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.
This is why I cannot vote for Cruz ...his ambition is more important to him than the Constitution he supposedly defends. This is why Lawrence Tribe called him a hypocrite.
I believe Cruz, constitutional scholar that he is...knows full well that he doesn’t qualify. His big defense so far was that Trump’s mother was born in Scotland. (Trump’s mother became a citizen before Trump was born.)
Yea, I guess this judge and the majority of constitutional legal scholars in this country are full of crap.
This listing of our first presidents and their places of birth raises the question(s): if each of them was born in what was to become the United States of America and after the American Revolution became automatically its citizens, why did the Framers find it necessary to specify that the holder of the Office of the President, and only that office, be a “Natural Born Citizen?” Why wasn’t “citizen” adequate for that office as it was for the other offices enumerated in the Constitution?
“This is an example of where Wikipedia is just wrong.”
Are you serious? That was just a paragraph concerning our discussion from about a two page document.
You can find the same paragraph from any other source that shows the Act.
“Wrong, the Naturalization Act of 1790 clearly states a child born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents is not a natural born citizen.”
It very clearly shows that the child born abroad of two U.S. citizen parents is to be considered as a natural born citizen.
Jim has asked that we stop attacking the top *two* candidates, “as of now.”
You are free to support Donald Trump with vigor. I support your right to do so, and will not criticize him. And you are asked to quit demeaning the other top candidate: Ted Cruz.
See my profile page for links to Jim’s comments asking for civility toward *both* leading candidates: Trump and Cruz. Accept his request or reject it. The choice is yours.
Let’s keep things civil on FR. Be part of the solution. Not part of the problem.
Bingo! You said the magic words: “supporting documentation.” That documentation seems to be suppressed. Why doesn’t Cruz make them available?
How the hell would I know the answers to your irrelevant and trivial questions?
As to your formulaic approach to the determination of nbc status, I would only point out that what you seem to believe are requirements are no such thing. They are mere indicia.
The fact that they appear to have evolved or changed over time is evidence of that.
So? It's still wrong.
You can find the same paragraph from any other source that shows the Act.
So? Other people's commentary doesn't affect the truth at all.
The "naturalization act of 1790" naturalized the children born outside the country to US Citizen fathers.
You've kept up with the "gay marriage" debate?
“As to your formulaic approach to the determination of nbc status, I would only point out that what you seem to believe are requirements are no such thing. They are mere indicia.”
“what you seem to believe are requirements are no such thing.”
“seem to believe”??? “no such requirement”???
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Where is your wiggle room?
“The fact that they appear to have evolved or changed over time is evidence of that.”
The Constitution prescribes how it is to be amended. The NBC clause has never been amended.
Why are my questions irrelevant and trivial? Because to answer them would require you to abandon the delusional narrative that Cruz is a NBC?
au contraire
“So? Other people’s commentary doesn’t affect the truth at all.”
That a citation from part of the Act. It was not commmentary.
“The “naturalization act of 1790” naturalized the children born outside the country to US Citizen fathers.”
Have it your way. I am not interested with that. I mentioned the Act because it, in building its logic, just happened to define what a natural born citizen is. People want to claim that it was never defined.
There is a clause that made allowance for those that were born in what was to become the USA. The reason they wanted only a NBC going forward is they didn’t want divided loyalties. Our founders were brilliant.
Honestly If Obama isn’t the very description of the problem of divided loyalties - the maybe Muslim citizen of the world who went on a world apology tour - I don’t know who is. We rebuked the founders and have paid the price.
The act "defined" nothing. It said non natural citizens would be treated like natural citizens if they were born to US Fathers.
NBC or no?
This from the Powdered Wig Society. NO! Neither Cruz nor Rube
See Post #157 (Music Man) and the video at the link given.
This states in the common ENGLISH language that WTP can understand. Suggest you view the video. It is understandable why this conclusion was drawn. What will be done?
The inhabitants of the colonies became collectively naturalized on the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The addition of "natural born citizen" was added to exclude naturalized citizens, with the thought being that those born in the US, of citizens, would have strongest ties to the US, and would not be amenable to legal process by any other country. This was thought prudent because the president is commander in chief, and is the primary force for negotiating foreign policy, except for making declaration of war.
This was a constitutional policy question. Many have advocated that the requirement be dropped, so that naturalized citizens are eligible for the office.
Well, it was pretty good evidence that judges " and the majority of constitutional legal scholars in this country are full of crap".
Why yes. Yes they are.
Was untrusTED’s mom a Canadian citizen at the time of his Canadian birth?
Thank you, MM -She speaks in English for American citizens NOT in legalize. Pings went out to my list for all to view your post and link.
Simple English. Thanks again, so much.
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.