Official Notice of Dispute challenges 4 candidates' NH eligibility (Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, Santorum)

The Post & Email ^ | 11/13/2015 | Robert Laity

[ScottWalkerForPresident2016]

I wish to NOTIFY you that the bona-fides of four Republican Candidates to be President is hereby DISPUTED. It is claimed that the following persons do NOT meet the United States Constitutional requirement that one be a "Natural-Born Citizen" in order to be President under Article II, Sec. 1.

I am disputing the bona-fides of:

Marco Rubio - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S., however his parents were un-naturalized "permanent resident" Cuban citizens when he was born.

Ted Cruz - NOT an NBC. He was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother who may have natualized as a Canadian.

Bobby Jindal - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to parents who were un-naturalized citizens of Indiaa at the time of Bobby Jindal's bitth.

Rick Santorum - NOT an NBC. He was born in the U.S. to a father who was an Italian citizen not naturalized at the time of Rick Santorum's birth.

[Hulka]

Well stated. Thank you.

[odawg]

“You could NOT be more WRONG if you tried ! “

No. I am right. The “rules at that time” were rules regarding naturalization and rules do NOT amend the Constitutional requirements to become president. Amending the Constitution requires an act of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. There is no amendment in the Constitution abrogating the “natural born” requirement for the presidency. It has never been changed.

Let me ask you; why was it, before this ever came up, that untold millions of us were taught in American history that the “natural born citizen” requirement meant that both parents of the candidate had to be citizens of the United States?

[Tau Food]

Let me ask you; why was it, before this ever came up, that untold millions of us were taught in American history that the “natural born citizen” requirement meant that both parents of the candidate had to be citizens of the United States?

I do not remember being taught that "both parents of the candidate had to be citizens of the United States" to produce a natural born citizen. I went to school over fifty years ago. Maybe you went to school before that.

As I read Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the President of the United States is to be chosen by Electors. In order to properly perform their Constitutional function, the Electors must pass upon the qualifications of anyone that they choose to be President.

I know that there are some people who would prefer that courts play a role in that process, but the Constitution does not provide a role for courts in the selection of presidents. If the Electors fail to choose someone by a majority of their votes, the House of Representatives (voting by state) chooses the President.

As a practical matter, since the voters select Electors who are often obligated to vote for the candidate favored by the voters, it is in fact the voters who rule upon the qualifications of the candidates. Accordingly, it is very important that each voter consider carefully what he/she believes these qualifications require.

[odawg]

“I do not remember being taught that “both parents of the candidate had to be citizens of the United States” to produce a natural born citizen.”

You “do not remember”?

Does not cancel out those who do remember, or more importantly, abrogate the provision in the Constitution.

“...the Electors must pass upon the qualifications of anyone that they choose to be President.”

Laughable. Electors can’t change the Constitution.

“... the Constitution does not provide a role for courts in the selection of presidents.”

Go ask a Gore fan. NOW you resort to Constitutional law.

“...it is in fact the voters who RULE upon the qualifications of the candidates.”

No, voters don’t rule on anything; they vote.

The ONLY time the term “natural born citizen” is used in the Constitution is referring to who is eligible to run for president. The other qualification requirement is being thirty-five years of age.

The term “citizen” is used quite often. That should give you a clue that they had something more in mind than mere citizen. As I posted earlier, the Naturalization Act of 1790 clearly refers to and defines the term “natural born” — both parents citizens of the United States.

[Tau Food]

No court has ever attempted to disqualify any candidate for President because of concerns about Constitutional qualifications - not ever as in NEVER. And, unless the Constitution is changed, no court will ever attempt to disqualify a candidate for President because of qualifications described in the Constitution. If you have been wondering why the Supreme Court did not even rule on the qualifications of Obama (one of his parents was not a citizen of the United States), now you know why. The Supreme Court has no such Constitutional role and will not dare to claim such a role. It is the role of the Electors to choose a President.

Your theory that both parents must be a citizen of the United States to produce a natural born citizen is a theory that you are free to use when you evaluate candidates for President. Other people have other theories.

Again, Obama did not have two parents who were citizens. Did the Supreme Court believe that he was qualified to be President? Of course, they did. Many of them attended the inauguration ceremony. The Chief Justice even presided over the ceremony and administered the oath of office.

