Posted on 08/14/2013 6:29:08 AM PDT by Cheerio
CNN's Athena Jones investigates if Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is eligible to run for president. CNN says the "natural-born citizen" question is dogging Cruz. For the record, CNN said every constitutional law expert they interviewed for said Cruz is a natural-born citizen and eligible to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Very interesting....thank you for including me in your ping list!
;)
SCOTUS does not issue unsolicited opinions. There are three ways in which a case can be heard by SCOTUS.
First is original jurisdiction, which means that the case goes directly to SCOTUS because lower federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear the case. For example, when one State sues another State. Such cases are rare - maybe one or two in a SCOTUS term.
Second is an appeal of a U.S. Circuit Court decision in which SCOTUS grants a petition for a writ of certiorari. 9th Circuit Court decisions are reversed more than any other Circuit.
Third is an appeal of a State Supreme Court decision. Unless there is a constitutional question involved, SCOTUS will usually not hear cases on state laws.
Once SCOTUS decides to hear a case, the Legislative and Executive branches can file an amicus curiae brief arguing how SCOTUS should rule and why.
So, yes, an entity with standing under the FRCP would have to file suit before SCOTUS could decide whether or not jus sanguinis citizenship of those born abroad qualifies as natural-born under the meaning of the Constitution.
As they did for Senator John McCain, Congress can pass a non-binding resolution stating that, in their collective opinion, a candidate is eligible. IMHO, they were telegraphing their intentions to the States to avert eligibility challenges.
There was a court case in 2000, Jones V Bush, where some one challenged the eligibility of the Texas electors for Bush because Jones claimed that Dick Cheney was a resident of Texas. The President and the VP cannot come from the same state unless they forfeit the EV of that State. The judge said that Jones did not have standing only candidates did.
SCOTUS would be very unlikely to handle it until after an election.
There was a court case in 2000, Jones V Bush, where some one challenged the eligibility of the Texas electors for Bush because Jones claimed that Dick Cheney was a resident of Texas. The President and the VP cannot come from the same state unless they forfeit the EV of that State. The judge said that Jones did not have standing only candidates did.
SCOTUS would be very unlikely to handle it until after an election.
There was a court case in 2000, Jones V Bush, where some one challenged the eligibility of the Texas electors for Bush because Jones claimed that Dick Cheney was a resident of Texas. The President and the VP cannot come from the same state unless they forfeit the EV of that State. The judge said that Jones did not have standing only candidates did.
SCOTUS would be very unlikely to handle it until after an election.
What did the Foreign Affairs Manual say in previous years, I wonder. Say about 15 to 20 years ago.
It isn’t a ping list, but you’re welcome. I pinged several who might be interested. I’ll have to pull an older copy of 7 FAM 1131 to see if the paragraph was added in whole or updated in part. I don’t remember ever reading it. I thought the italicized, red emphasis in the text was interesting. It seems a clear effort to dispute the theory that any citizenship granted by statute is in and of itself an act of naturalization.
If Cruz was found eligible (which he is not, on the two counts), then 0bastard is even more eligible. Or would be, if his fictional life history were accurate.
ping for later reference.
This seems to now have been scrubbed.
the pamphlet is scrubbed?
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.