Judge Nap: Cruz's American Citizenship Is Settled and Established

Fox ^ | 1/11/15 | Staff

[VinL]

Donald Trump continues to raise the issue of Sen.Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) American citizenship.

In a Fox News Sunday interview (below), Trump argued that the Canadian-born senator must "get this problem solved" before potentially running against a Democrat in the fall and facing a lawsuit.

"Does 'natural-born' mean born to the land, meaning born on the land? In that case, he's not. But nobody knows what it means because it hasn't been adjudicated and it hasn't gone to the Supreme Court," said Trump.

On America's Newsroom this morning, Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said that Cruz's American citizenship is "well-settled and established" under a law that goes back 100 years.

Napolitano said Cruz's citizenship cannot be questioned, since his mother was an American citizen when he was born.

"A human being born in another country with at least one parent who is an American citizen, who lived in the United States for at least one year during the parent's life before the birth, is an American citizen. That is exactly Ted Cruz's situation. ... [He] is a natural-born American citizen," Napolitano explained.

He agreed with Martha MacCallum that the reason for bringing this up is "political," not legal, since many voters may not know the law.

Napolitano said Cruz could benefit from getting this cleared up now, rather than later. But he noted that Trump is correct that the Supreme Court has never reviewed the law "because the issue has never come up."

[orinoco]

I support Cruz and Trump. Trump would be great on immigration and the economy. Cruz would be great with restructuring government to operate within the Constitution and I believe Trump will be strong on this as well. Cruz better get this cleared up because the Dems are going to make it an issue should he win the primaries.

[Boardwalk]

From what I hear, just about the entire senate despises Cruz. This morning McLame said that Cruz’s own institution dislikes him, and that would make it hard for Cruz to get anything done. McLame should know!

[skeeter]

I support both as well, Cruz then Trump.

Both could only be an improvement for the country and cleaning up the mess of the past 50 years for my kids is my primary concern.

[jeffersondem]

“We go with the guy who wins.”

Interesting comment. How do you feel about Trump’s recent support for Bill and Hill Clinton, abortion “rights”, gun control, and Democrat party policies?

[aresmars]

She was in a state worse than death. Heck we treat animals better than people when it comes to suffering. Schiavo case ticked me off because a person should have a right to die.
Sick of the Government treating people as their property.

If you want to live as a vegetable that is your choice, but its not yours, the Government or anyone else’s business when it comes to their own life.

[nikos1121]

Say what?

[WENDLE]

yes Eddie Muster . The little kid with the hair combed back. Look older today but still the same guy.

[Yosemitest]

Take it up with the Supreme Court of the United States and our Founding Fathers.

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Also notice that the Supreme Court has backed up that definition!

See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV)

Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —
as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

But the fact is,
they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —
in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,
who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” —
he was ALSO “natural born.”

If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”
then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.


The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact found
that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.

Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,
Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.

There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
though.

It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means
“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

Note that again:
Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,
which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”


The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

“Plaintiff claims that
President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supports
that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.

So the statement that "natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !

[Boardwalk]

I thought you were saying the judge was in the munsters.

[jeffersondem]

“Say what?”

Trump has been a big fan of Bill and Hill, gives lots of funds to Democrats, supported gun control, open border policies, and abortion. Haven’t you heard?

Lately he claims he doesn’t believe in these things anymore.

[nikos1121]

Yeah, with all due respect, I’ve read and heard that you’re full of dog doo doo in your thinking about 100% of time. Stop wasting our time here. Post something relative, accurate and maybe thoughtful for a change. If you’re suffering from Trump derangement syndrome take it on over to the liberal blogs, they’ll love you there. Here you’re boring and tedious and immature.

[jeffersondem]

“Post something relative, accurate and maybe thoughtful for a change.”

That is an interesting post. By the way, I heard that Trump wrote in his book that he was for Clinton’s “assault weapons” ban. Do you know if that is true?

I have heard Trump say recently that he is a “negotiator” and he loves negotiating great deals - really, really great deals.

What would you like for Trump to get for negotiating away the Second Amendment?

[CPT Clay]

bump

[toldyou]

“I got one of the Cruzers to admit yesterday that he would vote for Hillary over Trump. They are unhinged!”

One person stated his/her opinion, and all of a sudden it’s “they.”

You can’t be that clueless. Please use common sense.

[Boardwalk]

I was including the GOP!

[toldyou]

All I’m saying is that one person does not speak for the entire GOP nor for all other Cruz supporters.

You assume too much.

[Boardwalk]

Yes of course, but facts remain there was an entire contingent of Cruz supporters on the thread and not one called this person out! I’m glad you are not one of them, but don’t shoot the messenger.