So, you have your theory about the natural born citizen clause and that is fine. But, the Chief Justice and I are entitled to utilize our own theories in selecting the President and we are going to continue to use them. Our system has worked pretty well for more than 200 years and if we decide that it needs to be changed, we will amend the Constitution.

Thanks for your view.

[odawg]

I have no clue whatsoever why you keep dragging in the topic of courts ruling on the qualifications of presidents. I never mentioned it. Are you trying to evade the issue.

“Your theory that both parents must be a citizen of the United States to produce a natural born citizen is a theory that you are free to use when you evaluate candidates for President. Other people have other theories.”

“Your theory”?

Interesting tidbit from Wikipedia on “theory”:

Charles Evans Hughes[edit]
The eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes was questioned in an article written by Breckinridge Long, one of Woodrow Wilson’s campaign workers, and published on December 7, 1916 in the Chicago Legal News — a full month after the U.S. presidential election of 1916, in which Hughes was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson. Long claimed that Hughes was ineligible because his father was not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and was still a British citizen (in fact, both his parents were British citizens and never became U.S. citizens). Observing that Hughes, although born in the United States, was also (according to British law) a British subject and therefore “enjoy[ed] a dual nationality and owe[d] a double allegiance”, Long argued that a native born citizen was not natural born without a unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance and stated: “Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a ‘natural-born’ citizen of the United States.” [78]

“Did the Supreme Court believe that he was qualified to be President? Of course, they did?”

The Supreme refused to take up the topic based on what you have previously stated that the courts are not the ones to make that kind of decision. But it is interesting that you use the Supreme Court as the correct default position of what is and is not Constitutional.

[Tau Food]

I disagree with Breckinridge Long. I see no textual justification for his elaborate definition.

In my opinion, if Hughes was a citizen at birth, then he was qualified to be President. He later became a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and he, too, apparently hought he was qualified to be president.

I presume that anyone who becomes a justice of the Supreme Court is as qualified as the average Freeper to analyze the Constitutional provisions regarding presidential qualifications. When Chief Justice Roberts volunteered to administer the oath of office to Obama, it signaled to me that he did not believe that there existed any Constitutional hurdle to Obama serving as President.

In my view, anyone who is a citizen at birth qualifies as a natural born citizen. Accordingly, I believe that Ted Cruz is qualified to be President and I support his candidacy.

I recognize that other people might disagree with me. I recognize that the Constitution could have more clearly defined the term natural born citizen. As a voter, I have to work with what the Founders left for me. I believe that if a candidate was a citizen at birth, there exists the kind of nexus between the candidate and this country that the provision appears to favor. But, every voter should consider these issues. It is part of the job of picking a President.

[Yosemitest]

What kind of a knot-head are you ?
Do you think for ONE SECOND that the 14th Amendment OF the U.S. Constitution IS NOT a part of the U.S. Constitution, and JUST AS EQUALLY the SUPREME LAW of the land ? ! ? ?

You really ARE DENSE !

I SAY AGAIN:

You could NOT be more WRONG if you tried !


I repost PROOF for those you have intentionally confused.

FACT: Cruz’s father’s Cuban nationality at the time of Cruz’s birth, is irrelevant, according to the law at that time,
just so long as he was a LEGAL Immigrant at the time of Ted Cruz's birth,
AND both of Ted Cruz's parents were legally married to each other.

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

The 14th Amendment IS a part of the U.S. Constitution and states in SECTION 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So, under that power to legislate, Congress legislated and the President signed into law:
When ONE parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national,
the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child,
with five of the years after the age of 14.

[odawg]

“What kind of a knot-head are you ?”

Well, genius,, or rather, idiot, the 14th amendment of the Constitution DID NOT abrogate the Constitutional requirements for being president. They are:

1.) Natural born citizen. The 14th amendment establishes rights of citizenship for former slaves (according to the ones who wrote it), and I assume naturalization.

2.) Resident for 14 years.

3.) Thirty-five years of age.

Even Congress acknowledged the “natural born” understanding of the Constitution when they signed a document in 2007-08(?) regarding McCain’s eligibility. McCain was born in Panama of parents who were citizens.

