Trump supporters file 'birther' lawsuit against Cruz in federal court

The Hill ^ | 02/12/2016 | Bradford Richardson

[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 — Sebastian Green, Shannon Duncan, Kathryn Spears, Kyle Spears and Jerry Parker — are all backing Trump in the Republican primary, according to AL.com.

[Cboldt]

As you know, the Cruz case is settled by Rogers v. Bellei. There is no need to settle NBC in a "global" sense, to settle the Cruz case.

He may get off on a criminal complaint for lack of culpability, but that's the only way. And he has a tough time on that, just like Hillary has a tough time caliming she didn't know the e-mails contained government secrets.

[katiedidit1]

yawn

[CyberAnt]

Well, at least one person agrees with me.

[FewsOrange]

What records has he sealed?

[Maelstrom]

http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

Was, or was not Trump’s mother granting Trump dual citizenship?

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

[Suz in AZ]

“YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE BORN ON AMERICAN SOIL.”

Then please explain went the department of justice immigration and naturalization services had been publishing and teaching new citizens exactly the opposite for decades, if not generations?

[Maelstrom]

We are at our nadir, with a man whom has been in the Oval Office, who, at a stroke, eliminated the Constitution as the Supreme Law within the US.

That doesn’t mean the Constitution no longer exists. So it is imperative people do not forget what it means.

[Jane Long]

Ouch!!

[Maelstrom]

Ted Cruz can become “President” only because Obama did...nothing more.

One day when our Constitution is restored, future Obama’s or Ted Cruz’s will NOT be able to become President.

OR

Freedom in This nation dies, because the government will no longer be limited in power nor scope.

[Cboldt]

The RNC can find Cruz ineligible without resort to a court. What is Cruz going to do, sue them? If Cruz walks into the nominating convention with enough delegates to "decide the outcome" (like if his + Bush give it to Bush, or Kasich, or Rubio, then the RNC will disqualify Cruz, and give the nomination to its choice - maybe one of the others, maybe Ryan, maybe somebody else.

Just saying, the DEMs aren't the only ones who can snatch the nomination from Cruz, even if he "wins" it.

[Dstorm]

Fact: Doesn’t need one, and if his parents never got one. (Just put him on his mother’s passport) after the age of 18 not eligible for one.

Note: The document required to put him on her passport are the same proof documents for a CRBA

[hoosiermama]

Catch Trumps latest tweet. He states he has standing to sue Cruz and is threatening to do so.
Told sis at Christmas it would come to a head after SC. By March 1.

[Cboldt]

Hi, I’m back from my suspension! I notice you never cite any authority for your conclusions. Bye now!

[Jane Long]

Does this mean that all of the babies born in Viet Nam, fathered by American soldiers during the war, can now become US Presidents?

[Yosemitest]

Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the LIBERAL IDIOT LAWYER Mario Apuzzo and the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party. And he did so "WITH PREJUDICE."

Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —
as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

But the fact is,
they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —
in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,
who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” —
he was ALSO “natural born.”

If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”
then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.


The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact found
that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.

Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,
Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.

There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
though.

It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means
“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

Note that again:
Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,
which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”


The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

“Plaintiff claims that
President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supports
that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

...

So your statement that "There is plenty of precedent. " ... has been DENIED by the courts !

[CyberAnt]

Wow! I’ll drink to that ..!!!!

[Las Vegas Ron]

Was, or was not Trump’s mother granting Trump dual citizenship?

No, she was an American citizen several years before his birth. In that time when she became a citizen, she had to renounce her other and swear allegiance to this country.

As to the rest of your post, Trump needed no act of law to become a citizen as he meets both jus soli and jus sanguineness.

Had Cruz been born under the same condition, there could be no argument what so ever of his eligibility, but his situation opens up cause for debate which is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid.

[hoosiermama]

She was a naturalized citizen five years before he was born Nice try.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-— He states he has standing to sue Cruz and is threatening to do so.
Told sis at Christmas it would come to a head after SC. -—

Go for it.

But it’s hard to take him seriously when he is also threatening to choose Cruz for VP.

[HarleyLady27]

http://freedomoutpost.com/2016/02/canadian-ted-cruz-does-he-have-the-documents-to-prove-he-is-a-u-s-citizen-and-eligible-to-be-president/