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 ...
Consider this, if citizen would have been Founder’s requirement intent, then they wouldn’t have used the phrase natural born citizen to single out the distinction between citizens who are eligible.
Hahahahah. The law is fine. There are ZERO limitations on Congress's power to naturalize.
The question in this case is whether a court can hold that a naturalized person can simultaneously be natural born. Courts have never deviated from the proposition that a person made citizen solely by Act of Congress is naturalized.
If a court were to strike the power to naturalize, the remedy that you say is appropriate, the court would be removing a power from Congress, that the constitution grants to Congress.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.The 14th Amendment, which did not and could not alter the Minor definition of natural born citizen provided a "uniform rule for naturalization" , based upon Article 1 Section 8, so that some of those who were aliens or foreigners, as Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley would have been in 1868, are now naturalized at birth. No law amended the Constitution or reinterpreted the Minor confirmation of the common law definition for natural born citizenship, and only the Supreme Court has the authority to replace Minor v. Happersett. For those who may still be confused by the 1s Congress, 1790 Naturalization Act, that was the only time Congress ever mentioned natural born citizenship in U.S. Code - a law or act. The 1790 Act was entirely rescinded in 1795 and "natural born citizen" replaced with "citizen". it was, after all, a "Naturalization Act". We see the effect of our corrupted institutions of education which fail, even in law schools, to communicate our legal history. The Constitution doesn't have term definitions because the meanings of words evolve - change - over time. Madison explained that its meanings would be lost with language changes if it were not construed in the common law and language familiar to its framers. That is why Chief Justice Waite points out "...with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar."
The author of the 14th Amendment's first section, the citizenship clause, explicitly told 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….,/I>Pennsylvania cites no Constitutional definition. Their Supreme Court demonstrates the corruption of our legal system. They know the truth, just as Ted Cruz knows the truth. His constitutional law professor Larry Tribe confirmed as much in the Boston Globe on Jan 11 of this year. After Obama we are being treated to politicians taking advantage of the ignorance and/or impotence of the public. One can only guess that such a compromised politician, rather like Justice Roberts, can then be counted on to do what he/she is told by those pulling the strings.
It should not be forgotten that the Democrats have standing to dismiss an ineligible president or vice president, and have s significant majority on the appendage of the Democrat party called the Supreme Court. The only resson they might not is because with Cruz, and his previous positions on immigration, and Heidi's executive position at the Council on Foreign Relations, they may be getting just what they want. Were they to challenge, they would need to overturn the 14th Amendment, Minor, Wong Kim Ark, Perkins v. Elg; Article II Section 1 clause 6, if anyone still cares, gives congress the authority to chose Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush or Karl Rove, who certainly knows Washington politics.
Take your argument to court. I’m very interested in how the courts deal with a case that decided that women have no constitutional right to vote (Minor v. Happersett). Moreover, the quote that is often cited in these discussions has nothing to do with the decision in the case, it is a part of the facts of the case and was inserted to inform that all parties had stipulated to the fact that the woman in the case was a U.S. citizen born on U.S. soil, it was about a particular one individual. Using that case in court will get you laughed out of the courtroom.
You might take a look at this link, it will help you to read Supreme Court decision.
I have learned the hard way that relying on any information that comes from the Birther crowd is a very hazardous course. They are crackpots and frequently wrong.
Not surprisingly, you are wrong Centurion, whether by ignorance or design. Minor v. Happersett was specifically about the 14th Amendment, and whether the privileges clause gave "citizens" the right to vote. Since before the 14th Amendment, as Chief Justice Minor pointed out, you were either a natural born citizen or an "alien or a foreigner". It was necessary to the decision that Virginia Minor be confirmed as a citizen. The only federally defined citizens before the 14th Amendment, "an Uniform rule for naturalization", were natural born citizens and thus the need to nail down the common-law definition. As Chief Justice Waite pointed out, because Mrs. Minor was a natural born citizen, she was a citizen. It sounds like a tautology, but read it a few times. That several sovereign states didn't grant citizenship to slaves had not been resolved, preventing the federal resolution for who were naturalized citizen before the 14th Amendment. Since the 14th Amendment never mentioned suffrage, Mrs. Minor's voting rights could not have been altered by the privileges clause. Suffrage for all citizens required an explicit amendment, which wasn't passed until 1920.
