Posted on 04/10/2016 4:01:46 PM PDT by JayGalt
I am more an anti-birther than I ever was and the reason why was that you folks could never figure out what the forged birth certificate meant. The birth certificate is certainly forged.
Not for me.
So what if no court will enforce Constitutional eligibility requirements? My family and I and others like us will enforce them with our votes. I will not vote for someone who is Constitutionally ineligible, as I understand it.
The best arguments by far are against Cruz, not for him, on this issue.
Just because you don’t like it or don’t understand it, that doesn’t mean your view of the Constitution is correct. The Court decision by Judge Pellegrini is the first court decision that directly ruled on Presidential eligibility. He ruled that Mr. Cruz was eligible. The State Supreme Court agreed and the decision stands for the state of Pennsylvania. This decision will be appealed.
The reason that I said it is over is because I predict that the Federal Courts, including up to the Supreme Court will either decline to hear the appeal, or will hear it and do exactly what the PA Supreme Court did - affirm the decision. The only doubt is that you can never predict what the four Liberal justices will do, and our conservative champion, Justice Scalia is no longer with us.
You can certainly vote for whomever you choose. This would be a good year to do that as the Republican Party is in suicide mode so whatever you do won’t matter. Perhaps a Conservative Party can emerge from the ashes.
True, but beside the point. I did not even say "my view" of the Constitution is "correct." I simply said that the best arguments, by far, are against Cruz on this issue.
You seem to disagree with this statement.
But I have read this copy of the Pennsylvania ruling and the complete text of all of the references it cites in support of eligibility for Cruz. I have also read the cited portions of the primary sources cited in those references (which may be more than the author of the ruling has done, based on the limited number of primary source citations in the ruling).
I stand by the statement. The best arguments, by far, are against eligibility for Cruz.
The arguments against Cruz are deceptive at best. The Birther Movement and the Trumpsters are misreading SCOTUS opinions that have nothing to do with Presidential eligibility and cherry pick comments in opinions that are part of the rationale portion of opinions and are not part of the decision. Some are doing it out of ignorance, but many are doing it to fool people.
The law (U.S.C 8, Section 1401) supports Cruz and that law has yet to challenged in court. You do know that most Constitutional challenges start with the relevant laws and in the end a successful challenge overturns the law on grounds of a Constitutional test. That has yet to happen, so all of these “experts” are just wind bags. This process is not a popularity contest among the various references out there in Internet Land.
I’m guessing that Mitch detests Cruz, in part because he won’t play along with Mitch’s game. If the
Senate ever gets involved in the election of the President, that happens after the contest is over.
But Mitch is not opposed to using Cruz for the GOPe, in an contested convention.... You really think the Romney-lyingRyan- and RNC ‘prince’ are going to allow Cruz to win in a contested convention. The GOPe is solely invested in “NEVERTRUMP”.
Mitch McConnell’s Attorney PAC ‘Stand For Truth’, Sending Money To Ted Cruz PAC ‘Keep The Promise III’…
Here is a simple test. If Cruz had stayed in Canada since he was born there, would he be considered being a Canadian citizen today. If the answer is yes, then he is not qualified to be President of the USA.
It is difficult to reply without making assumptions about how you (or the argument you are referring to) uses 8 U.S.C. § 1401 to support eligibility for Cruz, so please correct any of the points below that may be incorrect. The argument you are citing / suggesting / making would be something like this:
1. Cruz (and his mother) fall within the conditions in 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g).
2. Given that Cruz (and his mother) fall within the conditions in 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g), 8 U.S.C. § 1401 provides that Cruz is a "citizen[] of the United States at birth".
3. A "citizen of the United States at birth" is a "natural born citizen" under Article II.
4. Therefore, Cruz is a "natural born citizen" under Article II.
Sorry, don’t want to play this game. Bye.
(Because the best arguments are indeed against eligibility for Cruz, and not for it.)
I will finish on my own then.
