Posted on 03/31/2016 11:39:57 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
HARRISBURG, Pa. - Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has won a case in Pennsylvania's highest court that had challenged his eligibility to appear on the state's GOP primary ballot and serve as president.
The state Supreme Court order Thursday upheld a lower-court judge's decision to dismiss the case.
A Pittsburgh resident and registered Republican voter, Carmon Elliott, had argued that Cruz isn't eligible to run for president or to appear on Pennsylvania's April 26 primary ballot because he was born in Canada....
(Excerpt) Read more at wfmz.com ...
Canadian law says otherwise:
http://www.pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/canadian-citizenship-act-1947
Chapter 15, Section 5A is very clear: “A person born after the commencement of this Act(the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947) is a natural born Canadian citizen-—”
Cruz was born in Calgary Canada and thus was born a natural born Canadian citizen.
Because of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, passed by the US Congress, Cruz’s mother could impart American citizenship to him because and only because she met certain statutory requirements for age and residency time in the Us prior to Cruz’s birth.
Thus, Cruz is an American citizen by statute, and not natural born.
Judge Pellegrini’s statement that any citizen is a natural born citizen has no statutory nor historical precedent. This is not even asserted in Wong, 1898.
Well, judges have erred before.
The Founders in the first Congress in 1790 passed a law whch stated “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.”
The trial court’s ruling is consistent with the Original Intent of the Founders:
“Having extensively reviewed all the articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a “natural born citizen” includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.”
Ted Cruz was a United States Citizen from birth. Here’s the current law of the land: 8 U.S.C. § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years”
And these same courts found a right to kill the unborn in the Constitution. But wait until Hillry or whomever the liberals nominate... Reap the whirlwind.
Quite right and evidence exists among the writings of the founders, the discussions surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, actions of the 1st Congress, etc. that this was the intent all along, albeit not unanimous. Of course, the Constitution left the power to deal with the details to the Congress. Reinforced by the 14th Amendment, very few argue with your point. The few being the Birthers, but they don't count.
No, that was invented by the Birthers and adopted by you, but it was never true. It is true that at one time, descent of citizenship to children had to pass through the Father, but no longer and certainly not since the 14th Amendment.
It's no coincidence that Donald Trump and a few of his supporters threw this issue out to the press like meat to a pack of hounds only when Cruz began to move up in the Iowa polls. It's a distraction from the issues and from Trump's highly mixed political history. But with this decision they may have ironically done Cruz a favor by moving the question to an early resolution. Maybe there's a chance that horse will rise and run again, and y'all can keep up the beating, but she's smelling awfully ripe to me.
Some days, this song plays in my head and I like to sing along...
Swear allegiance to the flagA lot has changed since that song was released 1985. Dangerous Ground, indeed.
Whatever flag they offer
Never hint at what you really feel
Teach the children quietly
For some day sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood stillCan you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Not exactly, as you would know if you carefully read the contents of the order.
... the Order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
Victor Williams's pro se Notice to Intervene as Appellant is DENIED.
Appellant's Application for Oral Argument is DENIED.
“Not under ‘original intent’!!!! Real conservatives do not subvert the Constitution.”
How come Heritage never weighed in? Since many on this site at one time said Levin for SCOTUS and assumed he was one of the most scholarly when it came to the constitution, what did he say?
The fact that the Canadians granted him citizenship is not relevant to what this country decided to do. We are not governed by Canadian law.
You obviously don’t understand how.the judicial system works. That is the only decision the lower.court could make.to assure that it gets to.the SCOTUS and be consistent with constitution. . Lower courts cannot rule.on cases that are not based on caselaw.but only based on the intent of the constitution. They can only rule on case law Only the SCOTUS can make those rulings. This is a once in a hundred year case not your normal caselaw.lawyer decision. The very best of our constitutional.scholars will be presenting amicus brief and vying to present their side to.the court to go down in the legal history books..
All previous cases have been based on standing not merit.
Its an here we go decision.....
Its a shame it will not be videoed for future law scholars
Exactly
Choose?
99% of the women
will choose the one on the left.
the other 1% are blind.
That's false, unless "naturalized" and "natural born" can apply to a single person. There are many court precedents on the subject of citizenship to those born abroad, and NONE of them find that person to be natural born; 100% of them find the person to be naturalized.
The bulk of the academic literature either overlooks these precedents, or cherry picks phrases from them in order to support the desired outcome.
Now, you are the one making the initial contention, and I'll retract my position if you can cite ONE case in support of your contention. Just ONE.
I disagree. The PA Supreme could have said courts have the power to decide the issue (agreeing with Pellegrini), and then reversing Pellegrini on any of the arguments raised by Elliott or the amici. This way, Cruz could appeal to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS could, as it will with Elliott's petition, whether or not to take the case. Either way, SCOTUS is given an opportunity to act on the outcome of the PA Supreme Court decision.
Having a loyalist ancestor is not the end of the world. Having no ancestor is the Ted Cruz solution...
Repealed in 1795
---
includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.”
Why? A natural born citizen is necessarily a citizen of the United States, but a citizen of the United States is NOT necessarily a natural born citizen.
The court essentially attempts to include naturalized citizens in the natural born category, thus negating the purpose of the law itself. No branch of any government authority has the ability to negate a Constitutional clause.
---
Here’s the current law of the land: 8 U.S.C. § 1401
Codes and statues are administrative, or positive law. They cannot define natural born.
If they could, the term natural born would actually appear in them, but they don't.
Hyperbole. The issue is in the hands of the voter, it's not a threat to the Constitution, Of course, we have real threats to the Constitution, mostly related to power of the Executive and the Federal Government over land, eminent domain, usurpation of state powers, judicial legislative overreach, etc., etc.
Remember, this all started by those who wanted the courts to save us from Obama. It didn't work and we got the President that the voters deserved.
For what it's worth, I suspect there are plenty of NBCs born to liberals who already owe their allegience to places like Saudi Arabia (or, in the case of Bernie S, mother Russia).
That is not a FOIA request and, from what you linked: “A Genealogy Record Request can provide an information photocopy of a naturalization record only.”
If anyone can prove to a court that Ted Cruz was naturalized, they should do so.
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.