Posted on 04/17/2016 5:57:25 PM PDT by writer33
There are several resident status classifications in the United States: natural born citizen, naturalized citizen, diplomatic immunity, temporary resident (on a visa), lawful permanent resident (green card holder), and illegal alien. Ted Cruz isn't the child of diplomats, and he was never naturalized as a citizen.
So either he is an illegal alien or a natural born citizen. There is no middle ground. If you don't believe he is a natural born citizen, then you believe there is an illegal alien serving in the U.S. Senate. There is no middle ground. You should immediately call for his deportation.
The Constitution gives explicit power to the Congress to determine citizenship and border enforcement. Since the Constitution never defines explicitly what natural born citizen means, that means beginning with the 1790 Naturalization Act Congress has been defining it — which the Constitution gives Congress the power to do.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
There is nothing wrong with the process of the judiciary addressing these issues. The problem stems from the fact we have so many biased and unqualified Judges being given these tasks.
They are simply not objective, and suffer from an ongoing "herd mentality" regarding precedent and law.
I keep pointing out that the scientific methodology of "first principles" is better than simply following the ruts left by previous court rulings.
There is another branch of government that could address these issues, the legislative.
Which is absolutely and completely political in the best case, and absolutely and completely incompetent in matters such as this in the worst case.
Nor do I, but the issue in some of those court cases was whether the public had a right to COMPEL the Secretary of State, (0r other election officials) to do their D@mn job.
The court ruled, "No, the Public does NOT have a right to compel State election officials to do their D@mn job. " They can do their job if they wish, but nobody can make them do it.
Again, just pure, concentrated unadulterated idiocy from the Courts. It's probably a long distance leftover from the Prigg v Pennsylvania decision back in 1842, and is another example of how the slavery issue just totally bollixed our laws.
In many states the law says that the Secretary of State MUST approve the nominee of a “recognized political party” for the ballot.
A change in the wording of state election law is needed in those states because the “damn job” of the Secretary of State is to rubber stamp a party’s nominee.
In most states the Secretary of State has no investigative budget, no legislative enforcement ability (ie subpoena power) and no staffing to conduct a thorough examination of candidates’ qualifications.
In Alabama the state Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state law dd not empower the Secretary of State to investigate Barack Obama’s natural born citizenship. Alabama has an elected Supreme Court with nine elected Republicans on the bench.
When the author claims his work is the “definitive smackdown” it generally winds up being otherwise.
Back to that Prigg v Pennsylvania for this sort of nonsense. Obviously Constitutional law is supreme, but apparently States are under no obligation to enforce constitutional law.
Certainly in the case of Prigg v Pennsylvania they weren't.
A change in the wording of state election law is needed in those states because the “damn job” of the Secretary of State is to rubber stamp a party’s nominee.
No, the law just needs to be tossed out as "unconstitutional." It is and ought to be the duty of every government official to ensure compliance with constitutional law.
This is a situation where the courts should have been doing their D@mn job for the last two centuries.
In one post you denigrate the courts as useless and an hour later you want them to resolve the issue!
Existing courts are worse than useless, but correctly functioning courts could and should handle the issue.
The courts have been malfunctioning since at least Roosevelt's appointment of kook judges for four terms as President.
A BILL To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to revise the law with respect to citizenship at birth of certain children born abroad of United States citizens.Take note: Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not make "natural born citizens", it specifically states "the following shall be nationals and citizen of the United States at birth".CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN BORN ABROAD OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS. (a) IN GENERAL- Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended-- (1) by inserting `natural born' after `The following shall be nationals and';
There goes the "citizen at birth = natural born citizen" myth.
So if existing courts are worse than useless then some future court can clean up the mess. Got it.
Not bloody likely. Some past court might, but from future courts I predict nothing but desolation and idiocy as far as the eye can see.
The system is non-functional, and the fundamentals need to be restored.
I don't think it's going to happen, at least not until after the gods of the copybook headings return.
You and I both know we are just pissing into the wind. Nobody really cares about accuracy, they just want to believe what they want to believe.
They use the courts in the same manner as a drunk uses a lamppost. For support, not for illumination.
The author is clueless.
Per the constitution, the criteria is natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution.
Ignorance of the constitution and history does not support this argument.
And dishonest.
No documentation has suggested that the parents had to be natural born citizens for the child to be an NBC; just that both parents had to be citizens, and that the child was born in the USA. No legislation or act of congress can affect such a child's citizenship. They cannot be citizens of any other nation; neither by inheritance, nor by geography.
Cruz is a fraud, and every American who supports his bid for the presidency is a traitor to the USA and its constitution.
It certainly seem so.
It certainly seemS so.
Except the law of the land states:
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...”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
That is why no judicial ruling or act of Congress has found Ted Cruz to be ineligible.
That law states “citizen”. Nowhere does it state “natural born citizen”.
“citizen at birth = natural born citizen” is a myth.
No court and no action of Congress has determined that to be the case.
“Having extensively reviewed all 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.”
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/03/pennsylvania-judge-rules-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen-tossing-eligibility-lawsuit.html/
Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini relied on articles rather than law and precedent. He did not provide any analysis.
NJ ALJ Masin did the same thing and even cited to Pelligrini’s opinion.
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.