A major weak point in the argument for Cruz based on 8 U.S.C. § 1401 is the assertion that a "citizen of the United States at birth" is a "natural born citizen" under Article II. (Point # 3 in post 65 above.)
I find the following two points, among others, to be convincing that a "citizen of the United States at birth" as provided under 8 U.S.C. § 1401 is NOT a "natural born citizen" under Article II:
1. If a "citizen of the United States at birth" under 8 U.S.C. § 1401 is necessarily a "natural born citizen" under Article II, then the Article I Congress has the power, through legislation, to change and effectively nullify an Article II eligibility condition for the Article II office of President -- and who is and is not eligible for the Presidency changes (and has changed) from time to time as the naturalization and immigration laws change (and have changed). To me, the seperation of powers provided in the Consitution strongly suggests that Congress does not (or should not be interpreted to) have this power.
2. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Nowhere is Congress given power to create natural-born citizens, nor would it make sense for Congress to have such power. The citizens of the United States existed before the Constitution, and were, through their representatives, the authors and adopters of the Constition. The Consitution was made by the citizens, not the citizens by the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, Congress can make rules under which persons become citizens who otherwise would not be. The Supreme Court has called such citizens "naturalized, Constitutionally speaking" even when they were citizens at birth. Because his citizenship legally and logically depends on an act of Congress, Cruz is "naturalized, Consitutionally speaking", which, to me, is not "natural born."
The best arguments, by far, are against eligibility for Cruz.
Let me know when a court agrees with you. Not looking good right now, but perhaps you will get lucky.
My goodness, another loss for the Birthers. I guess that you need to go back to misquoting Supreme Court decisions.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3420267/posts
My goodness, another loss for the Birthers. I guess that you need to go back to misquoting Supreme Court decisions. (Post 74)
And courts never rule incorrectly?
I know you said you don't want to "play this game" of evaluating the arguments. But despite the two rulings (Pennsylvania and New Jersey) that actually deal somewhat with the legal issues and go in favor of Cruz, still:
The best arguments, by far, are against eligibility for Cruz.
The Pennsylvania judge mostly just quoted law review articles, especially the one from Harvard by the former and former (acting) Solicitors General (conveniently produced just in time for this election season). The Pennsylvania opinion has little or no analysis of original sources, and relies heavily on the analysis and arguments in secondary sources such as the Harvard article, without any recognition of the problems, including potential mis-use of original sources, in the secondary sources.
The Harvard article in particular has many problems. One of the big ones is that the Harvard article, after stating (correctly) that English common law is an important source for interpreting the U.S. Constitution, then completely ignores English common law and just uses English statutes as if they were the English common law, without even mentioning, let alone justifying, this sleight-of-hand.
The New Jersey judge appears to have made a more serious effort (or maybe the Cruz legal team's briefs, where the analysis probably originated, were better by that time). The New Jersey opinion uses a lot of text attempting to justify the concept that English statutes are part of the English law for purposes of interpreting the "natural born" requirement in Article II.
A major problem with this position is that the only support for including English statutes as a part of the common law comes from cases interpreting issues of state law. The states, which were basically created instantly from pre-existing colonies upon independence, naturally continued to follow the major laws of England where applicable, some by explicit legislation receiving the English law into the law of the state, and (apparently) some by judicial decision. Federal law, and federal Constitutional law in particular, is a different matter. There is no citation in the New Jersey opinion of any case that uses English statutes as a part of the English common law for purposes of interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
In addition to relying on weak support (only cases based on state law issues), the New Jersey opinion does not deal with some of the stronger arguments that that "natural born citizen" clause did not and does not incorporate the English statutes in force at the time of drafting and ratification.
For example, if the Founders created the "natural born" requirement with the understanding or intention to incorporate the statutory laws of England, then why, in the notes of the committee discussions of the drafting of the Naturalization Act of 1790, did one of the committee members say "The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III." If the English statutes were already incorporated, why was Congress in 1790 drafting a law specifically in order to provide for what was already provided for in one of the supposedly incorporated English statutes?
The best arguments, by far, are against eligibility for Cruz.
