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]

I know it's not really authoritative, but ... Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation is the point I was trying to make. Suits were brought at all phases, by various players (including a person who cast a ballot as an elector).

Congress is a subversive organization. To expect Congress to uphold the constitution is just plain nuts. Cruz won't be elected, so we won't see Congress with an opportunity to rule on Cruz's eligibility, but it (Congress) didn't question dual-citizen Obama's eligibility (not one single word), and telegraphed with S.Res.511 that it finds foreign-born persons to be pure American, without resort to law.

Courts are too chicken to throw a monkey wrench into the NWO train, I think. But somewhere along the line, some judge is going to want a place in history, and is going to pop Cruz's bubble.

We'll see how it plays. There is a point in time where this sort of suit make sense, and that is when an ineligible candidate is doing well in the polls and at the ballot box, before being nominated. Not much damage done by stepping into the process now, compared with after an election. Surely somebody has an interest in ballot integrity, besides the stupid voters.

[DoodleDawg]

Let’s get it over.

Exactly. Because all those Birther lawsuits filed over Obama certainly put that matter to rest. Oh wait...

[JediJones]

Cruzers are not going to like this ... but it should settle the issue once and for all either way.

I like it fine. The issue only "works" for Trump when he holds it out there as a hypothetical fear/smear tactic, which is Trump's M.O. Just like when he claimed Carson was pathological, to try and make him sound like he could become some potential lunatic. The actual lawsuit will reveal the bogus nature of Trump's smear tactic and take it away as a weapon from him.

[Springfield Reformer]

Everybody who wrestles with the meaning of the law has to deal with the words of the law. The intent of the law is the true objective, so everyone says. But we can’t make it up out of thin air. The words matter. People want to impose a meaning on “natural born citizen” that isn’t in the Constitution. If you say we want to respect the Constitution, how can we do that without paying serious attention to its words? I don’t buy the “Living Constitution” garbage. The words matter.

Peace,

SR

[Art in Idaho]

Only if you believe the constitution can be amended by a statute, rather than an amendment.

Call me old fashion, but I don't think you can change the meaning of constitutional requirements set in 1787 by laws enacted in.

Oh, interesting point. The statute doesn't define the law? It's adopted US Code. I'm stepping out of my range of knowledge here. I'm not an attorney, but I thought the US Code was 'the law' and binding in court?

I can see where this needs to be cleared up, once and for all.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”0bunghole is a lying usurper using fake ID/nationality/parentage.
What is idiocy is allowing it all to continue unabated.”

Then why do YOU keep allowing it??

Look in the mirror before YOU point fingers.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm not an attorney, but I thought the US Code was 'the law' and binding in court?

Federal law normally applies but for one thing. Constitutional law is the Supreme law of the land.

You cannot enact any federal statute that is in conflict with the Constitution.

For example, let us say Congress decided to define "arms" as slingshots. Well we all know the word "arms" does not mean slingshots, but if they have the power to redefine the meaning of words, they can make it mean that.

It is no different in changing the meaning of "natural citizen". You can't do that. It means something specific. That meaning was set in 1776, and congress does not have the power to change it.

Now they can decide who is a "citizen", because they have the power to naturalize anyone they so choose. What they cannot do is create a new definition for "natural citizen." The constitution cannot be amended by statute. It requires a vote of 3/4ths of the state legislatures to amend it.

Thank God that it cannot be modified so easily, or our right to keep and bear arms would have been long gone.

[little jeremiah]

What influence or power does one unknown and obscure citizen have? Better men and women have tried to their best to make the truth public and fight against the usurpation with no effect. I can’t allow or disallow anything that goes in on Mordor on the Potomac, and neither can you.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”What influence or power does one unknown and obscure citizen have? Better men and women have tried to their best to make the truth public and fight against the usurpation with no effect. I can't allow or disallow anything that goes in on Mordor on the Potomac, and neither can you.”

