Posted on 02/18/2016 9:58:26 PM PST by TigerClaws
The question of whether or not Ted Cruz can serve as president of the United States is heading to court.
A judge has agreed to hear a lawsuit filed against the presidential hopeful by Illinois voter Lawrence Joyce.
CNN reports that the case will be heard in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago on Friday in response to Joyce's claim that Cruz should not appear on the ballot for next month's Illinois primary because he was born in Canada.
Cruz has stated before that he is an American citizen despite being born in Canada and having a Cuban father because his mother is American.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3454032/Illinois-judge-agrees-hear-lawsuit-filed-against-Ted-Cruz-stating-NOT-eligible-run-president-born-Canada.html#ixzz40ahKXbNs Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Defining who is an alien. Well ok. That does not apply to those who are in classification of being a citizen at birth.
The wording which does apply to Cruz is "acquired" at birth, and "shall be citizens at birth". Hold fast to those concepts, carry them with you wherever you may roam within the codes and definitions.
The acquiring is from the U.S. citizen parent, although under law which not only acknowledges that it is AT BIRTH, but explicitly stipulates that it is from birth.
The first part of the above italicized sentence once again;
Persons born abroad to a U.S citizen parent are not in need of naturalization. They are already citizens, at birth.
Uh, excuse me, but the entire quote is defining those who are not citizens at birth, and who therefor if desiring to be a U.S. citizen, must indeed be naturalized.
I can hardly believe my own eyes reading the comments from birthers gone crusader against Cruz.
How about setting aside your own personal interests, even if those be along lines of "I said it, so now must search out evidence which will strengthen my case" (previous assertions) and try reading the codes and definitions while searching for the opposite of what you've been arguing.
Try to prove yourself wrong, try to see if what you've been saying can be falsified through taking a differing approach, a differing view, shorn of --- for lack of more apropos term perhaps--- what could be referred to as 'birther baggage'.
Perhaps; try taking my own responses, or else replies made on this thread by others which address the same issue more succinctly, and see if those can be seen to comport well with the statutes and definitions.
When it hits you between the eyes, keep reading, go over it again and again as many times as it takes ---
And logic -- you, here? You are delusional.
Actually you are almost right. Ted falls under subpar 7 of Section 301 sure enough but that doesn’t make him a natural born citizen. I fathered two children in London while stationed there. My wife was an English citizen at the time. We went to the Embassy to get the CRBA which proves their citizenship but my Commanding Officer advised me that my children could never become president. I’d like to think he was wrong but deep down I believe NATURAL is two citizen parents on U.S. soil. Natural means exactly that. Natural doesn’t require fulfilling certain statutes or laws. If you are born in the U.S. you are automatically issued a birth certificate - something that didn’t occur with my children.
Wat the hell are you talking about now?
You zero in on the only provisional sounding portion of what I just wrote to you while fully ignoring the meaning of all the rest?
This is really beginning to piss me off. It's like you're so dishonest with yourself -- within yourself in regards to this issue, now you're being disingenuous with me.
I'm going to need more than a sentence fragment. Try capturing a complete thought, perhaps more than one.
Quote that much (how much does it cost to copy and paste???) then maybe I could see what you may *think* you have.
Doubtless, its something I've already covered with you or the other guy just now recent.
LOL....works for me!
Ok, how about DAMN WELL then included, as change of wording?
Better now? Can you deny that it did at that time include those wordings? Say it, and quite all this pathetic squirming around you've been doing in birther-baggage delusion-land.
You've got nothing but that (I can't even say the rest of the words on this forum, it's that bad).
Doesn’t “damn well” include what we have now.
Have we a situation where the Constitution is using an orphan term?
Well if it is, then yes we now have tea leaf reading on our hands, and I can say my tea leaf reading is as good as yours, and it (an assuredness factor) would speak persuasively to the minds of a lot of the members of the USSC. Which like it or not, our present Constitution has left to be the ultimate umpire short of something like Bork amendment.
Well hey! I’m looking for the holes and so would any other legal arguer. You surprised?!?
But why THAT one? Hasn't that one already been beaten to death? It did originally express a view. An orginalist's view of what the troublesome phrase extended beyond only combination of birth within the territories (States) and of citizen parents.
But I ALREADY just went over that prior to yourself trying to now seeming appear to make the entire case on
It's like everything that could be understood about why jur soli was important in the first place is suddenly, completely forgotten.
“Ted falls under subpar 7 of Section 301 sure enough but that doesn’t make him a natural born citizen.”
That’s the debate and depending on who you ask he either is or he isn’t. It is something only the Supreme Court or a Constitutional amendment will finalize.
As to the “two citizen” parent requirement that is settled law. Recent court rulings have relied on the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark to rule Obama a natural born citizen. The same reasoning would apply to Rubio, Jindal, Haley, etc. Even in 1898 when the case was decided it was understood that it made child born in the US to alien parents eligible to be President.
That ought to make the Trumpets confident. :)
Judge puts off until March 1. She needs to decide if she even has jurisdiction or must dismiss the complaint.
“Circuit Court Judge Maureen Ward Kirby said she was not sure she had jurisdiction, and set a March 1 hearing for arguments on whether to dismiss the complaint.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cruz-eligibility-idUSKCN0VS28N
I guess it's honestly not so clear-cut just who does have jurisdiction?
Thanks for the ping, though.
I wonder -- is that an opening for attorneys representing Cruz to name who does have jurisdiction? If so they gotta' make it good. If just pushing it up to higher court within State of Illinois -- then what? A lurking ringer of a judge that's already been earmarked by whoever can get away with doing that? Landmine area ahead. Injun territory.
'Aaw man. Glad I'm not a lawyer and would have to figure out the dance moves, on top of the what would likely be among main legal principles. Those are relatively easy in comparison to all the rest. Codes of civil procedure and local curt rules alone can have landmines. And that's just the beginning of additional sorrows.
Really?
Chapter 2 - Definition of Child for Citizenship and Naturalization
In general, a child for the citizenship and naturalization provisions is an unmarried person under 21 years of age who is:
The son or daughter of a non-genetic gestational U.S. citizen mother who is recognized by the relevant jurisdiction as the child's legal parent.
Read that close...the child needs both, citizenship and naturalization!
It begins with
As far as is known, Senator Cruz's parents were married prior to his birth. Married for some number of years...and having been married within the U.S. when his father was a legal resident alien who had been either; granted asylum, or at least had applied for it.
Whatever the case, Cruz was not born technically speaking ---a bastard child-- .
Or a red-headed step child. Or was adopted by either of his parents, or retarded (how about you? do you a propensity to slam ice cream cones where they don't belong? No, you say? Objection! arguing facts not in evidence!)
Not necessarily applicable to those otherwise born legitimately
Genetic comes before legitimated as anyone can plainly see.
It must suck to ride a horse you've whipped hard to run fast only to have it die under your own whip.
And maybe you should lick your own melting ice cream cone and stop worrying after mine.
Because Obama is a n_____rian or Kenyan.
<Cue huge backbeat>
WHOOMP! There it iiiiis!
WHOOMP! There it iiiiis!
WHOOMP! There it iiiiis!
<Huge drum riff>
WHOOMP! There it iiiiis!
WHOOMP! There it iiiiis!
WHOOMP! There it iiiiis!
<Repeat as necessary/Party all night>
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.