CNN: Why Ted Cruz Is Eligible To Be pPresident

CNN ^ | January 14, 2016

[Yosemitest]

(CNN)... If Cruz gets enough electoral votes this fall,
then Congress
and not the Supreme Court
should be the final legal judge of Cruz's eligibility.
The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says that
Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized
to refuse to count any electoral votes that Congress considers invalid.

Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear that
each house of Congress may "judge" whether
a would-be member of that house meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
... If a dispute arises ... the Constitution clearly says
the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here,
because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

[Cboldt]

-- whoever would have adjudicated Cruz's citizenship status would have had to do so according to Public Law 414, Sec 301 --

You are citing the wrong section. I'll go find the right cite for you.

[Cboldt]

-- whoever would have adjudicated Cruz's citizenship status would have had to do so according to Public Law 414, Sec 301 --

Hah. You were the incompetent one before!

01/20/2016 4:56:14 AM PST . 66 of 66

1952 Nationality and Naturalization Act, Sec 301(a)(7)
[you'll find the text crossing from page 235 to 236]

[Ditter]

He talks again about Bush v Gore claiming that it was wrong. As I remember the Florida Supreme Court told the election officials that the election laws already on the books had to be followed on the recounting of the votes. The election laws were not changed to elect Bush they were followed as written. Correct me if I am wrong.

[2pets]

-- whoever would have adjudicated Cruz's citizenship status would have had to do so according to Public Law 414, Sec 301 -- Hah. You were the incompetent one before! 01/20/2016 4:56:14 AM PST . 66 of 66 1952 Nationality and Naturalization Act, Sec 301(a)(7) [you'll find the text crossing from page 235 to 236]

------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly the section of Public Law 414 I'm talking about. The circumstances of Cruz's birth don't meet the requirements. Read my post, carefully. You seem to have scanned it and misinterpreted what I said:

My post in this thread: Why the circumstances of Cruz's birth don't meet 1952 Nationality and Naturalization Act, Sec 301(a)(7)

[Cboldt]

The text of the law says that the citizen parent, prior to the birth of the child:

was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

The fact that Cruz's mom was a resident of Canada prior to his birth doesn't matter. The fact that (5) uses the modifier "at any time" [prior to] doesn't make any difference.

What is the rule that you propose (a)(7) imposes? What interval between entering Canada and giving birth renders (a)(7) inoperable? One second? One week? One year?

If you read the case law, the parental residence requirement, unless stated otherwise (e.g., "after fourteen years of age") is "at any time prior to" the birth.

[KC Burke]

thanks

[2pets]

There are two different forms of the "prior to" requirement used in the subsections of Sec 301(a): "prior to" and "at any time prior to." The two are not the same, hence the different terminology used within different subsections of the same Section. Sec 301(a)7 requires "prior to," NOT "at any time prior to."

Cruz's mother would meet the "at any time prior to" requirement, but does not meet the "prior to" requirement as she was a resident of Canada prior to Cruz's birth.

[Cboldt]

The difference between "prior to" and "at any time prior to" distinguishes the caes where the residency has an age attached to it.

Answer the question I posed, what interval is allowed to elapse between entering Canada (terminating residence in the US) and giving birth?

[2pets]

"The fact that (5) uses the modifier "at any time" [prior to] doesn't make any difference."

------------------------------------------------

Based on what? Since when do time requirements not matter in federal law?

[2pets]

"If you read the case law, the parental residence requirement, unless stated otherwise (e.g., "after fourteen years of age") is "at any time prior to" the birth."

---------------------------------------------------------

If they're doing so while specifically interpreting the 1952 Law's Sec 301(a)7 to apply it to a case, then they're misquoting the law, aren't they?

Quite simply, the 1952 Law's Sec 301(a)7 does not state "at any time prior to."

"At any time" does not apply to that subsection, while applying to another.

[2pets]

"Answer the question I posed, what interval is allowed to elapse between entering Canada (terminating residence in the US) and giving birth?"

---------------------------------------------

That can be established by one's domicile. (Incidentally, Wong Kim Ark's parents' permanent US domicile was one of the main determinants in the ruling.) Where was the US citizen parent most recently legally living and working? In the US? In a foreign country? In Cruz's mother's case, it was Canada, for 3 years.

Did Cruz's mother maintain a residence in the US and list that as her legal residence on any legal transactions during that time?

This type of thing happens all the time on a smaller scale between states. Some people have residences in more than one state, but only one state is their domicile for legal purposes.

[Cboldt]

-- If they're doing so while specifically interpreting the 1952 Law's Sec 301(a)7 to apply it to a case, then they're misquoting the law, aren't they? --

No. The law says "prior to," and that has a completely clear meaning except to the pedantic.

[2pets]

Oh, please. You know darned well words matter in legal statutes.

You seem to be just playing dumb on purpose.

