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 ...
Elk v Wilkins verified two classes of citizenship under the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
If someone can convince a court or Congress that Ted Cruz or Barack Obama before him are naturalized as opposed to Citizens of the United States at Birth, I would be willing to go along with that ruling but as of today that hasn’t happened.
We don't. It's gone by various means that are beyond the public's will to reverse. The government is determined to transition into a globalist system, slowly enough that at no time does a significant fraction of the population practice civil disobedience.
The various means are well known - take over the institutions or education, political parties, and courts. Bingo.
Is that an echo or are you disagreeing with the two classes of citizenship stated by Elk and Wong Kim Ark? Those cases state the following two classifications:
-- If someone can convince a court or Congress that Ted Cruz or Barack Obama before him are naturalized as opposed to Citizens of the United States at Birth, I would be willing to go along with that ruling but as of today that hasn't happened. --
We've been over this ground just a few hours ago. I said that courts are not going to apply the constitution when that leads against the globalist agenda, and that independent of what the courts do, it is possible to review precedent on the subject just for grins. I cited Rogers v. Bellei, which you attempted to distinguish, then roughly dodged every contention I made after that.
You are as slippery as Obama. ;-)
First of all. Ted Cruz can’t seal his records, only a court can do that and any record that is sealed can be unsealed by a judge.
If Ted Cruz has a valid U.S. Passport then he is a US citizen. Passports are primary evidence of citizenship and identity under federal law.
No, it wasn't. He did it only to confuse lesser minds.
The courts haven't made up definitions, that's what the Birther crowd have done. They don't like it that everyone don't roll over and accept their view. The courts, in fact, have never made up a definition, they have just ruled on the law where we can find a definition. So far, they have supported the existing law. The Birthers have several definitions depending on the election and the current fashion, but the courts have never ruled on these definitions.
First of all. Ted Cruz can’t seal his records, only a court can do that and any record that is sealed can be unsealed by a judge.
If Ted Cruz has a valid U.S. Passport then he is a US citizen. Passports are primary evidence of citizenship and identity under federal law.
That was not the intent at all.
If Ted Cruz has a valid U.S. Passport then he is a US citizen
____________________________________
I have a valid U.S. Passport... am I eligible to be POTUS ???
oh and naturalization papers saying I am an American citizen...is that an issue ???
This is certainly one of the themes of the Birther Dogma. The court decision in Pennsylvania rejected this theme. There is no such a class of citizen, "citizen at birth but naturalized by statute". Cruz and all other children of American citizens whether they be born in the United States or abroad are citizens at birth and therefore natural born citizens. Unless the Pennsylvania case is overturned on appeal, this argument is over.
I was responding to this comment: “Well,...For starters, how about the release of Raphael’s US birth documents verifying that he is at least a US citizen.”
At that point we were not discussing presidential eligibility.
When any court rules that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen, get back to me.
My money is on every court and every state election board ruling that because he qualifies as a Citizen of the United States at Birth, he is also a natural born citizen.
John Mc Cain could have been elected despite being born in the Panama Canal Zone. All McCain needed was 97 more Electoral votes.
Barry Goldwater could have been elected despite being born in a territory not a state and Charles Curtis was elected Vice President despite being born in a territory.
James Madison, “the Father of the Constitution” accepted French citizenship and became a dual citizen.
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-26-02-0129
A citizen of the U.S. at birth is not the same as a natural born citizen. You are referring to the naturalization section, Section 1, of the 14th Amendment. Nowhere does the 14th Amendment speak of natural born citizens, jurisdiction or not. Its author, Congressman John Bingham, is explicit speaking to the House in 1866, “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….” Bingham’s “...born in the U.S. of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty...” also eliminates dual or triple citizens such as Cruz - Cuba, Canada, U.S.
This “citizen at birth” simply means one needn’t file paperwork. It doesn’t apply to Cruz until Congress passed one of dozens of modifications based upon the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Amendment, giving foreign-born children citizenship if one of their parents was a citizen. To twist interpretation created to insure the allegiance of our president so that Jordan’s King, Winston Churchill, and surely thousands of others would be eligible is a sad attack on our foundation, the Constitution. Some thirty attempts to amend Article II Section 1 Clause 5 have failed so people who wish to weaken the Constitution like Ted Cruz, take advantage of ignorance.
Glen Beck once warned people to read original sources. Now he won’t quote Thomas Paine, or John Marshall, or Morrison Waite, or Horace Gray, or Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice who had his own run at testing article II and lost to Woodrow Wilson, having been exposed because his, Hughes’ parents, were British subjects. Hughes, born in the U.S., had been governor of New York and a Supreme Court Justice, but he was not a natural born citizen. The issues were revealed by Democrat attorney Breckenridge Long in Americas most popular legal journal. Long cited Minor v. Happersett and explained Hughes’ ineligibility. Had Hughes beaten Wilson Democrats would have challenged in court, as they are likely to do if Cruz wins in the election. This time the Democrat is a natural born citizen.