Now you sound like a Republican/

“I can't get that passed because we are in the minority”

“I can't get that passed because we don't have at least 60 in the Senate”

“I can't get get that done because I am not in DC”

Its easy to sit on the side that demands the impossible, not so much fun when its turned on you.

Stop Obama from being in the WH, just like you said you demand that others do. Stop tolerating him.

[Yosemitest]

" Do you really think that Thomas Jefferson
or any of the authors of the constitution
would view the bastard offspring of these unfortunate women as Natural Born United States Citizens?"

"Bastard offspring" by definition means the "unfortunate" mother was NOT MARRIED. That statement is IRRELEVANT !

When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK".

Now for your next IRRELEVANT statement:

"And using your logic wouldn't the children of these zbastard offspring be Natural Born Citizens
regardless of the location of their birth
also be Natural Born United States Citizens?
If not then tell me why
using your logic we do not have thousands upon thousands of Natural Born US Citizens who are decedents from these Muslim bastard children?"

AGAIN, that "STRAW MAN" IS IRRELEVANT, when it comes to TED CRUZ being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States ON THE DAY HE WAS BORN !

You should do better research when it comes to Thomas Jefferson.
Read Thomas Jefferson's own BILL on there "Natural Born Citizen" requirements for the CommonWealth of Virginia:

Thomas Jefferson, A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens Of This Commonwealth

May 1779 Virginia Papers 2:476–78

Be it enacted by the General Assembly,

that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth
and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act,
and all who shall hereafter migrate into[Volume 4, Page 488] the same;
and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation,
that they intend to reside therein,
and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants WHERESOEVER BORN,
whose father, if living,
or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth,
or who migrate hither,
their father, if living,
or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen,
or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed CITIZENS of this commonwealth,
until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed:
And all others NOT BEING CITIZENS of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.


The clerk of the court shall enter such oath of record,
and give the person taking the same a certificate thereof,
for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar.
And in order to preserve to the citizens of this commonwealth, that natural right,
which all men have of relinquishing the country, in which birth, or other accident may have thrown them,
and, seeking subsistance and happiness wheresoever they may be able, or may hope to find them:
And to declare unequivocably what circumstances shall be deemed evidence of an intention in any citizen to exercise that right,
it is enacted and declared,
that whensoever any citizen of this commonwealth, shall
by word of mouth in the presence of the court of the county, wherein he resides,
or of the General Court,
or by deed in writing, under his hand and seal, executed in the presence of three witnesses,
and by them proved in either of the said courts,
openly declare to the same court,
that he RELINQUISHES the character of a citizen,
and shall DEPART the commonwealth;
or whensoever he shall WITHOUT such declaration DEPART the commonwealth AND ENTYER INTO THE SERVICE OIF ANY OTHER STATE,
not in enmity with this, or any other of the United States of America,
or do any act whereby he shall become a subject or citizen of such state,
such person shall be considered as having exercised his natural right of EXPATRIATING himself,
and shall be deemed NO CITIZEN of this commonwealth from the time of his departure.

SO there, you have PROOF

that Thomas Jefferson, or any of the authors of the constitution,
would view TED CRUZ as a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN off the United States, ON THE DAY HE WAS BORN !

[Yosemitest]

Call 1-800-WHAAAAH !

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

Really annoying

[fireman15]

You apparently do not read the stuff that you cut and paste thoroughly, because it doesn’t prove squat. Your first section mentions both mother and father being citizens which does not apply in Ted Cruz’s case.

Look you don’t have to prove anything to me one way or another. I am not a judge or even a lawyer. Ted has two problems with this in the general election. The first is the legal question which no matter how much crap you cut and paste has not been answered definitively by the courts. There are constitutional scholars who come down on both sides. The second problem is that there are many people who will perceive this as being a problem in the general election which will translate into lost votes.

