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.
Simple:
The Founder Father’s included NBC within the Eligibility Clause as a means to prevent someone born with foreign allegiance from every becoming President and thus Commander In Chief of the US Military. The intent of this is documented. This prevented those that were citizens of foreign countries from immigrating and influencing the Presidency.
So an NBC is someone that is and only is a US citizen at birth, thus having allegiance only to the USA. Dual Citizenship can not be NBC as the intent of including NBC within the Clause was to prevent foreign influence/allegiances. To be NBC there can be no other possibility of allegiance or citizenship claim.
Fact: Cruz held Dual Citizenship with Canada until 2014. Cruz until denouncing his Canadian Citizenship had allegiance to Canada.
Fact: Cruz is ineligible.
Maybe you are.
IIRC residency had to be 5 years before someone could get Canadian citizenship.
They were only there 3 to 4 years, then Ted was born.
Isn’t reflecting blame on another when thrown at you just one attribute of liberals? And the dilution of the importance as to the ‘parents’ BOTH must be American citizens. Not one as so many seem to have been taught in more recent years.
This video is one which would have served the purpose 7 years ago - when it was needed badly. Better late than NEVER!
Go TRUMP! Stand your ground until Ted produces Bona Fides.
Oh, I get that .. but what my question really relates to is that the Framers understanding of “Natural Born Citizen” would have meant something beyond ‘citizen,’ and what was understood by them at the time I would daresay was that NBC is the citizen born of citizens.
If I am, it would be completely invisible to me. People generally can't see their own flaws.
The wife of a Canadian citizen can become a citizen after one year.
“The act “defined” nothing.”
Really?
“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:
“the children of citizens of the United States that may be born...shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
See how that works?
Clear? Yes.
But NOWHERE does this document establish the indicia you demand to use for determining any specific individual's NBC status. So, what are you trying to prove by quoting the Constitution to me? I probably know it as well as or better than you in the first place.
Either you are being intentionally obtuse or you are too dense to get it. Either way, I will give you the generally accepted definition of a natural born citizen one more time:
“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.”
Yes, the highest standard of loyal citizenship - 2 citizen parents and born on the soil - which is actually Cruz’s description of NBC in 2012.
A Freeper, WhiskeyX (I think), explained this in detail to me. If no other country can claim you but the USA then you are a natural born citizen. A person with dual citizenship doesn’t fit that category i.e. Cruz and Obama. So that specific standard of birth plus two citizen (loyal) parents and you’re in.
Is this what you mean?
That fact remains under lock and key (more than likely w/BO’Bs documentations) As we’ve heard they could vote, I would say ‘more than likely’ both parents were Canadian citizens.
This little jewel will throw a fly in the ointment, for sure. Trump is putting the pressure on Ted to come clean but Ted has one of two things - shyness or modesty. He continues to refuse to unveil himself for all to see what lies underneath.
At last, FOUND someone with knowledge who speaks our language! :-))
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA, you funny. Actually the exact opposite tends to be true.
“It very clearly shows that the child born abroad of two U.S. citizen parents is to be considered as a natural born citizen.”
Yes, it does. The phrase “considered as” is the qualifier that clearly states the child is an alien born and not a natural born child who must employ the naturalization law to naturalize and thereby be “considered as” being entitled to exercise some but not all of the privileges and duties of an actual natural born citizen of the U.S. The twisted definition this judge and other people have attempted to misread into the Naturalization Act of 1790 is quite obviously disproven by citations of prior English naturalization laws and by the obvious rules of construction in this Naturalization Act of 1790. To see how that fails to make any legal sense you only need to use the same sentence construction on the same Naturalization Act of 1790 sentence stating the naturalization of a child born abroad with alien or foreign parents.
The writers of the Constitution defined natural born this way:
from Naturalization Act of 1790:
“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:
“the children of citizens of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
Who do you think I am going with?
See how that works?
Yes, it means they aren't.
Pretty much sums it up. Can I direct all the hate I am getting to you?
“IIRC residency had to be 5 years before someone could get Canadian citizenship.”
“They were only there 3 to 4 years, then Ted was born.”
I don’t recall at the moment exactly what I found when I researched that, but I do recall the time period changed between 1948 and the present. The timeline of the parents presence in Canada is in some dispute, so the December 1970 birth of Ted Cruz may or may not have been just after qualification for naturalization or two years prior to such naturalization. Someone would have to nail down the actual travels of both parents, and consideration of Eleanor’s time in Britain would need to be taken into consideration as well. At present I cannot exclude the possibility that Eleanor quietly retained her U.S. citizenship at the same time as acquiring a Canadian citizenship she did not disclose upon returning to the United States on a U.S. passport.
He was thought to be ineligible from the beginning- remembering Civics class from years ago. However that was then and this is now. ‘Folks’ today have glossed over so much of our Constitution to the facts they wish to espouse. It was suggested at this time the Naturalization citizenship test shows only one parent need be a citizen - not both parents. Just how far have generations wandered off the beaten path?
Do you know how good I feel at the moment?. knowing I was right in thinking the facts learned were set in concrete. It’s the feeling of graduation day all over again. :-))
However, we all must remember that nothing we were taught can be deemed ‘significant and correct’ until the high courts give us permission to do so. The nightmares which began in Civics have lived in my heart for all this time. Back then it was felt we would come to this act in the play. It seems we have arrived.
But it takes 5 years for the husband to get citizenship and they had only been there for 3 to 4 years .
If they got there in late ‘68, the soonest Ted’s dad could have gotten citizenship was ‘73.
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.