Your attempts to apply Alinsky's 5th rule, are a sad reminder of the Obot wars at FR during Obama's first term. Anyone who would depend upon the American Bar Association for guidelines on how to read Supreme Court decisions is sadly misguided. Keep up the name calling. If anyone didn't understand your objectives from your attempt at misdirection, they will know from your name calling and left-wing tactics that you don't belong at FR.
If anyone is still reading these responses, don't bother with the thoroughly party dominated American Bar Association, or with the ridiculous Congressional Research Service essays, or with Harvard's Solictor's General, along with Larry Tribe and Ted Olson who all conveniently forgot that the 1790 Naturalization Act was completely rescinded, and any mention, ever, by Congress, of natural born citizens was replaced by "citizens". If Congress had the authority to interpret the Constitution we wouldn't need a supreme court. If one is a citizen, not natural born, then one is a naturalized citizen, like Cruz, Obama, Rubio, Jindal, Haley, Schwarzenegger, Albright, Brezinski, Chester Arthur, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, and lots of people who didn't run, or weren't considered for candidacy as president. If Cruz is a naturalized citizen, so is the King of Jordan, whose mother was a U.S. citizen, a truth which probably doesn't bother Heidi Cruz, on the executive board of the Council on Foreign Relations. Or perhaps we, by the example of the European Union would be better off as members of a North American Union with Canada and Mexico?
If anyone can find a judge anywhere in America, from a local Small Claims Court to the U.S. Supreme Court who would agree with your position, I’d be most interested in reading their opinion.
Additionally, if anyone can find a Congressional Committee Chairperson who would be willing to hold hearings on the requirements for Natural Born Citizenship, that would be fascinating to watch on CSPAN.
I assert:
This case was about suffrage, Minor argued that Missouri denied the vote to women and that was in violation of the 14th Amendment. The Court decided the case on other arguments, so the 14th Amendment was irrelevant. In the facts laid down in the opinion the Court acknowledged that Minor was a natural born citizen, but that that was just to stipulate that that fact was agreed by all parties. Neither the 14th Amendment or the determination of citizenship were part of the decision.
To support my assertion, I will quote selections of the opinion, written by the Chief Justice, Mr. Waite. I don't include anything from the syllabus as it is not part of the opinion and can give an incorrect impression of the case.
I'll label each selection explaining what element of the opinion it represents. This is important because many readers confuse the facts or the rationale within an opinion as a part of the decision. They aren't.
Facts - this identifies the case and describes what it is about.
The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.
Facts - This is more explanation and identifies the legal issues involved.
It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
Facts - Rationale. This discussion includes citizenship, specifically focusing on women. A statement in this paragraph states that women were citizens before the 14th Amendment, refuting Minor's argument that the 14th Amendment gave her suffrage.
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
Facts - This paragraph just states that citizens can either become so by birth or by naturalizatiaon.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
Facts - Rationale. This discussion is necessary to establish that Minor is a citizen and recognizing that the Court must decide if all citizens have the right to vote. The Birther Movement like to cite this paragraph to prove that this case decided who were natural born citizens, but Mr. Justic Waite did no such thing. In fact, he points out that he only cited the circumstances that applied to Minor and not to any other. That sentence is conveniently omitted from the Birther tomes. To review, this is not part of the disposition or the decision, it is simply part of the explanation for the decision that they reached.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Facts - Rationale. This is an explanation of why this dispute has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.
The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.
Facts - Rationale. The rest of the opinion goes into length for the rationale and history of suffrage in the United States and that women were not included before the 14th Amendment and why the 14th Amendment did not change this arrangement. Since, that is not of interest for this discussion, it is not included
Dispostion - This is the decision
Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT.
The Court affirmed the lower court decision that found that Minor did not have a constitutional right to the vote. The case only decided that point, not who was a natural born citizen, or who anything having to do with citizenship status. This silly myth was invented during the Birther Wars of 2008. It was bogus then and it still is.
I know that none of this will change your opinion and I don't care, but I wanted something on record to stand against the nonsense and others repeatedly post. I'll keep a copy handy so that I don't have to do this again.
Cruz’s mother never changed her citizenship because she was not long enough in Canada to qualify for it and that is factual
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.