Posted on 05/16/2022 9:10:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court sided with Senator Ted Cruz in a 6-3 decision issued Monday morning in a case brought against him by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over how loans from candidates can be repaid following an election cycle.
The decision was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett while Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent and was joined in the minority by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor.
Sen. Ted Cruz, who clerked on the Supreme Court, has won his case in FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate. The court ruled 6-3 that a federal campaign-finance law limiting repayment of loans by candidates violated the First Amendment. https://t.co/KRfI1zNhDR— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 16, 2022
As Roberts explains, the situation at issue — while convoluted by the bureaucratic intricacies of U.S. election law — is fairly straight forward:
In order to jumpstart a fledgling campaign or finish strong in a tight race, candidates for federal office often loan money to their campaign committees. A provision of federal law regulates the repayment of such loans. Among other things, it bars campaigns from using more than $250,000 of funds raised after election day to repay a candidate’s personal loans. This limit on the use of post-election funds increases the risk that candidate loans over $250,000 will not be repaid in full, inhibiting candidates from making such loans in the first place. The question is whether this restriction violates the First Amendment rights of candidates and their campaigns to engage in political speech.
The FEC issue arose after Cruz's successful 2018 campaign that was the most expensive U.S. Senate campaign in the nation's history. As the majority opinion explains, Cruz loaned his campaign $260,000 in the final stretch of his race against Vanity Fair cover model Robert Francis O'Rourke. The Cruz campaign began to repay the loan after a 20-day window following the election in which loan repayment of more than than $250,000 is allowed, meaning Cruz didn't receive repayment of the final $10,000 inline with election law. Cruz and his Ted Cruz for Senate Committee then filed action in U.S. District Court, alleging that the law prohibiting loans over a certain amount from being repaid violated the First Amendment.
After hearing the case, the District Court granted summary judgment and held that a loan-repayment limitation is a burden on political speech that lacks adequate justification.
As Chief Justice Roberts writes in the decision affirming the D.C. District Court's judgment, "By restricting the sources of funds that campaigns may use to repay candidate loans, Section 304 increases the risk that such loans will not be repaid. That in turn inhibits candidates from loaning money to their campaigns in the first place, burdening core speech." Roberts further notes that "This Court has recognized only one permissible ground for restricting political speech: the prevention of “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance." The government's evidence to support its case, Roberts states, "concerns the sort of 'corruption,' loosely conceived, that we have repeatedly explained is not legitimately regulated under the First Amendment."
The Supreme Court has not addressed it.
In fact, Clarence Thomas admitted that they ducked the Obama question.
I think Robert’s would have been more conservative if he had been left an associate justice rather than being elevated to Chief Justice.
Obama should be an object lesson of why the founders were correct.
I said that a person who had been born as an American citizen was a natural born citizen. I disagreed with Lurkinanloomin.
Yes, possible.
It’s not a “personal loan”. This is not money that was loaned to Cruz, it is money Cruz loaned to the campaign. Why shouldn’t campaign contributions be used to pay campaign debts?
You keep missing the point - deliberately, I think. These contributions do not go to satisfy the candidate’s loans, they go to settle the campaign’s loans. In this particular case, the loan was made by the candidate to the campaign. The candidate is not getting anything extra in this case, just getting back what he loaned.
Bump
Under the 14th Amendment’s Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship
Or the King of Jordan hoes mother, “Queen Noor” as an American.
Yes, that’s another one, thanks.
bump
“Cruz is an opportunist seeking to take advantage of the stupidity of Americans not knowing what natural born citizen means, same as Obama.“
Cruz isn’t president or running for president atm so what fresh nonsense are you on about? You don’t have to be a natural born anything to be a senator, which is what he is.
Wrong.
2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted 9 July 1868:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The intent and purpose of the (14th) amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”
The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the “natural born Citizens” who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents.
Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born Citizen.”
As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born Citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born Citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States. [SOURCE CREDIT]
Now, let’s take a look at the Godfather of the 14th amendment and see what he had to say about “born a citizen” vs “natural born citizen” –
3. Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.
John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. - (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
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.... - (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
He has run for President and he will again.
Ted Cruz is all about Ted’s ambition.
Everything he does is with an eye on that prize.
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.