Read the decisions. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Domiciled resident Chinese parents who observed U.S. jurisdiction was naturalized as a citizen. Marie Elg, born to naturalized citizens in New York, was returned to Sweden as a toddler when her father found work, and where her parents repudiated their U.S. citizenship, was recognized as a natural born citizen, a citizen by God that could not be altered by men (Congress), and returned to the U.S. in her early twenties. A naturalized citizen would have had to apply for naturalization.
Cruz is not ignorant. His Harvard Con. Law. professor told us that he argued as a conservative. Now he repudiates Minor, Wong Kim, Perkins, and our Constitution to suit his ambitions. We are learning how corrupt our federally appointed judges are. We are learning how little respect all three branches have for the Constitution. What to do about it when voting in this country doesn’t begin to have the integrity of even Mexico’s voting system, where voters need picture IDs with RFIDs with biometric information and ballots are paper, visible in clear containers at precincts.
I do not listen to Levin... My brain is not wired to listen to angry, rude shouting screams. I do occasionally pursue the Levin threads to see what is posted that Levin shouts. Levin is whole hog for Cruz... Thus Levin is not an 'original intent' Constitutional lawyer... Think of the 'high' the legal minds attain when they subvert the rule of law.
The liberals got away with planting an ineligible Obama in the office of president along with the help of the so called conservatives and GOPe. Now the fake conservatives intend to have their turn. I am reminded of Cruz sending out shamming voter violations to the citizens of Iowa. Those that support Curz that are 'natural born' (born of two US citizen parents on US soil) are selling out their birthright...
I am not a natural born US citizen... I was born in Germany to two US citizen parents... The US has never laid claim to German soil. But I care about the preservation of our Constitution. There was a time when the meaning of 'natural born' was taught in public education.... apparently the Constitution is just another 'common core' application...
It was Trump that forced the Obama crew to produce a born in the USA birth certificate for Barry... This judge is the enemy of the Constitution... nobody is ever going to produce a born in the USA birth certificate for Cruz.
I have no proof of anything.
I’m simply reporting what the courts have ruled and they have been quite consistent that anyone who qualifies as a Citizen of the United States at Birth under 8USC 1401 also qualifies as a Natural Born Citizen under Article II, Section 1.
That is what the trial judge ruled, on the merits, in the lawsuit that this discussion is about and that is what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed.
If anyone can convince a court or Congress of the veracity of your position, more power to them. Thus far that hasn’t happened.
When the defendant was Barack Obama there were multiple court rulings like this one: H. Brook Paige v. James Condos, Secretary of State of Vermont and President Barack Obama: Robert R. Bent, Presiding Judge
“While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”—Vermont Superior Court, November 14, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/113533939
This is one of the most treasured pronouncements within the Birther movement and cited on many blogs. But, it seems to be an orphan, for this seems to have sprung from whole cloth in the imagination of some blogger.
Can we find an contrary view beyond the bloggersphere? Indeed, beginning with the words of Judge Pelligrini in his decision (later affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania):
...this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and the statutory history, that "a natural born citizen" includes any person who it a United States Citizen from birth
Accordingly, because he was a citizen of the United States from birth, Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as the President of the United States
And, we can find in a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court an opinion of Chief Justice Taney writing in support of the majority (Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 Nov, 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.' Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.
On this question, I'll come down on the side of published opinions of legitimate courts of law until a credible source can be found to show that the courts don't agree. Perhaps because the courts so generally accept the definition given by Pelligrini, we may guess why the PA Supreme Court chose to issue a Per Curiam decision. I'm guessing that this is will be the end of this, excepting the odd flailing about that will be quickly squashed like a bug.
I still contend you are wrong. Here is the 14th Amendment:
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.
Show me where in the amendment that it says they are natural born citizens.
It doesn't, it just proclaims they are citizens, period.
Furthermore, Cruz like Obama and Rubio, were determined to be citizens by virtue of Immigration Acts passed in Congress as the power given to Congress by the Constitution to determine how citizenship can be acquired, via naturalization or by virtue of birth on or off American soil.
A natural born citizen needs neither the 14th amendment or Immigration Acts to determine their citizenship. That means only children born of American parents on American soil are natural born citizens.
Not so fast. There are a lot of suckers to be fleeced into contributing to fruitless, but nice sounding, initiatives to stop his candidacy, throw him out of office, etc. Look at all the cash they raked in for the 8 years of the Obamanation. No way these birds are going to let their rice bowls be shattered.
It’s the same with Cruz as Obama. If even one of your parents is a US Cititzen you are a US Citizen with full rights no matter where you are born. Or are all those military kids not eligible to run for Pres too?
It is a good point, but consider:
Except for the one circumstance of eligibility for President, there is no difference between citizens at birth and naturalized citizens so the anchor babies are citizens, period,
Secondly, the implement of the Constitution is through legislation and in this case the current law is USC 8, Section 1401 which clearly states that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen at birth (aka natural born citizen).
Like any other constitutional dispute, the procedure is to challenge the law on constitutional grounds and get a ruling from the Court to strike down the law. This law has never been challenged on Presidential eligibility rules, and until the PA court decision, the courts have never heard a specific case on Presidential eligibility. Well, now we have one, so those who disagree can join with the appeal of the PA Supreme Court decision and go boldly forth. The courts have given lots of hints on what will happen when they see a case and it’s not good for your point of view. Good luck.
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.