Skip to comments.
Trump supporters file 'birther' lawsuit against Cruz in federal court
The Hill ^
| 02/12/2016
| Bradford Richardson
Posted on 02/12/2016 11:22:56 AM PST by GIdget2004
Donald Trump supporters have filed a lawsuit challenging the eligibility of one of his primary rivals, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), to run for president.
The lawsuit, filed Feb. 3 at a district court in Alabama, seeks a judgment "declaring that Rafael Edward Cruz is ineligible to qualify/run/seek and be elected to the Office of the President of the United States of America" due to his Canadian birth. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, to an American mother.
The five plaintiffs â Sebastian Green, Shannon Duncan, Kathryn Spears, Kyle Spears and Jerry Parker â are all backing Trump in the Republican primary, according to AL.com.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
TOPICS: Canada; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: birthers; birthorama; cruz; cruznbc; nostanding; orly; repositorycruz; tinfoilhat; trump; trumpkoolaid; ufocrowd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 281-298 next last
To: Forty-Niner
Suits against Obama happened at all phases of the elction process. The courts invoked Catch-22.
121
posted on
02/12/2016 12:07:11 PM PST
by
Cboldt
To: Cletus.D.Yokel
To: Cletus.D.Yokel
“Yes...yes there is.”
Which US President was born outside the US ??
To: justlittleoleme
St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in his 1803 edition of William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, perhaps the leading authority for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for the terms used in the Constitution, that the natural born citizen clause is “a happy means of security against foreign influence” and that “[t]he admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against.”[33] In a footnote, Tucker wrote that naturalized citizens have the same rights as the natural-born except “they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States.”[34]
John Bingham, an American lawyer and politician, held to the belief that natural born should be interpreted as born in the United States. In 1862, in the House of Representatives he stated:
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words ‘natural born citizen of the United States’ appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.” To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birthânatural born citizens.[39]
He reiterated his statement in 1866:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[40]
124
posted on
02/12/2016 12:07:42 PM PST
by
Maelstrom
(To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
To: Cboldt; dartuser
Cruz cannot break a law that has not been legislated. There is no binding formula defining NBC. Under such conditions, Cruz can act on a professionally competent and good faith understanding of ballot access law without expectation of penalty.
Peace,
SR
To: Maelstrom
“Congress NEVER had the power to determine who was, or was not a Natural Born Citizen. It exists *nowhere* in the Constitution, just as the law or Amendment that gives you the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is NOWHERE in the Constitution. Both are based upon Natural Law. (The 2nd Amendment only protects that pre-existing RtK&BA.)”
lol so we’re a natural born citizen of nothing?
Because the Congress makes laws for the United States. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t give anything. It limits the government.
You can’t be a citizen of something that doesn’t exist.
126
posted on
02/12/2016 12:08:17 PM PST
by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: grania
I like both Cruz and Trump and, IMO, Cruz is eligible. But I’d like to get a ruling on it sooner than later. Otherwise I can see a scenario where Cruz gets the nomination, the Democrats sue over his eligibility, Cruz is found ineligible, and we end up with Bush as the nominee.
127
posted on
02/12/2016 12:08:22 PM PST
by
Kipp
To: EternalHope
128
posted on
02/12/2016 12:08:37 PM PST
by
Dstorm
(Cruz 2016)
To: HarleyLady27
To be a citizen .. you only have to be born to a CITIZEN. Cruz has been born to a mother who was a legal citizen of America at the time of his birth.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL.
129
posted on
02/12/2016 12:09:09 PM PST
by
CyberAnt
("The Fields are White Unto Harvest")
To: Forty-Niner
again imho, it didn’t work on obozo because of the corrupt establishment that controls the politicians and the system
To: GIdget2004
Good.
As a Cruz supporter, I welcome the truth on this matter.
Get a Federal judge to rule on Cruz one way or another so that Trump can get back to policy discussions rather than Trump’s childish Twitter threats to bring Cruz to court.
Jeepers. Its not like Trump is lacking the money, legal help or standing to challenge Cruz’s eligibility. Why doesn’t Trump do this himself, rather than using surrogates? (Answer: then it would be one less silly mode of attack that Twitter-boy could use)
131
posted on
02/12/2016 12:09:32 PM PST
by
kidd
To: Tenacious 1
LOL, ruffled your feathers, did it?
To: The Final Harvest
correct, see my post above- it stats just what you said, and is from the site on uscis which gives the outlines for who is a citizen and who needs to be naturalized- Ted does not-
133
posted on
02/12/2016 12:10:41 PM PST
by
Bob434
To: Cboldt
I hear you.
I fully believe that neither Cruz nor Rubio are qualified, as per original intent.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that I think the courts are the right place to resolve the matter.
Because no matter how the courts might rule, that won’t change original intent or what the Constitution, the supreme law of our land, requires.
To: hoosiermama
135
posted on
02/12/2016 12:11:20 PM PST
by
Cboldt
To: longfellow
136
posted on
02/12/2016 12:11:22 PM PST
by
Maelstrom
(To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
To: Parley Baer
You are assuming he is interested in being anyone’s VP.
To: Hoodat
"So who is the defendant in this case? Who is being sued?"
From the article's
linked source in this thread:
...The lawsuit, filed Feb. 3 at a district court in Alabama, seeks a judgment"declaring that Rafael Edward Cruz is ineligible to qualify/run/seek and be elected to the Office of the President of the United States of America"
due to his Canadian birth.
I would say that
Rafael Edward TED CRUZ is the defendant.
But remember from before WHAT I linked to, as far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Also, pay particular attention to
U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...
As
I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article
Akhil Reed Amar, author of
CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:
" ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly saysthat 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 clearthat each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that housemeets 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 disputeor any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rulesbut 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."
NOTE:
nonjusticiable political question Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
One scholar explained: The political question doctrine holdsthat some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out. - - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vaguethat the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
A court can only decide issues based on law.
The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
The court will not engage in political disputes.
A constitutional dispute that requires knowledgeof a non-legal character
or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.
Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
What is the root word of
"Naturalization" ?
"Naturalize" ! "admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized), from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Not only could the Founding Father define
"natural born citizen", BUT ...
THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it
!
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 Stateswherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court thathe is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by lawto 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, thatthe right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Provided also, thatno 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.
Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !
1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives
Finally, read the latest from links provided by the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.
READ IT VERY CLOSELY.
Constitutional Topic: Citizenship
... Citizenship is mentioned in
If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen?
Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
But even this does not get specific enough.
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inalso allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
- Anyone born inside the United States *
* There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition:
a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asEach of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
In 8 USC 1403, the law states thatanyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
was "declared" to be a United States citizen.Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized thatbecause McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
he was not actually qualified to be president.
However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):"a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
U.S. Nationals
A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.
U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.
(Continued)
138
posted on
02/12/2016 12:12:20 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: GIdget2004
As I am sure others here have pointed out - these people do not have standing, so this will do nothing but obfuscate the situation further.
To: The Final Harvest
They aren’t credible. First of all many, many senators, congressmen and presidents have lawsuits filed against them but they are still serving and doing their job. Obama is one example. As for Trump..he is either suing someone, being sued or threatening to sue. He is a boy named “Sue” how do you do? Cruz is an American and eligible and if he is sued and after he wins I hope he counter sues for tons of money and builds “Cruz Towers” in Texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 281-298 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson