Posted on 08/14/2013 5:45:12 AM PDT by Perdogg
The Constitution says that only "natural born citizens" are eligible to be president. Is Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas eligible, given that he was born in Canada of a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father?
If Cruz runs, 2016 will be the third consecutive election in which there were questions about the right of a major party candidate to serve. Unfortunately, the Framers left few clues about exactly what a "natural born citizen" is; Congress has not used the phrase in citizenship statutes since 1790.
(Excerpt) Read more at news4jax.com ...
Cruz can produce a Hawaii birth Certificate put together with computer Graphics.
The Supreme Court operates under the Rule of Four when granting cert. to hear an appeal. There just aren’t four current Justices who have found sufficient merit in the briefs that have been submitted.
It should be noted that none of the constitutionalist/conservative attorneys who have a proven track record of successfully arguing appeals before the Supreme Court have gone anywhere near the eligibility issue.
Even more importantly, none of the people with perfect standing to challenge eligibility, the people who received electoral votes and had a legitimate chance to be elected (Mc Cain, Palin, Romney or Ryan) decided to file suit, join an existing suit as co-plaintiffs or even submit a “Friend of the Court” (amicus) brief in support of any eligibility lawsuit.
The fact that the candidates denied office by an allegedly ineligible candidate didn’t file a complaint definitely influences judges and justices.
your points are very good. But there are some purists who insist on born on US soil with both parents as citizens is the only NBC. Obama’s father was never US citizen and he is president in his 2nd term. So the purists are illogical, irrelevant and incompetent.
I believe in the poster. So I do not need a link. Do your own research to find the link. Your type of response I see frequently on DU while lurking there.
DOn’t worry, mamatexan conveniently ignores that fact that Zero’s father was not only never was a US citizen, he was a muslim communist.
All quite technically correct, quite true, and yet somehow quite all beside the point. To those of us making a legitimate inquiry, the SCOTUS seems determined, by the admission of several justices, to dodge the issue, at least until after the present POTUS is safely gone. Perhaps if the republic is to have a much longer run, their POV may prove to be more historically valid than mine.
If a strong enough legal argument was to be presented, it would get serious consideration. No one has yet made a serious challenge. 201 original jurisdiction lawsuits have failed; many because the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the suit. You need the political party or the candidates that were denied the office to be plaintiffs. Without them, there is no chance of success.
It’s like suing for divorce without the abused spouse filing but only her/his relatives, friends and acquaintences trying to sue on their behalf.
Also, the Supreme Court has no constitutional power to unseat a sitting president and only one application for a stay of the 2008 election result reached them before Obama was elected in 2008. The application for a stay was denied by Justice Souter. Every other appeal was asking SCOTUS to reverse the outcome of a national election, under separation of powers, the Supreme Court would never attempt to perform that function.
That's an example of what begging the question actually means. You have assumed your conclusion--you are offering an explanation for why they hedged, when you haven't demonstrated that what they did was "hedging."
The fact remains that courts generally avoid ruling on questions that go beyond the one(s) presented to them. Statements of that principle include this:
From an appellate practice perspective, however, the case is another example of the principle that arguments not raised below will not be considered.and this:
It is well established that if a party has failed to address an issue, either in a lower court or in an appellate brief, that party has waived the issue, and the court is under no obligation to consider it....Thus it is clear that from the court's perspective, there is no obligation to consider an issue that has not been properly raised or preserved on appeal.Similarly, in the Heller decision, the Court limited its ruling to the District of Columbia, even though its reasoning applied elsewhere. Why? Because the question presented to them was about a DC law.
So there's no basis for your allegation of "hedging." The Court was not asked to rule on Ark's natural-born status, so they didn't. And that's all it means.
No, I said they are the same thing...classes of persons.
And that's irrelevant. As I've pointed out, and provided links to support, what's important in a series is parallel structure, not similar meaning. That's just how it works. I'm sorry if you're tired of being told you're wrong, but I don't know how else to put it. This kind of thing is part of my job, and I've fixed countless examples of faulty parallelism over the 30 years I 've been doing it. If you can't see what I mean, there's nothing I can do about that--it doesn't make me wrong, and it doesn't make the question up for debate. You asked if I thought Howard was an idiot for using two words where one would do; do you think he's so much of an idiot that he couldn't construct a grammatically accurate sentence?
Now, would you care to present any facts like historical records, Founders letters or such to support your position?
As far as I know, the Founders didn't spend a lot of time addressing grammatical structure.
Goody for you.
LOL! Seriously? They went back to the 1300's feudal system of England to begin with. If it was all such 'common knowledge' why go back years to a time and place which no longer had any basis in American Law? Why bounce around, literally, EVERWHERE, repeating the same phrase 'natural born citizen', 'natural born citizen', 'natural born citizen',......
