Posted on 01/15/2016 7:38:46 AM PST by Lockbox
Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz should be disqualified from the race because he isn’t a “natural-born citizen,†a fellow Texan claims in a “birther†challenge filed against the senator in a U.S. court.
So where is the claim that a lawsuit has to be filed coming from? Did Cruz say that? I’ve seen a lot of Cruz supporters spouting that nonsense.and if wikipedia is right then clearly Cruz supporters are wrong.
“On or after May 24, 1934, a child born outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother (or both) was a citizen of the United States at the time of the child’s birth, would be considered a United States citizen provided that the U.S. citizen parent had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child. The previous interpretation of “resided” continued to apply under the 1934 Statute.”
I think you might have pulled a line to post without prviding appropriate context.
Joe Biden will do whatever he is told to do.
You cite a naturalization statute, which is the point precisely and entirely.
"A party seeking declaratory relief under the statute must present an "actual controversy" in order to satisfy the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III. The Declaratory Judgment Act was not intended as a device for rendering mere advisory opinions."
In a decision by the Federal Circuit Court, it was held that declaratory judgment jurisdiction "typically" is evaluated in light of the requirements for standing, which "contains three elements":
- The plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact.
- There must be a causal connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct complained of.
- It must be "likely" that the injury would be redressed by a favorable decision.
So tell me, oh wise one, who could point to a "injury in fact" in this case, since any alleged injury is prospective at best? If Cruz was bringing the action, who would he sue? Anyone that claims he is not NBC?
If you are relying on Wikipedia as an unimpeachable source, you have bigger problems than I thought.
Does anyone know of afilliations by Newton B. Schwartz, Sr. regarding political
parties, other attorney groups, type cases he specializes in, etc?
“When researching options to bring your foreign-born children to the U.S., you should first determine whether your child already has “automatic†U.S. citizenship.”
Cruz met the requirements for “automatic citizenship”
Not automatic naturalization but “automatic citizenship”
Judicial malfeasance, at a minimum.
Congressional grants are naturalization. That’s not my opinion, it’s that of the SC.
It’s also common sense.
“The U.S. recognizes citizenship according to two fundamental principles: jus soli (right of birthplace), and jus sanguinis (right of blood). Under jus soli, a person receives American citizenship by virtue of being born in the United States. By contrast, jus sanguinis confers citizenship on those born to at least one U.S. citizen anywhere in the world. A person who does not qualify under either of these principles may seek U.S. citizenship through the process of naturalization.”
Pretty cut and dried.
That is my understanding. The courts, they are fickle.
At this point (and I am NOT a Constitutional lawyer!) the State derived political parties (those that have proffered the candidate) have standing according to the “vox populi” of their constituency.
Even then...if they can convince the party hacks...
:: Cruz is not a naturalized citizen because he is by definition a natural born citizen ::
There is a concern with such a statement since...there IS no “by definition” of natural born citizen.
And when O'Reilly sets his jaw, looks down at his papers for the next subject, and makes a closing definitive statement....then instantly moves to the the next segment or commercial, by golly...you know that what he curtly, emphatically and adamantly just stated (with never any rebuttal allowed) is from God's lips to your ears.
Leni
BTW post #151 goes back to the orginal writing of the Constitution and even further back to English Common law of which the framers drew on extensively.
With the right defendants and right plaintiffs. All a part of the fraud perpetrated on the USA
What does it mean to be a natural born citizen?
Most legal experts contend it means someone is a citizen from birth and doesn’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.
If that’s the definition, then Cruz is a natural born citizen by being born to an American mother and having her citizenship at birth. The Congressional Research Service, the agency tasked with providing authoritative research to all members of Congress, published a report after the 2008 election supporting the thinking that “natural born” citizenship means citizenship held at birth.
There are many legal and historical precedents to strongly back up this argument, experts have said.
Those precedents were the subject of a recent op-ed in the Harvard Law Review by two former solicitor generals of opposing parties, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, who worked for Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, respectively. They wrote that “natural born” had a longstanding definition dating back to colonial times.
British common law recognized that children born outside of the British Empire remained subjects, and were described by law as natural born, Katyal and Clement wrote.
The framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like natural born, since the (British) statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War, they said.
Additionally, the first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens. Many members of the inaugural Congress were also authors of the Constitution.
Trumps sister had an identical record with colleague of Sam Alito She spoke for him at his SCOTUS confirmation hearing.
His council is as close as a phone call or across the table at holiday dinners
They have always been close
Rubio already has a lawsuit filed against him in Florida
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.