"prior to" and "at any time prior to" are in fact two very different time designations.

[Cboldt]

Yes, I know the words matter. You ad hominem is noted, and I’ll thank you to not engage me in a serious discussion for as long as you live. I’ll do the same for you.

[Yosemitest]

Hey DUMMY, you should RESEARCH a topic, BEFORE you expose YOUR INCOMPETENCE !

TED CRUZ's father, 74-year-old Rafael Bienvenido Cruz.
"I came to this country legally," Cruz's father says.
"I came here with a legal visa, and ... every step of the way, I have been here legally."

In an interview near his home outside Dallas, the elder Cruz says that as a teenager, he fought alongside Fidel Castro's forces to overthrow Cuba's U.S.-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista.
He was caught by Batista's forces, he says, and jailed and beaten before being released.
It was 1957, and Cruz decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.
Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.

"Then the only other thing that I needed was an exit permit from the Batista government," Cruz recalls.
"A friend of the family, a lawyer friend of my father, basically bribed a Batista official to stamp my passport with an exit permit."

The Rafael Cruz that his son Ted portrays is a kind of Cuban Horatio Alger - - arriving in the U.S. with only $100, learning English on his own and washing dishes seven days a week for 50 cents an hour.

"Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father,
"and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."

Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born.
His father went there AFTER having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. WHEN his student visa ran out.
He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen.
The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.

"I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says.
"And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."

The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen ...

Now about the "for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, ".

WHERE do you think he RESIDED ... WHILE he paid his way through the University of Texas ?

Do you think he resided in Canada WHILE he ATTENDED the University of Texas ?

And as far as your "STRAW MAN" ACCUSATION about

"Subsection 7 ... but there's a problem with the "prior to" requirement.
Two different terms: "prior to" and "at any time prior to" were used in Sec 301.
They are not the same.
... Pages 713-74: Public Law 414, 1952 Subsection 7 uses the requirement "prior to." Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada prior to Cruz's birth.
Words matter.
Cruz doesn't qualify for US citizenship at birth under the law in effect at the time.
Cruz is neither a born citizen, nor a national born citizen."

Oh, BULL !
Cruz's mother was NEVER a citizen of Canada, and ALWAYS MAINTAINED HER United States Citizenship.
Your 'Two different terms: "prior to" and "at any time prior to" ' amount to NOTHING !
Your "STRAW MAN" questions ARE IRRELEVANT !

[2pets]

Might want to look in the mirror when you say that. You called me incompetent, when in fact it was YOU who failed to comprehend my post.

[Yosemitest]

"He talks again about Bush v Gore claiming that it was wrong.
As I remember
the Florida Supreme Court told the election officials
that the election laws already on the books had to be followed on the recounting of the votes.
The election laws were not changed to elect Bush
they were followed as written.

Correct me if I am wrong."

I think that your point is different than the author's point in the article.
Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:

" ... If Cruz gets enough electoral votes this fall,
then Congress
and not the Supreme Court
should be the final legal judge of Cruz's eligibility.
The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
that Congress considers invalid.


Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

Presidents should pick judges,
not vice versa.
This is one reason why
the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore was a disgrace
and is now widely viewed by experts as such.

...

So the author, Akhil Reed Amar, is saying

BECAUSE
it is a "nonjusticiable political question"
and the Constitution ITSELF specifies what body of government is "THE JUDGE" of such questions,
the "JUDICIAL SYSTEM" has no "CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY" to rule on the matter.

But you're suggesting that

the author said "the court's judgment" was wrong.

And I believe that the author is saying that "THE COURT" should NOT HAVE RULED ON IT ... AT ALL !

[Yosemitest]

"Oh, please. You know darned well words matter in legal statutes."

I can be just as STUPID as you can.

So, by YOUR logic, since it says " ...And the children of ... ", I guess that means that
if there are not TWINS born at the same time, they cannot be citizens ? < /sarc>

Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
And you ARE refusing the definition of "natural born citizen" CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !

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.

The only definition that matters is the one GIVEN BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS.
They addressed children of citizens,
where one parent who was a citizen,
and one parent who was an immigrant who had resident in the United States for a period of time,
and the child's RIGHT to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN,
EVEN IF "born beyond Sea, or OUT of the limits of the United States, SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS NATURAL BORN CITIZENS :
Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have NEVER been RESIDENT IN the United States:"



The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !
United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
Provided, that
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

[2pets]

You, too, are yet another who fails to realize that "prior to" and "at any time prior to" (a requirement used in another Subsection of the same Section of the law) are two very different things.

Specifically, read Subsections 4, 5, and 7 of Section 301 to understand the difference.

Words matter.

Pages 73-74: 1952 Act

[2pets]

I said Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada for 3 years prior to Cruz's birth, not a citizen of Canada.

Reading comprehension matters.