Judge Smacks Down Trump's Ted Cruz Birther Claims, and Hardly Anyone Covers It

Law News ^ | 3/20/2016 | Rachel Stockman

[FredZarguna]

Read what I posted, in answer to someone who claimed the "fact" that Cruz was the first person born in a foreign nation. There were no states at the time any of those men were born.

You stand corrected. Period.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Yes, it is defined in the legal theory of the day, and specifically in the Naturalization Act of 1790.

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.

[douginthearmy]

I support Trump but this birther nonsense is ludicrous. Birthers simply repeat their mantra. No legal authority at any level agrees with them. They don’t care. I doubt this will make it to the Supreme Court, but if it does it will be shot down. And even then, birthers will simply proclaim that the court got it wrong. They will never capitulate. I have never seen a birther on any thread respond to any of the thousands of reasonably crafted logical arguments against them.

[Sasparilla]

..Why hasn’t Cruz brought this up?...

When is the last time Ted demanded Trumps tax returns? That ended when when it came to light that Ted only provided summaries of his tax returns and only sumaries too. Its DC beltway politics as usual from Cruz.

[FreeReign]

Even he said he wasn’t not too long ago.

No he didn't.

[Yashcheritsiy]

You stand corrected. Period.

Yes, he stands corrected. But in a totally meaningless way that does nothing to really support the Cruzers' arguments.

[Aria]

So it’s ok to violate the constitution of it suits your purposes?

[SmokingJoe]

When did he say that?

[Dr. Sivana]

Thanks for the link, but there is nothing in there where Cruz states he is not a Natural Born Citizen.

[FredZarguna]

but to date, no judge has decided. Every case is tossed out. Hmmmm?

Apparently, you have a reading comprehension problem. Judge Pellegrino has indeed rendered a decision: Cruz is a natural born citizen as far as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is concerned.

[AFret.]

If Raphael’s pedigree is not in question..then why the lawsuits?

We desperately need an honest judge, to give an honest opinion, based on facts after discovery..and the law.

[SamAdams76]

Maybe this is what Trump wanted all along. To validate Cruz before the Democrats could make an issue of this. Also, Cruz being declared eligible for president would put him back in the running to be Trump's VP.

Remember that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz had an intimate meeting at the Trump Tower last summer, the content of which was never revealed. I don't think they were just exchanging pleasantries. And Cruz appears to have borrowed one of Trump's suit jackets for the photo-op.

This whole "Trump vs Cruz" slugfest could just be a distraction.

In case people haven't noticed, Trump and Cruz already have 1101 delegates between them. After Tuesday, they should have about 1200 delegates between them.

The two of them are going to control the convention this summer - not the GOPe. Bank on it.

[gwjack]

Actually it is binding, at the moment, in Pennsylvania. That was the only issue dealt with by this Pennsylvania Judge.

And, by every other judge in other jurisdictions that suits have been actually filed.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Born here of citizen parents.
Naturally a US citizen because there is no other possibility.
Solely a US citizen.

[FredZarguna]

Excuse me. He laid claim to an affirmative fact that Cruz would somehow be "singular" when indeed nothing could be further from the truth. None of the Founders were born in the US nor in any US State.

I know "facts" are "meaningless" to Trumpanzees, but they matter in the world of reality.

[FR_addict]

He sure did! And I agree! Ted needs to unseal his records.

[ChessExpert]

Sometimes judges rule on matters that are not legal, for example the merits of evolution and intelligent design. However this is a legal question, so I am interested in what the judge has to say. This seems pertinent:

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.”

Frankly, I might prefer a requirement that both parents be American. But neither my preferences, nor anyone else’s, is law. Also, there is the word “generally” which begs the question “what are the exceptions?”

If this gets to the Supreme Court, will it be decided on a “party line” vote? Will Scalia be replaced in time to affect the outcome?

[deport]

Why hasn’t Cruz brought this up?

***************

Maybe no has told him yet.....

[r_barton]

Well that’s all settled then. No one else will ever bring it up again. /S

[Lurkinanloomin]

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.
********************************************************

The part after the first comma exempted all those you listed because they knew it would be at least 35 years until there could be citizens born here of citizen parents, natural born citizens.