Under your definition there are many people born each your in hostile foreign countries with fathers who are hostile to our country and our way of life who you consider to be “natural born citizens” because they have a mother who was born a US citizen; most people consider this to be nonsense just through common sense... no lawyer required.

[Suz in AZ]

Citizen v. Natural Born Citizen

Silly you.

[little jeremiah]

I think you’re psychotic.

[Maelstrom]

Owing now allegiance to no other sovereignty actually does mean US Citizens without dual-citizenship.

It also means, they must be born within the US. (Otherwise, they have dual-citizenship).

So, what exactly was your point intended to be?

[Maelstrom]

Naturalizing citizens doesn’t create any Natural Born Citizens. The power to dictate Naturalization doesn’t create the power to even imagine making law creating Natural Born Citizens.

Never did, still doesn’t.

Instead: Take the valid viewpoint that the Constitution has been overthrown.

Once you accept that, THEN Cruz’s presidency is no more or less valid than Obama’s.

[Ray76]

That viewpoint is that of the vanquished.

[DiogenesLamp]

So, what exactly was your point intended to be?

That place of birth was not the sole criteria. That the allegiance of the parents was always a requirement but has since been forgotten.

People were lazy about adding that stipulation, and so people eventually forgot that it was there.

[Springfield Reformer]

A necessary premise for taking the Bellei case is that Bellei was naturalized.

Not necessarily. The sticking point in Bellei was whether a foreign born citizen at birth could be held to a statutory requirement of residency, to be met after conferral of citizenship, not as a prior condition of citizenship.  The Court found that he was neither born in nor naturalized in the US, therefore NOT under the protection of the 14th Amendment.  There was NO direct affirmation in the holding or the supporting logic to the holding that Bellei was in fact naturalized. Only that he was without the protection of the 14th, therefore subject to conditions set by the congressional regulatory power.

So can Congress create NBCs?  The 1790 statute was cited by Bellei as an example of just such a power. The Bellei Court even extends the congressional power to set conditions for native born citizens to retain their citizenship, citing Perkins v Elg.

So it appears that NBC status and statutory conditions of retention are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Furthermore, recent case law points to a different mutual exclusion, that between citizenship at birth versus citizenship conferred after birth. Miller v Albright (1998) makes it clear:

Neither have I found case law that could justify use here of a more lenient standard of review. JUSTICE STEVENS points out that this Court has said it will apply a more lenient standard in matters of "'immigration and naturalization.''' Ante, at 435, n. 11 (quoting Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 82 (1976)). But that language arises in a case involving aliens. The Court did not say it intended that phrase to include statutes that confer citizenship "at birth." And Congress does not believe that this kind of citizenship involves "naturalization." 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(23) ("The term 'naturalization' means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever" (emphasis added)). The Court to my knowledge has never said, or held, or reasoned that statutes automatically conferring citizenship "at birth" upon the American child of American parents receive a more lenient standard of review (emphasis added)

Available here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/523/420/case.html

The cited statutory definition of naturalization specifically excludes from naturalization the kind of statute that confers citizenship at birth. Nguyen (2001) reasserts the same point. In Nguyen, the distinction between 1409 and 1401 is immaterial.  The definition in 1101 is upstream of both those, and Miller makes it abundantly clear that in 1101 Congress is saying it doesn't see statutory citizenship at birth as naturalization.  

Bottom line, the Bellei Court holding does NOT rely on Bellei being naturalized, only on being outside the scope of the 14th Amendment and therefore subject to congressional regulatory power. Under the Wambaugh Inversion test, Bellei could be found naturalized or not naturalized, and yet would still subject to 301(b), without constitutional infirmity.   The Court does not refute his claim to be native born.  It only asserts the power of Congress to set a condition subsequent, even to one who is native born, which condition Bellei did not meet.  The rest is dicta.

For Cruz, who met the stated criteria and therefore retained his citizenship at birth, this means he is still well within his right to assert in good faith he meets the eligibility requirements for President.

Peace,

SR