Posted on 01/19/2016 8:55:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Allow me to make the connection, once again.
If Cruz is naturalized, he cannot be a natural born citizen. The two classes are mutually exclusive.
The Bellei case establishes that Cruz is naturalized. If Cruz is naturalized, he is not a natural born citizen.
-- My two earlier posts are precisely correct--there is no Supreme Court authority that has anything to do with the question presented here. --
There is no need to compose or answer the precisely correct question, in Cruz's case. He is disqualified because he is conclusively a naturalized citizen on admitted facts.
We don't even need go to court. The GOP can disqualify him of its own volition. If Cruz doesn't like it, he can sue.
Ted Cruz didn’t have to be naturalized because he was born a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
I also was never naturalized because I, too, was born a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, so I, too, am eligible to be president.
All you’re doing is repeating Trumop talking points.
Trump himself said Cruz is eligible to be POTUS, but that wzs before Cruz gained in numbers in the polls. Was Trump lying then, or is he lying now?
Cruz is naturalized.
Are you claiming a naturalized person is a “natural born citizen”?
You are wrong. Simple. If you had anything to back up your opinion, ... but you don’t. Laws were passed to naturalize those born in situations where they would not receive automatic citizenship.
Naturalization. Created.
By law.
You are wrong.
I do not repeat talking points from anyone. I have studied this specific topic for seven years and well over 500 hours. How long have you been at it?
Do you KNOW or have you LEARNED?
I have “learned” that someone can “study” this issue for seven years, and still be wrong, and will ignore the law.
Citizen by birth IS a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Cruz IS a Natural Born Citizen through blood - his mom:
Many Constitutional experts know Cruz is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. In fact, even Alan Dershowitz says: “He’s a natural-born, not a naturalized, citizen.â€
People become NATURALIZED citizens AFTER their birth, but Cruz did not have to, as he was BORN a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
I can anticipate the rebuttal, “By law, at birth.” The circle, it goes ‘round and ‘round.
Both the citizen parent and the child had to meet the provisions of statute for citizenship to be granted.
Congressional grants of citizenship is naturalization.
I was born in the United States to two citizen parents. My citizenship is granted (by nature) owing to the place of my birth (jus soli), and the undivided loyalties of my citizen parents (jus sanguinis), under the sole governance of the United States Constitution. That is, my citizenship does not depend on the existence of any statutory actions taken by the US Congress (nor can it ever be constrained by such); hence I am a natural born citizen.
Sun - a bit of illumination for you - Cruz would not have been a US citizen if not for filling out a bunch of NATURALIZATION forms. As in; to NATURALIZE.
And there is this - the Constitutional originalists concur that in the strictest sense the founders meant a child born on native soil to citizen parents. Had a law not been passed to “cover” situations like Cruz and his Canadian birth, he would not have been eligible to have his mom apply for his US citizenship. WHICH by the way, we have yet to see proof of having been done.
So, a reference for you is Binney. As in Horace Binney.
So, important for you to accept is that people who have done hundreds of hours of research BEFORE Cruz ever entered the picture are not doing so now just to blow Ted out of the water.
You do not know if you have not learned. You learn by doing your own independent research - SOURCE MATERIAL.
I have put in the time, and you have not. So you think you can school me? No. You cannot.
I will leave you with this, again:
Ted Cruz; “”As you know, I was born in Canada. My mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of my birth. She was a U.S. citizen from birth so, under U.S. law, I’m an American citizen by birth.” “Beyond that,” he added, “I will leave the legal consequences of those facts to others to worry about.”
That would never fly in court. Ever.
The SCOTUS has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereofâ€
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
“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,”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
“(A)ll 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.”
Ya’ll might be interested in THIS
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/nation-world/national/article54993300.html
Allow me to make the connection, once again.
If Cruz is naturalized, he cannot be a natural born citizen. The two classes are mutually exclusive.
