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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your opinion and the opinion of the Supreme Court are not in agreement.

The Most famous case regarding this issue is Wong Kim Ark.

Do you know what the Supreme court said in Wong Kim Ark?

Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

[Ray76]

Courts have removed ineligible persons from ballots and from office.

The particular eligibility requirements for the Executive differ from those of other offices, but there is nothing that sets that office apart from others as regards determination of eligibility by the Judiciary when a case is brought.

[Ray76]

What law do you cite?

[Tau Food]

Courts have removed ineligible persons from ballots and from office.

The courts have never disqualified a candidate for President. The Constitution specifically provides that presidents are to be chosen by Electors, not judges.

The particular eligibility requirements for the Executive differ from those of other offices, but there is nothing that sets that office apart from others as regards determination of eligibility by the Judiciary when a case is brought.

What sets the office of the presidency apart is not the unique qualifications. What sets the office of the presidency apart is that the Constitution specifies how a President is to be chosen and specifies that a President is to be chosen by a constitutional group of constitutional actors called Electors. The only function of Electors is to choose a President and Vice-President. It is their exclusive bailiwick. There is absolutely no Constitutional basis for transferring any of their duties to courts. Further, there is no practical reason for doing so. There is absolutely no reason to believe that judges would be any better than Electors at evaluating the worthiness of candidates.

So, when you vote for a President, do your job and consider the qualifications of each candidate. The courts will not and cannot help you. ;-)

[Ray76]

> The courts have never disqualified a candidate for President.

Which is irrelevant to my points.

They never have because circumstances had not arisen.

[Ray76]

> What sets the office of the presidency apart is not the unique qualifications. What sets the office of the presidency apart is that the Constitution specifies how a President is to be chosen and specifies that a President is to be chosen by a constitutional group of constitutional actors called Electors. The only function of Electors is to choose a President and Vice-President. It is their exclusive bailiwick.

The electoral process is a political process defined by law.

> There is absolutely no Constitutional basis for transferring any of their duties to courts.

Electors have no authority to decide questions of law. There is no transfer of duties to courts. To the contrary, you wish to transfer courts’ duties to Electors.

> There is absolutely no reason to believe that judges would be any better than Electors at evaluating the worthiness of candidates.

“Worthiness” is not the question, being legally eligibility is the question and such questions are exclusively within the purview of the Judiciary.

[Ray76]

legally eligibility = legally eligible

[EternalVigilance]

Your post points up the extreme dangers of the current loosey-goosey interpretation of NBC status.

Of course, Barack Obama, or whatever his name is, points up the extreme dangers of a loosey-goosey interpretation of NBC status.

[DoodleDawg]

Rational people recognize that "natural citizen" means the same thing today that it meant in 1787.

And then there's you. The Constitution gives Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization. A logical part of that process is identifying you doesn't need to be naturalized to be a citizen. So they define who qualifies as natural born citizens.

[Tau Food]

Obviously, the fact that the courts avoided becoming involved in the controversy regarding the candidacy of Obama is not enough to convince you that the courts do not believe that they have a role to play in qualifying or disqualifying candidates for President. I am not surprised because I believe that they have no role in qualifying or disqualifying candidates. If the Supreme Court believed that it has such a role and if the Court believed that a candidate is required to be the product of two American citizens to be qualified to be President, I believe that the Supreme Court would have become involved in 2008-2009. Moreover, I want to believe that the Chief Justice would not have volunteered to administer the oath of office to a man that the Chief Justice believed was not qualified to serve as President. (I say volunteered because the Chief Justice is not required to perform that function.)

I think that somewhere you got the notion that only courts can become involved with anything that can be called legal. This is reflected by your statement that "Electors have no authority to decide questions of law." But, of course, every constitutional actor must, at a minimum, "decide questions of law" in order 1) to determine that he/she has a constitutional duty to perform, 2) to determine the proper scope of his/her duty, and 3) to determine what, if any, steps must be taken to properly perform his/her duty. Legal questions are being decided every single day by persons who do not wear robes and many of the resulting decisions are not reviewable by courts.

Obviously, we cannot resolve your claim that the courts have the power to pass upon the qualifications of candidates for the Presidency. That issue can only be resolved if and when a court ever claims to possess that power. I do not believe that that will ever happen. So, when you vote, choose carefully.

[DiogenesLamp]

I quoted Wong Kim Ark. Res ipsa loquitur.

[DiogenesLamp]

And then there's you. The Constitution gives Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization.

Read what you write.

[Yosemitest]

Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

“Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.
... The U.S. Constitution allows only a “natural born” American citizen to serve as president.
Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your post points up the extreme dangers of the current loosey-goosey interpretation of NBC status.

Of course, Barack Obama, or whatever his name is, points up the extreme dangers of a loosey-goosey interpretation of NBC status.

It is axiomatic that the nation and "We the People", would have been far better off had we insisted upon a very strict interpretation of the qualifications for President.

Vermin such as Barack Obama should not be allowed anywhere near the reins of power. He is human garbage, and he has set back the nation decades.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'll quote what the Supreme Court said again.

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, ...

[DoodleDawg]

Read what you write.

Read all that I write: A logical part of that process is identifying you doesn't need to be naturalized to be a citizen. So they define who qualifies as natural born citizens.

[DiogenesLamp]

Read all that I write:

Everything you wrote after that first bit is drivel. You don't have a grasp of the concept of "naturalization by class."

I doubt this is worth it, but I will point out that the children of people who are naturalized don't go through a naturalization process either.

The fact that there is no ceremony or papers for them does not mean that they weren't naturalized.

[Yosemitest]

Report it all you like, but that in NOT true.
The Military members' children are US citizens, even when born in other countries, while that member his on active duty,
and also US Diplomats children born in other countries while the diplomat is on duty.

[DiogenesLamp]

Report it all you like, but that in NOT true. The Military members' children are US citizens, even when born in other countries, while that member his on active duty, and also US Diplomats children born in other countries while the diplomat is on duty.

No one said they weren't citizens, but let's be honest. If their citizenship is the consequence of a statute which grants them citizenship, then they are statutory citizens, (naturalized) not natural citizens.

The fact that they were gifted with citizenship at birth, doesn't change the fact that it comes from congress's power of naturalization.