Also, idiot, the Congress and the president only CANNOT amend the Constitution in ANY way. It requires the additional action of the states. The rule you cited pertains to citizenship, not natural born citizenship. And you call me dense.

And by the way, I have never been interested enough in Cruz to check out his status. He is the one enamored with his immigrant status.

[odawg]

Your views and opinions and my views and opinions don’t really matter. That is why I quoted the Naturalization Act of 1790 as a source document as to what the Founders meant. The Constitutions does not define numerous concepts it mentions because the Founders based their wording on commonly accepted understanding of the terms then in existence.

[Tau Food]

Your views and opinions and my views and opinions don’t really matter.

Well, you can decide for yourself that your views do not matter. However, I have decided for myself that my views do matter because I take seriously my responsibilities as a voter. I will not vote for a candidate if I believe that he/she is not qualified. I support Ted Cruz for President. If I did not believe that he is qualified, I would not support him. However, since he was a citizen at birth, I judge him to be a natural born citizen and I will vote for him if he is on my ballot.

I recognize that not everyone agrees with me. For example, I notice that Orly Taitz does not believe that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. On the other hand, Paul Clement (Bush's Solicitor General) has concluded that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

Like me, you will just have to make up your own mind about this. It is important.

[Yosemitest]

You're stuck on STUPID, and you IGNORE the LAW.
Go away, IDIOT !


I repost PROOF for those you have INTENTIONALLY confused.

FACT: Cruz’s father’s Cuban nationality at the time of Cruz’s birth, is irrelevant, according to the law at that time,
just so long as he was a LEGAL Immigrant at the time of Ted Cruz's birth,
AND both of Ted Cruz's parents were legally married to each other.

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

The 14th Amendment IS a part of the U.S. Constitution and states in SECTION 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So, under that power to legislate, Congress legislated and the President signed into law:
When ONE parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national,
the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child,
with five of the years after the age of 14.

[odawg]

“Go away, IDIOT !”

YOU are the piece of shit that responded to my post and wanted to argue. If you can’t take the heat, then STFU!!!

[Jim Noble]

It would be nice to get a USSC interpretation of the NBC clause.

[Ray76]

Whether a person meets Constitutional requirements is a question of law, not politics. The Judiciary handles questions of law, they find facts and apply law.

“No Person except a natural born Citizen [] shall be eligible to the Office of President” is a requirement no different than the requirement that the eligible person shall “have attained to the Age of thirty five Years” and the requirement that they have “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States” - they all are judicable.

To contend that eligibility is determined politically renders the Constitutional requirements a nullity.

[Yosemitest]

For those who actually want to know THE LAW:

The ABC’s of Immigration: Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States
by Greg Siskind
All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States (with the very minor exception of certain children of diplomatic personnel).
This is perhaps the only simple rule of US citizenship.
One of the most complicated areas of US citizenship law involves the passage of citizenship to children born outside the US to one or more US citizen parents.
While naturalized US citizens are treated like natural born citizens, which includes those who are deemed citizens even when born outside the US, in almost every respect, there is one important office that only natural born citizens can hold - - the presidency
(though expect to see efforts in Congress to change this if Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger decides to run for President).
Also, a person who is a citizen from birth cannot be denaturalized (though denaturalization rarely ever occurs).

The rules determining when such children are citizens are extremely detailed, and vary a great deal depending on when the child was born since the laws changed several times in the 20th century.

What are the rules for people born before May 24, 1934?

Persons born abroad before May 24, 1934 to a US citizen father who had resided in the US at any point before the birth are considered US citizens at birth.
The status of the mother did not matter unless the child was born out of wedlock.
There were numerous legal challenges to this rule, claiming that it violates equal protection by treating the children born to US citizen women different than those born to US citizen men.
The issue was never fully resolved by the courts, but in 1994, Congress passed a law retroactively granting citizenship at birth to children born abroad to US citizen women.

In 1940, Congress passed a law making illegitimate children born abroad to US citizen women citizens if the mother had resided in the US.
However, under this law, if the child was legitimated by the foreign national father before his or her eighteenth birthday, the child would not be considered a citizen.
In 1998, the Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the requirement that a child born out of wedlock to a US citizen woman be legitimated before his or her eighteenth birthday.
The decision was reaffirmed in the 2001 US Supreme Court decision Nguyen v. INS which held that differing requirements for out-of-wedlock children of US citizen men versus US citizen women are constitutions.