The Bellei case establishes that Cruz is naturalized. If Cruz is naturalized, he is not a natural born citizen.
You can believe anything you like but that doesn't have anything to do with how the legal is likely to result.
Cruz became a US citizen at birth under the Congressional power to define citizenship. It may be reasonable to call the basis for his citizenship naturalization but that doesn't have anything to do with the outcome.
I suppose it is really worse--the citizenship statute under which Cruz becomes a citizen is also unconstitutional on its face because it makes children of US mothers citizens but not US fathers under the same circumstances. Read the Cornell Law Review on the topic.
If the argument gets to the Supreme Court, it will decide the issue on what it views as the current policy merits. We do not in fact have any precidential authority that tells us how the Court is going to view that question.
Best you can do is read the New York Times and listen to the guys who go down to the courthouse every day to argue Constitutional issues before the Supreme Court. The Times is telling you the requirement is an anachronism we need to dispense with; the lawyers are probably split 60-40 in favor of getting rid of it at present.
So whatever you like to the contrary not withstanding, and depending in part on how the case gets to the Court and when that happens, likely Cruz is eligible.
If it is after an election in which he is at the top of the ticket and wins, he is eligible and the Court might not even hear the case.
If he could somehow get there now, as in an appeal of one of these cases to kick him off a primary ballot, the Court is most likely to hold him eligible.
The party is gearing up to kick him out at the convention in which case he isn't likely to get to the Court; if he did, I am not sure I would guess how it comes out.
The party isn't likely to kick him out if both he and Trump get to the Convention. If Trump has the most delegates, he is the nominee; if Cruz has the most delegates and Trump is second, they won't kick Cruz out to take Trump--Cruz will be the nominee and the Court will hold any challenge to be a political question it won't answer until after the election. If Cruz wins, he is President and Natural Born--get over it.
You, like a number of people on the site here, and generally in our country, think the Constitution really means something on these close unresolved questions--it doesn't.
Among other things, the Court has already effectively repealed the Commerce clause in 1935. Obamacare is unconstitutional on its face--no reasonable argument to make it constitutional. King v. Burwell is a decision on a specific statute and the Court decided the case the other way.
As an abstract proposition, I tend to agree with your policy view and that of John Jay--the Constitution ought to require the President to have some fundamental personal relationship to the Country in the nature of birth under US sovereignty and familial foundation. But the drafters were sloppy and didn't spell it out. So you will have to deal with the consequences.
In my own case, as I set out above, " If the Liberals get their guy to impose an unconstitutional culture on America, I get my guy to unravel it. Although I could be persuaded Trump might do it; I believe Cruz, if elected, would do it."
If I don't get Cruz I would be willing to vote for Trump; if I don't get either one, I think the country has a lot of difficulty going forward under anyone else.
You can’t win a Presidental election with 28% believing you are not
qualified to run.
Or can you...
Ummm, no. Read the statute 8 USC 1401. Maybe you are mixing things up with out of wedlock, the Nyugen case. That concerns 8 USC 1409, where there is a distinction based on which parent is a citizen.
-- If the argument gets to the Supreme Court, it will decide the issue on what it views as the current policy merits. --
I see. So your contention is that it is the function of the courts to legislate naturalization policy. Interesting. I wonder about your "separation of powers" sentiments. But hey, it is popular to advocate legislating from the bench.
-- The party is gearing up to kick him out at the convention in which case he isn't likely to get to the Court --
Really? If he is eligible, and the party allows him to invest all the time and energy, and the party certified him eligible. You say that if the party reneges, Cruz can't get a hearing to restore his honor? Wow. What a country.
-- You, like a number of people on the site here, and generally in our country, think the Constitution really means something on these close unresolved questions--it doesn't. --
I don't see it as a close unresolved question, having reviews scores of cases on the subject. You are spouting nonsense, and from my point of view are an uninformed blowhard.
You are misleading people who may trust you. That's on your conscience, not mine.
