizens” who will be treated like “natural citizens.”
from Wikipedia:
“The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of certain children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
Do you see the concept, “natural children” anywhere? Do you see the concept “non-natural citizens” anywhere there?
It explicitly refers to children born of American citizens beyond the seas - born in a foreign country.
I have read a different interpretation by founder and historian, David Ramsey. I wonder why the The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed?
“The Naturalization Act of 1790 specifically defines “natural born” as children of citizen parents”
Wrong, the Naturalization Act of 1790 clearly states a child born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents is not a natural born citizen.
This is an example of where Wikipedia is just wrong.
It is nonsensical to assert that a "naturalization act" does not create "naturalization."
You just closed other case. Thank you.
” Because its meaningless until there is a SCOTUS ruling. “
OOPs.
You just closed another case. Thank you.
You are delusional if you think Cruz will bring back the Constitution after stepping on it for personal gain. Voters such as you will put the last nails in the coffin of the REPUBLIC.
http://powderedwigsociety.com/eligibility-of-cruz-and-rubio/
Pretty straightforward and easy to understand presentation about Cruz and Rubio’s eligibility to run for POTUS.
VIDEO: THIS is why Cruz and Rubio didn’t attempt to have a court decide their eligibility in the past. They would have been ruled ineligible!
If you are NBC = No EXTRA LAW needed.
If you need an EXTRA LAW to prove citizenship = NATURALIZED not NBC
It really is just THAT SIMPLE!!
“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?”
Allegedly neither of the parents had been Canadian Permanent Residents the required time, perhaps 3 years, required to acquire naturalized Canadian citizenship by the time Ted Cruz was born in December 1970. Depending on whose timeline you use, it may or may not have been possible. It is denied that the mother ever acquired Canadian citizenship, but that too is open to question and a need for supporting documentation.
Not a Federal judge; Dems can bring case if they need to; hold issue in reserve.
Good call.
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!)
Thanks for the post. I agree that there is no CRBA..he became a US citizen in high school when he needed a passport. The dems know all of this, and if Eduardo prevails, will sue on eligibility grounds..and win. They have, in a probability, lined up a judge...cruz is a dead man walking.
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.