Tom DeLay: Cruz Has Problem on Citizenship Issue

NewsMax ^ | 01/13/2016 | NewsMax

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told Newsmax TV on Wednesday that Ted Cruz might ultimately "end up in the courts" on the question of his citizenship and how it might affect his presidential campaign. "I've had this problem ever since Cruz announced," DeLay, the five-term Texas Republican who served from 2003 to 2005, told "The Steve Malzberg Show" in an interview.

"There is a difference between the definition of natural born and naturalization — and it has not been settled by any branch of government. "Cruz needs to address this in some way because it is a cloud right now in Iowa," DeLay said. [...]

DeLay, however, told Malzberg that the "most expedient" way for Cruz to settle any questions is to work through the courts. "You can't do anything through Congress," he said. "Congress isn't going to pass any bill to protect him — and I'm sure [President Barack] Obama wouldn’t sign anything. "He's going to the courts if he's the nominee. The Democrats will use every avenue available to them.

"They sued me over a valid issue," DeLay said, referring to a 2006 lawsuit brought by Democrats after he dropped his re-election bid. "They'll sue him. "He'll end up in the courts one way or another."

[thackney]

Agreed, it is only a record of birth. There is no “process”.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Cruz is not eligible, and never underestimate hubris.

[Leo Carpathian]

IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
(Oct. 18, 2009) The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President (and VP), it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

[hoosiermama]

Looks like that may be coming
Note the accusation of Fraud pertaining to not notifying the electorate of Canadian citizenship before running for senate.
As I said it appears that the “hoopla” as some claim is not coming from Trump or even the democrat party but from his fellow Texans who are holding him to standards.
Wonder if his place on the Texan ballot will be challenged

[RC one]

yep. People are seriously over complicating a very simple concept. If your American citizenship can be questioned, you most probably aren’t a natural born American citizen. you may be a fine American citizen but you are not a natural born American citizen. As a citizen, you are guaranteed all the privileges and immunities of any other American citizen...except for two. You can’t be POTUS or Vice POTUS.

[FreeReign]

he was born in a foreign country to a foreign father. He’s not a NBC by any stretch. He’s a citizen.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 best shows the Founders intent about the definition of a NBC

They said single parent and over seas was fine.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

So because the Democrats are going to sue Ted should not run?

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

[hoosiermama]

The good news might be if CRUZ gets a judgment as DT advised it would also apply to 0.
Fraud or even treason might be widespread for the D party. Oh my think of all that orange!

[HiTech RedNeck]

The view from 50,000 feet seems to be that Trump has come as an answer to the “Truth is fallen in the streets” problem.

People will forgive him a lot of loose living, even a lot of false starts, for the sake of that. Lies, lies, lies; people are starting to really loathe the lies but don’t quite know where to turn.

Cruz could take a cue from this and add emphasis in his own campaign. It shouldn’t even be all that hard to do; a Christian viewpoint should beat out a semi-secular one any day, but it needs to be backed up with boldness of expressed conviction. Mere “Churchianity” needn’t apply. This is about the glory of God, not the glory of church or the glory of morals or the glory of constitution etc.

On the other hand, Trump could stand to let himself have a revelation that it’s the glory of God that greatness is all about. If he did, his tack would adjust pretty quickly. He is hearing from some inspirational evangelists now, which is better than nothing. I say keep an eye on Trump for improvements.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The child of a female US soldier stationed in Germany married to a German citizen is eligible.

[Helicondelta]

“The fee and paperwork wasn’t to “OBTAIN” the US citizenship, it was to get official affirmation of it.”

That’s the case he is trying to make. Weak case.

Cruz only became a US citizen after he received official recognition by the government. That’s how it works. Cruz may have always been US citizen “in his heart”, but he couldn’t enter the country legally on the day that he was born. And he can’t be elected president now.

[FlingWingFlyer]

If this is such a big FN deal, why aren’t only “natural born citizens” allowed to vote? It’s time we look into that and make it the “law of the land”. IMHO.

[RC one]

It was repealed by the man who authored the constitution, the man who agrees that place of birth best guarantees allegiance, the man that specifically stripped those unconstitutional words out of the 1790 naturalization act and replaced them with the constitutional words-”citizens”.

[Cboldt]

-- Agreed, it is only a record of birth. There is no "process". --

Or to use the vernacular of US statutory law, the citizenship is conferred under Part I of 8 USC Subchapter III.

8 U.S. Code Subchapter III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
* PART I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization (S:S: 1401 to 1409)
* PART II - Nationality Through Naturalization (S:S: 1421 to 1459)

In popular use, only those people in Part II are naturalized, because it is Part II that includes a "naturalization process."

[DJ MacWoW]

What's a "natural born citizen"? The Constitution doesn't say, but the Framers' understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents - in a manner regulated by federal law - and birth within the nation's territory regardless of parental citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.

That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 - Cruz was born in 1970 - someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz's mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.

Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

[HiTech RedNeck]

It’s got a lot of intricacies involved. No court has ruled square on the question. No court has wanted the hot potato, IMHO.

A loose view of the situation would be that Congress can define such parameters up to some point (maybe the point it can’t would be the point of post hoc, i.e. it has to apply at the point of birth).

[TexasCajun]

Where has ole Tom been the last 7 years Barack was trying his best to 'Fundamentally Change America"?

...Newsmax finds him to discredit Cruz.

While in other news:

Freedom Caucus Considers Controversial Former DeLay Aide for Top Job

[xzins]

Texas is THE key state for any republican now. Lose Texas and you lose the race.

[Night Hides Not]

Making yourself look kinda stupid, DeLay.

It must be hell going from a player on the national scene to a nobody.

I've seen it with dozens of retired military officers, usually full bird and up. They get used to having their asses kissed for the last 5-10 years of their career, everybody smartly saluting with a "Yes Sir, No Sir."

The day after they retire, they're just a regular Joe. It's a big adjustment, many make that transition.