> Cruz became a US citizen at birth under the Congressional power to define citizenship.
Congress has the power to naturalize.
"I keep hearing how smart Cruz is but I just can't square that with him not seeing this coming and doing more to get in front of it years ago. - If I had known all of what I know now about his situation earlier I would not have donated a penny to his campaign. - He simply is not a NBC and qualified to be President in my view."
See that kind of misses the point of how we should address this question as Constitutional Conservatives.
jospehm20's view; Cboldt's view; or my view and that of a number of similar members here isn't what counts.
On the merits, Cruz is likely to be the most effective Constitutional Conservative President out of the group so we should want to see him elected.
We have spent the last 32 years with a President who is not committed to Constitutional Governance and who is implementing policies, many of them in direct contravention of the Constitution, which are designed to eliminate our form of Government and install a culture totally inconsistent with that of a majority of our citizens.
The survival of our country is at stake and we need the most effective leader we can find to save us.
From a technical legal perspective, it is pretty likely that depending on the facts and circumstances on which the case reaches the Supreme Court, Cruz would be held eligible event though many of us can see sound legal arguments to the contrary.
I too have given Cruz money. And I too am particularly disappointed in his failure to address this issue in a timely way when I believe it could have been resolved to his advantage. But I am also prepared to suck up and get over it.
Josphehm20's argument about what the founders might have intended is probably correct. But what the founders intended is going to be seen in a Supreme Court opinion only if the Court has already decided the case on that basis for other reasons.
Between here and there, the issue that counts is what is best for the country on the choices before us.
> We have spent the last 32 years with a President who is not committed to Constitutional Governance and who is implementing policies, many of them in direct contravention of the Constitution, which are designed to eliminate our form of Government and install a culture totally inconsistent with that of a majority of our citizens.
Are you aware of the plan Heidi Cruz helped prepare and which she endorses? It is a form of “governance” inconsistent with our form of government.
http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
She had supposedly been married before to another Canadian who later moved to London after their divorce.
I came across this the other day that has a few more details, as well as the interesting fact that. dual citizenship wasn't recognized in Canada until 1977
Ummm, no. Read the statute 8 USC 1401. Maybe you are mixing things up with out of wedlock, the Nyugen case.
As to Cruz, he was born before the statute was amended. The effective dates are in the footnotes which the cite doesn't pick up; if it is retroactive to dates at issue, you would be correct. Doesn't make any difference to the present argument about Cruz because whether or not the citizenship statute applicable to his birth status is really constitutional isn't going to be decisive.
-- If the argument gets to the Supreme Court, it will decide the issue on what it views as the current policy merits. -- I see. So your contention is that it is the function of the courts to legislate naturalization policy. Interesting. I wonder about your "separation of powers" sentiments. But hey, it is popular to advocate legislating from the bench.
No. You are misstating the argument. If you mean do I think that is a proper function of the courts, no, I don't.
But you need to grow up and deal with things the way they are, not the way you wish they were. You may not like it this way; I don't; but we need to address these issues in the real world.
The Court and related establishment interests are writing law and have been for a long time. There are lots of examples.
The debate here is over the question of who we should try to install as President.
And even there that is a close question. I think Cruz is smarter and closer to the levers of power than Trump is so I would probably pick Cruz. At the primary stage, I don't think the Article II, Sec. 1 question is really very relevant unless someone can make it legally relevant.
That has been tried already--to kick Cruz off the ballot in New Hampshire for example; there is a decision rejecting the effort. If he were my client, I would have a straw party appeal that decision to the federal courts and would then try to get a solid holding. Might not make that.
And Trump, as usual, is focused on the direct bottom line attack--and I don't think his motivation is totally adversary; he thinks, as I do, that Cruz ought to have acted long ago to get this issue out of the way.
As to your last point, that is really silly. ("The party allows him to . . . ") Cruz has gotten himself to the point where he is exposed; he should have dealt with it and hasn't; he will have to deal with the consequences.
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.