The majority opinion is 55 single spaced pages long, yet, after all the repetitions of 'natural born citizen', they determine he was a *citizen of the United States*.
After all that lengthy language just to change it at the last minute? Do you think they were just careless? Do you think they were just lazy? Do you think, for one second, that Justices of the Supreme Court did NOT know the distinctive differences between the two?
How could anyone think they were NOT hedging?
-----
Similarly, in the Heller decision, the Court limited its ruling to the District of Columbia, even though its reasoning applied elsewhere. Why? Because the question presented to them was about a DC law.
That's right. It's called jurisdiction - the area of legal operation.
Yet the question presented to Wong Kim Ark was not about Naturalization which is within their jurisdiction, but natural born citizenship which is NOT within their jurisdiction So the Supreme Court tried a case they had no enumerated jurisdictional authority OVER!
§ 1075 The constitution is one of limited and enumerated powers; and none of them can be rightfully exercised beyond the scope of the objects, specified in those powers. It is not disputed, that, when the power is given, all the appropriate means to carry it into effect are included. Neither is it disputed, that the laying of duties is, or may be an appropriate means of regulating commerce. But the question is a very different one, whether, under pretence of an exercise of the power to regulate commerce, congress may in fact impose duties for objects wholly distinct from commerce. The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
-----
And that's irrelevant. As I've pointed out, and provided links to support, what's important in a series is parallel structure, not similar meaning.
Let's assume for a second you are correct. That foreigner and alien are synonyms.
How, exactly, does that change the fact they are still not included as natural born citizens according to the man who helped write the 14th Amendment?
-----
As far as I know, the Founders didn't spend a lot of time addressing grammatical structure
I wasn't talking grammar, I was talking about their writings concerning aliens/foreigners being eligible for natural born citizenship.
If you and the court are SO correct in your thinking that foreign persons who have no tie to the country can give birth to natural born citizens, there should be PLENTY of material from the Founders out there to prove it.
-------
BTW - if you've bothered to address the plain language found here, I've not seen it:
Entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.
John A. Bingham , March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., (1866) [page 1291]
I wrote ASA Vet in Post 3 that “Mario Apuzzo, Esq. is a joke within the American judicial system. Has he ever won a case?” He and Leo Donofrio are two legends in their own minds who failed miserably to figure out how to win a case against obama. Orly Taitz is in their company. Shysters, all of them; big on ego and short on competence.
“Let's assume for a second you are correct. That foreigner and alien are synonyms.
How, exactly, does that change the fact they are still not included as natural born citizens according to the man who helped write the 14th Amendment?
I’d say that “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” describe the type of alien and foreigner just mentioned. Don't forget that this is a transcription of what was said. Perhaps the transcriber was not as adept as you.
You also post: “which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattel’s definition when he said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. John A. Bingham , March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., (1866) [page 1291]
Ha Ha addressed that for you in Post 323:
The WKA decision addressed that:
every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, IS within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
Mama, HaHa’s got you on the ropes and you don’t see it!
..... like suing for divorce without the abused spouse filing but only her/his relatives, friends and acquaintences trying to sue on their behalf.
.... and it is also a bit like the neighbors trying to stop a flagrant case of spousal abuse.... when the the abused spouse won't sign the complaint. See you in 2016.
If that were the case, it would read;
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Why does everyone seem to think they had nothing better to do that write redundant words?
-----
Don't forget that this is a transcription of what was said.
LOL! Do you seriously think Justice Grey laboriously typed out his own court records? Doubtful. More than likely, he dictated it. Which makes it just as much a 'transcription' as the Congressional Records.
-----
Perhaps the transcriber was not as adept as you.
Or perhaps the transcriber knew exactly how it should be written, so what was your point?
-----
Ha Ha addressed that for you in Post 323:
Thank you. I actually saw that and addressed a response in #326.
Lord Coke was based in English law and served in the House of Commons.
-----
Mama, HaHa’s got you on the ropes and you don’t see it!
LOL! What you don't see is part of your own quote:
"if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
Gee, I wonder why they said it that way? Why didn't they just SAY 'is natural born citizen'?
Let me think....Who 'is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen'?
Why...a NATURALIZED one.
WRONG! As much a citizen as NBC is one who is eligible to run for Pres or VP! A person who couldn't be Pres is LESS of a citizen as a NBC. Good grief, mama, you have a serious comprehension problem.
I’m not going to disparage those attorneys. I’ll just point out that collectively they have been sanctioned and have had to pay court costs to the tune of more than $30,000 for bad behavior and poor lawyering (filing frivolous lawsuits).