Thanks for your comment. I have been evaluating this argument for eight years. I was on board with several of the birther positions until I realized that it was a flim flam operation. The same arguments, same citations, and same twisting of arguments and conclusions. The people changed, but the words were almost identical post after post, and year after year. When the engine fired up in earnest for this election season, the same arguments were put forward even though the current President and two of the Republican candidates had very different sets of facts.
The advocates of what have become the Birther Files did not really understand what they were posting. They were just Internet Warriors who chose a side and then executed a copy and paste selection of seemingly authoritarian quotations and demanded obedience to their wisdom. If you did not, you were a troll, a GOPe devotee, a liberal; and you had no respect for the venerated Constitution. I came to hold these people in contempt and understood that they have zero credibility. My current approach is to counter their faulty reasoning and then pile on with hoots and derision.
I certainly will spend time to expand on what I have written thus far, but I cannot go further tonight. I will leave you with a random example of nonsense: this web reference claims to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt the the Supreme Court decision on Minor v. Happersett "proves" his particular view of Natural Born Citizen. Then his proof is a cut and paste of the Syllabus from the case as "precedent" binding for every court and in his mind, forever. The Syllabus as any LAW I student knows is not the decision of the Court. It is not written by the Justices and is a guide for those dear readers who might be interested. It isn't binding on the guys who takes orders at McDonalds, much less anyone else. In the first paragraph, this guy demonstrated that he cannot be believed.
https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/ I will send in the next post, a discussion that I have posted from time to time on my thoughts on Minor v. Happersett. You will see that I do not see eye to eye with The Internet Warriors of the Birther Brigade. More to follow.
I assert:
This case was about suffrage, Minor argued that Missouri denied the vote to women and that was in violation of the 14th Amendment. The Court decided the case on other arguments, so the 14th Amendment was irrelevant. In the facts laid down in the opinion the Court acknowledged that Minor was a natural born citizen, but that that was just to stipulate that that fact was agreed by all parties. Neither the 14th Amendment or the determination of citizenship were part of the decision.
To support my assertion, I will quote selections of the opinion, written by the Chief Justice, Mr. Waite. I don't include anything from the syllabus as it is not part of the opinion and can give an incorrect impression of the case.
I'll label each selection explaining what element of the opinion it represents. This is important because many readers confuse the facts or the rationale within an opinion as a part of the decision. They aren't.
Facts - this identifies the case and describes what it is about.
The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.
Facts - This is more explanation and identifies the legal issues involved.
It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
Facts - Rationale. This discussion includes citizenship, specifically focusing on women. A statement in this paragraph states that women were citizens before the 14th Amendment, refuting Minor's argument that the 14th Amendment gave her suffrage.
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
Facts - This paragraph just states that citizens can either become so by birth or by naturalizatiaon.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
Facts - Rationale. This discussion is necessary to establish that Minor is a citizen and recognizing that the Court must decide if all citizens have the right to vote. The Birther Movement like to cite this paragraph to prove that this case decided who were natural born citizens, but Mr. Justice Waite did no such thing. In fact, he points out that he only cited the circumstances that applied to Minor and not to any other. That sentence is conveniently omitted from the Birther tomes. To review, this is not part of the disposition or the decision, it is simply part of the explanation for the decision that they reached.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Facts - Rationale. This is an explanation of why this dispute has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.
Facts - Rationale. The rest of the opinion goes into length for the rationale and history of suffrage in the United States and that women were not included before the 14th Amendment and why the 14th Amendment did not change this arrangement. Since, that is not of interest for this discussion, it is not included
Disposition - This is the decision
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.
The Court affirmed the lower court decision that found that Minor did not have a constitutional right to the vote. The case only decided that point, not who was a natural born citizen, or who anything having to do with citizenship status. This silly myth was invented during the Birther Wars of 2008. It was bogus then and it still is.
I know that none of this will change your opinion and I don't care, but I wanted something on record to stand against the nonsense and others repeatedly post. I'll keep a copy handy so that I don't have to do this again.
.
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.