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 ...
All persons born or naturalized “IN” the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
subject to both political & physical (local) jurisdiction. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3407761/posts?page=18#18
This is the first case heard on the merits and sadly, the merits were not as prepared as they should have been. Sloppy preparation begets getting one losing. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3407761/posts?page=18#18
Many SCOTUS cases say the opposite of what you do. No SCOTUS case says what you do.
The U.S. Supreme Court has "clearly, unambiguously made the distinction between natural-born and a naturalized citizen, Elliott argued."No they didn't," [the judge] Pellegrini replied. ...
In the end, Elliott lost his case. Later in the day, Pellegrini issued an order leaving Cruz on the ballot, finding legal and statutory history that shows that a "natural born citizen" includes any person who is a U.S. citizen from birth.
Interesting that the judge finds "naturalized" and "natural born" to not be mutually exclusive.
Nonsense. If the framers intended what you claim they would not have made a clear distinction between ‘natural born’ citizens and citizens in Article 2, sectin 1, clause 5.
You may as well claim that there’s really no difference between a “lightning bug” and lightning; there’s a big difference if the latter lands on your head.
So Cruz has three options: 1. get a constitutional amendment passed changing Art.2; 2. Lose to Trump; or, 3. Lose to the Democrats, a. In court, b. The first Tuesday this November.
It’s starting to look a lot like #2.
Neither Congress nor the Electoral College decide questions of law.
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
So Cruz was made a citizen by the authority of Congress, not thru naturalization. I would be surprised if Cruz lost.
I cited the US Supreme court, what more do you want?
No SCOTUS case says what you do
On the contrary, if one reads those SCOTUS cases very carefully, applying the legal definitions to the terms as the law defines them to be, everyone of those cases are constitutional. The problem is with “natural born”, all others are citizens by statute, including the Wong Kim Ark case of 1898, which is very cleverly written, and which was also written by Justice Gray, however, Justice Gray does not change the meaning of NBC. WKA was born in the US, he perfected his citizenship before leaving for China, thus he was naturalized by the issuance of a US passport. WKA already had the birth on the soil factor, and upon his swearing allegiance to the US before receiving his passport, he perfected his allegiance to the US.
Sorry, I misread the thread...this was NOT meant for you
Sorry, I misread the thread...this was NOT meant for you
If Cruz is made a citizens solely by act of Congress, then he is naturalized.
What the report attributes to the judge is a constitutional axiom that a person can simultaneously be naturalized solely by act of Congress, and natural born.
Sorry this election is too important to have even a shadow of a doubt. I can see Hillary standing at the border and pointing to Cruz’s birthplace. It will absolutely lose the election and we can’t afford that.
That’s a ridiculous proportion. With the one parent approach, if you have a single American ancestor, you are eligible to be president.
For example, do you really believe Princess Gabriella of Monaco is a NBC? Under your theory, she is. Grace Kelly was a citizen so Prince Albert automatically became one even though he wasn’t born here. And now, his children are all NBCs as well. And so will their kids be, and so forth.
I think its a little hard to believe that this is the system the founding fathers were trying to setup. Ted Cruz is not a NBC.
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703
Cruz is a naturalized citizen. Naturalized by the authority of congress exercised by the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens.
Thanks for that. Pellegrini cites tertiary sources, not cases! Funny stuff. Even admits that he only read articles.
It isn’t worth fussing about to me, because I am voting for Trump. But I don’t think you are reading the laws correctly. Let me know when the Pennsylvania case is decided and we will see what the judge says.
It’s clear to me that if where you are born DOESN’T mATTER AT ALL, then Obama and his legion of lawyers would have stepped forward to say just that 7 years ago. Evidently hundreds of the smartest lawyers in the country thought that the place of birth issue was a hill to die on. Why?
The Framers INTENDED that the president by born in America, and bred by parents who are citizens. This is a special, natural citizenship that is unassailable. Cruz is ONLY A CITIZEN BECAUSE CONGRESS DECREED THAT IT WOULD BE SO. Without Congress, Cruz would not even be a citizen.
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.