Posted on 03/10/2016 9:12:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
HARRISBURG -- Carmon Elliott is not a lawyer. But he got to play one Thursday in state court when he tried to convince a judge that Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is really a Canadian who has no constitutional right to be a candidate for U.S. president.
Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini of Commonwealth Court was as impressed with Elliott's oral arguments as he was his Uncle Sam tie.
"By the way, I like your tie," said Pellegrini, who's known for his wit as well as his probing legal questions.
Some judges don't like hearing election petition cases argued by pro se litigants because they can be unprepared and disruptive to the political process, Pellegrini said. Not so in Elliott's case.
"I have to compliment you," Pellegrini said in court. "You represented yourself well today."
Elliott, a retiree who lives in Pittsburgh and is a Republican with a self-professed affinity for the U.S. Constitution, went up against Robert N. Feltoon, a lawyer from the Philadelphia firm Conrad O'Brien.
Feltoon argued that Elliott's petition should be dismissed. The U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on whether a person born outside the United States as Cruz was can run for president, he argued. It is a decision, Feltoon said, that should be made by Congress and the Electoral College, which ultimately elects the president.
Elliott's petition was one of several "birther" lawsuits filed against Cruz after GOP front-runner Donald Trump openly questioned whether the Texas senator can serve as president.
An Illinois judge tossed one lawsuit last week....
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
Why is the world would we want to nominate someone with this hanging over their head? I know all the arguments, but it is the major reason I cannot support Cruz. We need to win this election, we need someone electable. Ted is not.
People that demand their Constitutional right to bear arms are derided by some as “gun nuts”.
People that demand their Constitutional right to a natural born President are derided by some as “birthers”.
Anyone that derides someone for claiming their God given Constitutional rights is a disgusting, Constitution hating, liberal.
I don’t know if he is or isn’t eligible, but I absolutely guarantee you that the DNC will find a federal judge who agrees it’s a good question and deserves to be determined in a courtroom the day after Cruz would become the nominee. And once they do, chaos will ensue.
Now read the article.
Look at Hillary.
Insane.
Regardless of any ruling, anybody who thinks Democrats won’t be using Teds Canadian birthplace in the General has poutine for brains
People that demand their Constitutional right to bear arms are derided by some as “gun nuts”.
People that demand their Constitutional right to a natural born President are derided by some as “birthers”.
Anyone that derides someone for claiming their God given Constitutional rights is a disgusting, Constitution hating, liberal.
My nightmare scenario: Cruz vs. Hillary – Hillary indicted, Cruz ineligible – Obama forever
Great, now you have me looking under my bed and my closet for monsters.
Kenyan Sunday Standard, electronic edition, of June 27, 2004
Wouldn’t be Obama, it would be Agent Orange himself, John F’ing Boehner.
Or maybe the new VP. Trump?
The U.S. is a by blood nation and not a by soil nation like others (Canada). Kings did by soil. Born on their soil, they own you (subject). The founders rejected that and made natural born citizenship a blood thing. It doesn’t matter where you are born, it matters who are your parents. In the early days it was just the blood of the father. Later it could also be the blood of the mother with stipulations on her age, etc. Cruz passes this test. Obama does not. Remember it is not where you are born but who your parents are. Obama’s mother could not pass on her citizenship at the time Obama was born. And since I bet that he was never naturalized, he is not even a citizen. Since this also blows up the whole anchor baby issue, the dems will fight tooth and nail against it.
:) Sorry
This is bull donkey.
Has been decide in multi courts, I don’t give a rip if you like it or not.....Cruz is NBC
Ted is both eligible and electable. The arguments against his natural born citizen status are generally well-intended attempts to defend the Constitution, but they are rooted in misunderstanding. If people wouldn’t go all wobbly at the thought of having to fight and win on this, it would be no detraction to him at all. On the merits, he has a great case.
Peace,
SR
14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized, “IN” the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.
Elk v. Wilkins (1884)
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which...
“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)...
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized...
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”...
“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”…Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.
Attorney General Lynch likely has everything lined up, including the judge.
I agree. I am for Trump, but this citizenship stuff is just silliness. Haven’t a couple of these lawsuits already flopped?
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.
