Posted on 04/12/2016 4:05:50 PM PDT by centurion316
Edited on 04/12/2016 4:27:20 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
A New Jersey judge has ruled that Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz meets the constitutional requirements to be president and may appear on the state's presidential primary ballot.
Judge Jeff Masin ruled Tuesday that a child of a citizen-father or citizen-mother is "indeed a natural born Citizen within the contemplation of the Constitution."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Sorry, you lost me right there, because his grandmother remembers him being born in Kenya. Many people, including a team assembled by Joe Arpaio, claim forensic evidence proves his birth certificate is a fake. His mother did not meet the eligibility requirement to pass citizenship to her son. U.S. citizen parent must have resided in the U.S. for a total of 10 years prior to birth of the child with five of the years after the age of 14.
She was 18 when she gave birth to Barry.
I want the real truth about Obama but we aren’t going to get it, one way or the other.
Until the Supreme Court or a high US Court of Appeals looks into all the questions raised about Obama’s birth, etc., including yours, all we can do it live with it.
Obama in embedded in the Red House like a Lyme Disease ticket on a deer.
There is actually still good reason to have Obama's eligibility cleared up.
1) Everything he has enacted could immediately be rescinded (accept the additional debt he has incurred).
2) He would not be eligible for Presidential pay, Secret Service protection, or any other perks Presidents receive after their term.
Electing Ted Cruz will not make that case move forward, because then Ted Cruz would have to prove his eligibility which he can't because he isn't.
support? this isn’t american idol. it’s law.
legal definitions exist. they are being ignored so those seeking power can obtain it.
similar to the border and immigration laws. we don’t need ‘support’ for those laws. they just are. we need enforcement.
read the definition written and published in 1758, then tell me again how ANYONE with multiple citizenship possibilities at birth is a natural born citizen.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
-- The Law of Nations, 1758
read the definition written and published in 1758, then tell me again how ANYONE with multiple citizenship possibilities at birth is a natural born citizen.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
-- The Law of Nations, 1758
Nice to see conservatives loving our judicial system which is so fair, honest and constitutionally sound! Oh, wait...
And so Vattel makes a special appearance. Interesting, of course, but not our Constitution, our law, or our common law tradition, and certainly not much of our legal history before 2008.
This judge, along with Judge Pellegrini in Pennsylvania, examined the facts and the current law and came to the same conclusion: Cruz is eligible. Exactly what you recommend. The problem is that you don’t seem to like the law.
when deciding on the eligibility of a candidate, it’s a good idea to understand the requirements. if you’re confused by the definition of the words or phrases used, you should look them up.
when you look for the definition for phrases used more then 200 years ago, don’t look to msnbc or the washington post. you must look for sources available at the time the requirements were originally written.
if you can show me ANY publication that stated the definition of a natural born citizen prior to september 1787 that supports your position, then i would start to believe you.
until then, it’s just judicial corruption and laziness
BTW... don’t claim to support the Constitution if you support arbitrary interpretations in order to promote ‘your guy’. you’re as bad as those on the left claiming the Constitution is a ‘living document’ whose interpretation changes with the latest programming on television
“Ted Cruz eligible for presidential nomination”
Wouldn’t that be, “...eligible for Prime Minister nomination”?
Show me in the history of the Constitution that Vattel figured in deliberations. That conjecture invented by the original birthers.
you’re right. the Founders would never have consulted a book in publication for more then 30 years entitled ‘The Law of Nations’ when drafting the founding document for all law in their newly formed nation.
how silly of me.
you and your msnbc logic got me there.
I guess from now on the Constitution means whatever the uniparty wants it to mean. We not longer live in a constitutional republic. We, like Mexico, are ruled by a privileged oligarchy. Welcome to post constitutional America, thank you Ted Cruz.
So, you are correct, you are very silly, as are all of the Birther Brigade. I suspect that you got this notion from them, but their assertion does not mean that they are right.
The best arguments, by far, are against eligibility for Cruz.
The Pennsylvania judge mostly just quoted law review articles, especially the one from Harvard by the former and former (acting) Solicitors General (conveniently produced just in time for this election season). The Pennsylvania opinion has little or no analysis of original sources, and relies heavily on the analysis and arguments in secondary sources such as the Harvard article, without any recognition of the problems, including potential mis-use of original sources, in the secondary sources.
The Harvard article in particular has many problems. One of the big ones is that the Harvard article, after stating (correctly) that English common law is an important source for interpreting the U.S. Constitution, then completely ignores English common law and just uses English statutes as if they were the English common law, without even mentioning, let alone justifying, this sleight-of-hand.
The New Jersey judge appears to have made a more serious effort (or maybe the Cruz legal team's briefs, where the analysis probably originated, were better by that time). The New Jersey opinion uses a lot of text attempting to justify the concept that English statutes are part of the English law for purposes of interpreting the "natural born" requirement in Article II.
A major problem with this position is that the only support for including English statutes as a part of the common law comes from cases interpreting issues of state law. The states, which were basically created instantly from pre-existing colonies upon independence, naturally continued to follow the major laws of England where applicable, some by explicit legislation receiving the English law into the law of the state, and (apparently) some by judicial decision. Federal law, and federal Constitutional law in particular, is a different matter. There is no citation in the New Jersey opinion of any case that uses English statutes as a part of the English common law for purposes of interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
In addition to relying on weak support (only cases based on state law issues), the New Jersey opinion does not deal with some of the stronger arguments that the "natural born citizen" clause did not and does not incorporate the English statutes in force at the time of drafting and ratification.
For example, if the Founders created the "natural born" requirement with the understanding or intention to incorporate the statutory laws of England, then why, in the notes of the committee discussions of the drafting of the Naturalization Act of 1790, did one of the committee members state that "The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III." If the English statutes were already incorporated, why was Congress in 1790 drafting a law specifically in order to provide for what was already provided for in one of the supposedly incorporated English statutes?
The best arguments, by far, are against eligibility for Cruz.
I see you calling me names... but I don’t see any definitions of natural-born citizen supporting your interpretation published prior to 1787
So what? The significance of what he did was that he granted standing to the plantiff, he stated the facts, applied the law and made a decision. His decision included that Mr. Cruz was eligible for the Office of President, and that Cruz was a Citizen by Birth and that was identical to the term Natural Born Citizen.
More significant, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the decision and did so Per Curiam, which means that they did not issued a written decision. This occurs most often when the court rules unanimously and when the issue is not controversial (from a legal standpoint).
An appeal has already been filed, so fasten your seatbelt, we're in for a bumpy ride.
That he mostly just quoted articles simply means he probably didn't do much if any independent analysis. Doesn't prove the analysis he quotes is not correct. (But in this case, the analysis he quotes has a lot of problems.)
It is true that an appeals court should ideally affirm a lower court decision per curiam and without opinion only in a non-controversial case, but in practice appellate courts do it to dodge controversial or contentious cases too.
The courts would prefer to wrestle with a rabid bobcat than take on this issue. That’s why Judge Pelegrini’s decision will become the case law for years to come.
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.