Posted on 02/19/2016 4:41:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I think this Illinois suit will take a long time to work its way up to the Federal level and when it gets there the court will summarily dismiss it on standing. If we learned anything in the Obozo go-around, it was that you need a competing candidate for standing in the Federal courts. Otherwise, the slip and slide judges will avoid the case. Additionally, I do not believe the “political question” dodge, cited by some, will work at the Federal level because the Article II ‘natural born citizen’ term is truly a Constitutional interpretation issue that only the Federal court system can resolve. Courts can not legitimately say that the people and Congress can define this term in the political arena. If they do, Federal judges have deliberately abdicating their jurisdictional duty to decide Constitutional questions.
That is the arrangement established in the constitution, and that is the arrangement adopted by 100% of the precedents.
We don’t know. That’s why a clear definition is necessary.
"Clear" to him, and "clear" to me, but it's never been settled by the Supreme Court. And even though Cruz believes (and I believe) it's "clear," there is still an argument going the other way. And as long as there is, and someone raises it, then we have that question mark, no matter how tiny it may seem.
Mind you, we're simply talking about the meaning of "natural born citizen" in the context of the Constitution's requirements for presidential eligibility, not about whether he (or anyone else born abroad to at least one U.S. citizen parent) is a citizen.
Frankly I thought the Dems would wait until he had won before unleashing this type of chaos.
There is a real question about NBC status. The most restrictive interpretation is that to be an NBC you have to have, at birth, both parents with US citizenship and birthplace in the US. I think the whole point of the NBC clause is to insure that the president does not have divided loyalties and that no foreign power has a claim on him. Sen. Cruz's birth in Canada to a US mother and Cuban father creates a person with potentially three citizenships and a significant divided loyalty question.
That voter does not have standing and this will be thrown out.
>>>If not for the 14th Amendment and the laws enacted to implement it not a single African-American in this country would be a citizen of any kind. Are you saying they can’t be natural-born citizens because of the law?
The first generation of black Americans were naturalized by law. Their offspring are natural born because they inherited their citizenship from their parents.
I'm not sure there are any originalists in today's legal system.
Point taken but the need to interpret "natural born citizen" by how it was understood at the time according to natural law still stands. It does not matter, Constitutionally, if today we do not hold to the concept of natural law. The framers did and this is what they understood by "natural born citizen."
Here’s a good read on the issue of Natural Born Citizen: http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
‘Media and GOPe are making the only people I trust not electable’ ???
Correction -
the one you trust is making himself inelectable - he was born outside of USA.
He would have been We the people’s hero if he had the courage to address this issue truthfully and shine the light on obama’s ineligibility as well, resulting in the removal of obama and all his ‘policies’ and ‘appointees’ from the history of USA.
>>> Everyone’s citizenship is established by law, even if you are born in the US. See USC Title 8 section 1401. Section A is the law that makes those born on US soil citizens at birth.
This is the “anchor baby” clause. It establishes naturalized citizenship of persons born on US soil to non citizen parents.
If the parents are not citizens at time of birth, the child cannot inherit their citizenship.
I find it interesting that in all the discussion and argument over this issue, NOBODY seems to want to address WHY the founding fathers used that term natural born if it had no apparent meaning.
The founding fathers were HIGHLY concerned about protecting the highest office in the land from foreign influence.
Under the apparent new definitions of “natural born” which modern ‘scholars’ present today to defend Obama’s legitimacy as well as Cruz’s eligibility, there is NO protection of the office from foreign influence.
Was it certain that the framers of the constitution had Vattel’s writings in mind?
Or was it the writings of Blackstone?
Safrguns, just so you know, because he is hiding the ball on you, DoodleDawg's position is that the 14th amendment does not have the force of law on its own.
It appears that taxcontrol is another who holds that the 14th amendment has no force of its own. In other words, if 8 USC 1401(a) didn’t exist, then the 14th amendment phrase “born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would not apply.
Trump didn’t say it. He said he heard it from other people who were saying it. That’s the difference.
http://powderedwigsociety.com/eligibility-of-cruz-and-rubio/#
Pretty straightforward and easy to understand presentation about Cruz and Rubio’s eligibility to run for POTUS.
You are a flake. Sorry but you can’t reason with a flake. Law is on Cruz’s side. My daughter who was born overseas with me as only us citizen is a natural born us citizen. Just because Trump says something you people believe it. It’s amazing. He’s your pied piper.
Originalism is not going to be a winning argument in this case. There may be some other creative argument, but the courts aren’t going to revive originalism after burying it for a hundred years.
Saw that one... She does an excellent job of explaining why the term was used and where it came from, and how it applies.
Pretty sure I used at least a couple of her points in my previous posts here.
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.