Instead I’ll stress the positive. If folks who question Obama’s eligibility want to get a serious hearing in court, they need to pool their resources, coalesce behind one leader, stop all the infighting (Taitz vs. Arpaio-Zullo) and recruit a world class constitutionalist attorney to represent them. I’m talking about someone of the stature of a Reagan Administration, G.H.W. Bush administration or George W. Bush administration Solicitor General (chief attorney for the U.S.) who could take up the cause “pro-bono” (for free). The Justices sit up and take notice when an issue is represented by one of the greats. Arguing a case at the Supreme Court demands no less.
In my humble opinion, there is only one constitutional issue that the Supreme Court might conceivably look at: is there any difference in law between an Article II, Section 1 “natural born citizen” and a 14th Amendment “Citizen of the United States at Birth” as defined in the U.S. Code of Laws 8 U.S.C. § 1401.
Who has paid $30K? The order against Apuzzo was discharged.
No, they are just as much a citizen, not a natural born one.
-----
Not that I see Coke having relevance since it was written in England almost 200 years BEFORE the Revolution, and the Wong case took place over 100 years AFTER the establishment of American Law, lets look at it anyway:
in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;"
This particular part of Calvin’s Case is a discussion of the four kinds of 'ligeances' found in the law. The problem is everyone wants to substitute 'federal government' in THIS country for the role of *King*, but, with few execption, that is not the case. Let's bring it back up a couple hundred years.
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
It was up to the State whether Wong Kim Qualified for any type of residency or citizenship, not the federal government. He was born a subject of the Emperor of China, just like his parents...and there was nothing the State or the federal government could legitimately do, because his Sovereign refused to release subjects from their ties of Allegiance. It's why his parents LEFT.
Remember Coke?
3. There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king. 2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.
Now, you tell me again how the Wong court:
1) went past ALL the documentation surrounding the 14th Amendment
2) and forgot to read just a little further down in Lord Coke's work, and
3)totally ignored the single most important legal work written at the beginning of our country. George Tucker [cited above]
and somehow legitimately made a foreign born subject into a natural born citizen?
What did I see someone call it? Oh, yeah
"Magic dirt theory"
It fits.
I have explained more than once now why they restricted their final statement to "citizen" rather than "natural born citizen." I don't know if you don't understand the point or are choosing to ignore it. Either way, I don't see much point in answering it yet again.
That's right. It's called jurisdiction - the area of legal operation.
It was the Supreme Court! They could have struck down handgun ownership across the entire country if they'd wanted to! Remember the recent decision on homosexual marriage? Some thought the Court might go beyond Calfornia's Prop 8 and legalize such marriages nationwide. They didn't, but not because they didn't have jurisdiction.
Yet the question presented to Wong Kim Ark was not about Naturalization which is within their jurisdiction, but natural born citizenship
No, it wasn't about natural born citizenship. That's the point.
I find your assertions about citizenship and jurisdiction interesting. It sounds like you're saying that there is no citizenship of "the United States" without citizenship of an individual state, that individual states have the right to set their own citizenship requirements, and that the federal government has no jurisdiction to override that. Which is why, if California refused to "claim" Ark, the Court had no authority to say otherwise. Is that right? Do you see a conflict between that position and the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment, which makes people "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"? If citizenship is only state-based, what happens when someone moves from one state to another--does their citizenship follow? What if they don't meet the citizenship standards, whatever they are, of the new state--should there be barriers to movement within the US? Or what if my state decides to revoke my citizenship--do I have no recourse?
If you and the court are SO correct in your thinking that foreign persons who have no tie to the country can give birth to natural born citizens, there should be PLENTY of material from the Founders out there to prove it.
There's another contributor to these threads who's done a much better job of collecting such material than I ever could. I encourage you to go reread his posts on the subject.
BTW - if you've bothered to address the plain language found here, I've not seen it:
Unfortunately, that link isn't working this weekend, so I can't see more context for that quote. The question, of course, is what exactly did he mean by "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty." The WKA court said that "every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Apparently they would say that the "owing allegiance" line referred to those here as actual representatives of a foreign sovereignty--ambassadors, ministers, invading armies. Maybe Bingham would have disagreed with that interpretation. As I said, I'm more interested in what the law actually is than in whether the guy who wrote a law thinks it's been interpreted wrongly or not--especially when that guy's long dead and we can't ask him.
$20,000 sanctions to Orly Taitz in Rhodes v. Mac Donald in Georgia.
$4,000 in court costs paid by Taitz to Occidental Colleges Attorneys in Taitz’s attempt to get Obama’s Occidental College records.
$12,675 in court costs reduced to $3,500 on appeal in Washington state: Jordan v. Reed Obama ballot eligibility challenge.
$10,565 in court costs in Liberty Legal Foundation v.National Democratic Party, et. al., in Tennessee
$1,390 in court costs in Keyes v. Bowen in California
There are more Obama eligibility lawsuit court cost awards but they are still on appeal. The largest award that is pending is $177,707.88 in Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections.
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.