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.

[Tenacious 1]

I'm disappointed that more FReepers are ignorant about the Constitution than I thought. This has gone before the court and is well documented at the Heritage Foundation.

The third qualification to be President is that one must be a "natural born Citizen" (or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). Although any citizen may become a Member of Congress so long as he has held citizenship for the requisite time period, to be President, one must be "a natural born Citizen." Undivided loyalty to the United States was a prime concern. During the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote to George Washington, urging "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." Justice Story later noted that the natural-born–citizenship requirement "cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office."

Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President. As early as 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." 1 Stat. 104 (1790). The "natural born" terminology was dropped shortly thereafter. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c). But the question remains whether the term "natural born Citizen" used in Article II includes the parliamentary rule of jus sanguinis in addition to the common law principle of jus soli. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of "citizen" in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born–citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship though jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968

[SamuraiScot]

FACT: He would not have sealed his records if he had nothing to hide.

Let's be a little more precise in our language, since this certainly is a subject that demands it.

FACT STRONGLY HELD SUPPOSITION: . . .

or perhaps

FACT CONSIDERED OPINION: . . .

or even

FACT I'LL BET: . . .

Hey, you could be right. But in this context, by definition, something "to hide" has to refer to something that isn't yet known, so it's not a fact. Right?

[patriot08]

Or more likely; Goodbye Canada boy.

Can’t we at least find an AMERICAN to run?
Whatever they may decide or call it; Cruz was STILL born in Canada.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Lots of roars, first against Obama’s eligibility, now about Ted’s, but purrfectly silent in court.

[ichabod1]

That’s amazing. What about the High Road, Don?

[driftdiver]

Nice post

[Cboldt]

-- Wouldn't that then imply that no individual has standing? --

You catch on pretty quick!

And even if a person gets around the standing hurdle, the court has other widgets that keep the issue from being decided in their venue.

Election isn't over, issue isn't "ripe". A total blackout can come by saying that eligibility can't be decided by any court. That argument has been made, by the way, with a straight face. The ultimate rationale being that the court lacks the power to remove an ineligible president, that power is reserved to Congress. I think that argument is incorrect, because it eliminates check and balance, but Courts have no aversion to ruling incorrectly.

If the court doesn't want to rule, there is no way to make it rule. Although, I point to Marbury v. Madison as a case where the court found it could not rule due to lack of jurisdiction. However, in the process, it said how it would rule, if it could ;-)

[Georgia Girl 2]

Trump does not need to get involved in a birther lawsuit. He can and does snipe Ted about in front of thousands at his rallies.

[Tenacious 1]

Ted Cruz is a natural born jackass.

That's amazing. Not very FReepish of you. This is like something from DU.

[ichabod1]

Nobody knew Castro was a communist until he announced it one day. The US loved him up till then.

[driftdiver]

What records?

[Maelstrom]

Well, the first half was all right.

A Natural Born citizen (capital N, capital B) requires Natural Law. Thus, the 1790 law was *quickly* rewritten removing the words that Congress never had the power to create law about.

No Naturalized Citizen can be a Natural Born Citizen. The words Naturalized and Natural Born are mutually exclusive. Congress has power over one, only.

This is further underlined when one reviews the REASON that the President of the US and ONLY the President of the US has the additional requirement of being a Natural Born Citizen.

That entire reason is eliminated by your reasoning.

Natural Law is based upon self-evidence. In the beginning, this meant that only the father’s citizenship and the child’s birth location was important. Later, as the mother became able to pass down her citizenship, the nature of that self-evidence changed.

Until Obama, it had always been taught, as part of Civics, what was necessary for a Natural Born Citizen. Candidates whom failed this qualification but managed to become candidates lied, and cheated, in order to conceal and confuse their pasts.

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.)

[Yosemitest]

"Naturalization does not ever create a Natural Born Citizen.
At best all Congress has the power to do is Naturalize citizens from birth without requiring any process for them to become Naturalized Citizens."

"STRAW MAN" DIVERSION ALERT !

IT IS THE LAW, and there's NOTHING YOU can to TO CHANGE IT !
You have NO UNDERSTANDING of the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived !
You have no comprehension of the laws defining it.
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.
Related: Naturalizing.

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.

It was defined for the United States, BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS !

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.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

:: Wouldn’t that then imply that no individual has standing? ::

Uhhhhhh, precisely,

[Cboldt]

I think he’s timing the reveal, because most people will think a CRBA means he is eligible. However, the opposite is true, a CRBA is further proof (as if a Canadian BC isn’t enough) he is ineligible.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

No, you don’t.

[Hoodat]

So who is the defendant in this case? Who is being sued?

[1217Chic]

Why bother, he’s kicking the sh*t out of Cruz anyway???

[Cboldt]

There is plenty of precedent.

Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)
Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977)
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001)

[glennaro]

What's amazing is that there is even a controversy about this ... especially after nearly eight years of a president with questionable (at best) birth and social security documentation, aside from that the current president sympathizes with the world's enemy and despises traditional American values and the Constitution.

This has become more of an SNL or even a SouthPark skit than a serious Constitutional inquiry.