The US citizen parent must have resided in the US prior to the birth.
This residence can be in the US itself, or in certain US territories after certain dates.
The residence can have been while the parent was a minor, and there is no length of time for which the parent must have resided in the US.

What are the rules for people born between May 24, 1934 and January 13, 1941?

In 1934, Congress passed a law allowing US citizen parents, regardless of their gender, to pass citizenship to their children born abroad.
If both parents were citizens, only one was required to have resided in the US, and as with the previous law, there was no required length of time that the parent must have resided in the US.

However, if one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the child would lose their citizenship if they did not either reside in the US for the five years immediately prior to their eighteenth birthday or, within six months of turning 21, take an oath of allegiance to the US.
These requirements were gradually relaxed between 1934 and 1940.

Illegitimate children born aboard between 1934 and 1941 became citizens under the general provision, and because the child was considered to have only one parent, no requirements were imposed that could result in the loss of citizenship.

What are the rules for people born between January 14, 1941 and December 23, 1952?

As before, children born abroad to two US citizens, with one parent having resided in the US, the child was a US citizen at birth.
No further action was required to maintain citizenship.

When one parent was a citizen and the other a foreign national, however, the rules changed substantially.
To pass citizenship, the citizen parent must have resided in the US for at least 10 years before the birth of the child, and at least five of those years had to be after the parent turned 16.
Because this rule made it impossible for parents under 21 to pass citizenship, in 1946 the requirement was amended to create an exception for parents who had served in World War Two.

Originally, for children born during this period to retain US citizenship, they had to reside in the US for five years between the age of 13 and 21.
However, an exception was made for children of US citizens who were employed abroad by the US government or a US company.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother who met the residence requirements were automatically citizens, and they retained US citizenship even if legitimated by the foreign national father.
For a child born out of wedlock to a US citizen father, to obtain US citizenship the child must have been legitimated before the age of 21.

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

Again, children born abroad to two US citizen parents were US citizens at birth, as long as one of the parents resided in the US at some point before the birth of the child.

When one parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national, the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child, with five of the years after the age of 14.
An exception for people serving in the military was created by considering time spent outside the US on military duty as time spent in the US.

While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship, amendments since 1952 have eliminated these requirements.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother were US citizens if the mother was resident in the US for a period of one year prior to the birth of the child.
Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father acquired US citizenship only if legitimated before turning 21.

What are the rules for people born on or after November 14, 1986?

Children born abroad to two US citizen parents, one of whom has resided in the US prior to the birth of the child, continue to be US citizens at birth, and need take no special actions to retain citizenship.

Children born to one citizen parent and one foreign national will obtain citizenship at birth if the citizen parent resided in the US for five years before the birth, with two of those years after the age of 14.
The child does not need to take any special action to retain US citizenship.

Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother will be US citizens if the mother resided in the US for one year prior to the birth of the child.
Children born out of wedlock to a US citizen father will acquire US citizenship if the following conditions are met:


• There is an established blood relationship between the father and the child,
  
  
• The father was a US citizen at the time of the birth,
  
  
• The father has agreed to financially support the child until it is 18, and
  
  
• Before the child is 18 it is legitimated, or the father acknowledges paternity in a document signed under oath

While these are general rules, Congress has continually amended and revised many laws relating to citizenship, particularly those dealing with the requirements for retention of citizenship.
If a person believes that they have a claim to US citizenship, they should consult with an attorney for a full examination of that possibility.

[Godebert]

"Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President"

You do know that the author of that tripe, Ilya Shapiro, is a Russian Jew born in the former Soviet Union and currently a Canadian citizen?

[Godebert]

"In my opinion Cruz is qualified, but not Jindal. Don’t know about Rubio. If his parents were citizens when he was born, then he should qualify."

Neither of Rubio's parents were United States Citizens at the time of his birth in Miami. Cruz was born in a foreign land to a foreign father. Like Rubio and Jindal, Cruz is not even close to being a natural born Citizen.

[Godebert]

"The United States Constitution contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Thus says the Supreme Court. No magical third form of citizenship."

Complete fabrication on your part.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

[odawg]

I have not been talking about immigration law regulating citizenship.