Donald Trump Floats Ted Cruz Eligibility Lawsuit

Breitbart.com ^ | 23 Jan 2016 | Alex Swoyer

[Rockitz]

GOP frontrunner Donald Trump reportedly said he might file a lawsuit over fellow GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’s (R-TX) eligibility to be President of the United States.

“I’ve said Ted has a lot of problems — number one, Canada. He could run for the Prime Minister of Canada and I wouldn’t even complain because he was born in Canada,” Trump said during a campaign event in Iowa. “The Democrats are going to sue if he ever got the nomination within two days. There have already been two lawsuits filed, but they don’t have standing. I have standing to sue. Can you imagine if I did it? Should I do it just for fun?”

Trump said he was confident he would defeat Cruz and win the Republican nomination, so he doesn’t need to file the lawsuit.

[patlin]

here is a photo for you https://www.facebook.com/151593575048378/photos/a.489832464557819.1073741828.151593575048378/489832417891157/?type=3

[P-Marlowe]

You are giving me advice on how to write briefs and practice law.

How many years have you been practicing law?

How many Appellate Briefs have you written?

Just asking.

[Gil4]

1..site this law, in the Constitution, in common law history this definition of natural born citizen...that you seem to think makes so clear the difference between Obama's mother and Cruz mother?

There has only been one definition of NBC that has been consistent: citizen at birth. There has been debate over what constitutes that, and part of the purpose of the laws on nationality was to clarify that. I cited the law here.

2.. was that distinction ever made in the birther arguments for 8 years?

Yes, constantly.

3.. Has Cruz ever made that argument as to why he would be eligible and Obama would have not been eligible if Obama was proven born overseas?

I don't know what he has said about Obama. He might have believed Obama was born in Hawaii.

4... do you really think the general voting public is going to see some grand distinction between Obama's mother and Cruz mother or they just going to see it is sleazy two-face hypocrite by the right?

It's not that complicated. The "Bush lied, people died" crowd is going to believe whatever delusion they want to believe. Some will understand it. Most didn't care about it then and won't care about it now.

5... do you have any doubt the dem and media going to drag this to court?

So after 8 years of mocking birthers, they are going to go into full birther mode? A few might, but they will be the fringe.

6... are you so sure the law is so clearly on your side that you're going to risk it in court?...You put the whole election at risk before we even start

We took a bigger risk on a much lesser candidate. See post 43 above. McCain relied on citizen at birth = NBC. There is also this line: "Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that persons in Senator McCain's circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already." Cruz is in the same situation (different paragraph in the same sub-section of the law) except he doesn’t have to worry about the "retroactively."

7. Do you have any doubt that the powers in DC that be are not going to let that distinction save Cruz...given the Dem/GOPe Alliance and the corrupt Roberts court?

The law is the law. I'm going to support the best eligible candidate, and Cruz is the best eligible candidate I have seen in a long time.

8... do you understand the expression:....whistling past the graveyard?

Trusting Trump = more whistling + bigger graveyard.

Remember it not about just about if Cruz is eligible or not eligible... it's about being consistent on the right on the birther arguments that were made against Obama and now again Cruz ....the right now going to seem the mostly sleazy twoface hypocrite... that what the voting public the media and the Dems will focus on...

Again, the law is the law. That's consistent. Some birthers were all over the map. I'm not going to change my support for Cruz on account of them.

9. Finally the fact that Cruz never got in front of this way back before he declared like McCain did on this Panama birth... added in the fact that this birth argument over Obama went on for 8 years that everybody knows it now... don't you think that shows a highly questionable.. downright irresponsible... decision by Cruz????.. for Cruz to now have the audacity to ask the right to put him up for president.. with this hanging over his head....when he should have been addressing vulnerability this long before he ever put his name up for president

McCain did it already. If McCain was eligible, Cruz is moreso.

and honest ....do you think you or any of the Cruz supporter would be making this mother eligibility distinction if Bernie Sanders or Hillary if they had the same exact Canadian birth circumstances as Cruz ?

Yes. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he was eligible. If his mother had lived in the US for 10 years before his birth, including 5 past the age of 14, the birth certificate wouldn't have mattered.

[Gil4]

The law states that one who must renounce a foreign citizenship because they were born of a foreign parent in the country of the foreign parent, that person is a naturalized citizen.

Which law is that?

Cruz my have renounced Canadian citizenship. (I don't know it to be true, but I've heard it said enough around here that I accept it to be true.) I'm assuming that was before a Canadian judge, correct?

U.S. law on citizenship pays little or no attention to he citizenship laws of other nations. Cruz may have chosen to renounce his Canadian citizenship. He was not forced to do so.

One can not be natural born of 2 countries

Again, you're just making stuff up. It's certainly possible that Obama was also a citizen of Kenya at birth because of his father's Kenyan citizenship and it would have no impact on what US law says about his citizenship. If Obama had been born in Kenya and his mother has met the 10 total/5 after 14 US residency requirement, he would have still been eligible.

US law says the following:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
... (7) 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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

Notice the complete absence of the "unless the person was born in the country of which the alien parent was a resident" clause (or any of the other stipulations you added.)

[P-Marlowe]

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers. Of the 55 framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers. -

See more at:

http://sbmblog.typepad.com/sbm-blog/2011/07/how-many-of-the-founding-fathers-were-lawyers.html#sthash.QIsqUpCY.dpuf

[patlin]

#1 Kenya was not a sovereign country when Obama was born, it was a British protectorate and therefore, Obama was a natural born Brit as his campaign website admitted as a matter of fact. It would not have mattered where Obama was born because his parents were married and his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, had not yet reached the age of consent to confer her citizenship to her newborn baby. Nations and States do not give birth, the parents do & the nationality of the parents is the nationality of the child.

#2 CHAP. CCXLIX – An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States. Approved July 27, 1868.

Right of expatriation declared.

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

Protection to naturalized citizens in foreign states.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.

8 U.S. Code § 1448 - Oath of renunciation and allegiance
(a) Public ceremony

A person who has applied for naturalization shall, in order to be and before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony before the Attorney General or a court with jurisdiction under section 1421(b) of this title an oath (1) to support the Constitution of the United States; (2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen; (3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

Authorities (U.S. Code)

8 CFR 337.1 - Oath of allegiance

§ 337.1 Oath of allegiance.

(a) Form of oath. Except as otherwise provided in the Act and after receiving notice from the district director that such applicant is eligible for naturalization pursuant to § 335.3 of this chapter, an applicant for naturalization shall, before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony held within the United States the following oath of allegiance, to a copy of which the applicant shall affix his or her signature:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

The above Statute of 1868 is the authority by which Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz renounced his former citizenship and officially became an exclusive citizen of the United States of America. Natural born citizen do not require such action because from birth, their exclusive allegiance has been to the United States of America. By taking the oath of naturalization (formally renouncing his Canadian citizenship before a judge), Ted Cruz admitted that, for constitutional purposes, he is a naturalized US citizen.

Buchanan Administration (9 Ops. ATT’Y GEN. 3.56 (1859))

“The question then arises, what rights do our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting him citizenship? I answer, all the rights, privileges and immunities which belong to a native-born citizen, in their full extent with the single qualification that under the constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to the office of President…”

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.”

[patlin]

Also, jurisdiction & geographical limits are speaking of two very different things. Geographical refers to borders, jurisdiction refers to political allegiance. See Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/112/94

James Kent, Commentaries 1:397–98; 2:33–63(1826-1827)

We are next to consider the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant. To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law, under the well known name of corporations.

There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives, and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/did-common-law-really-grant-automatic-us-citizenship-upon-birth-regardless-of-parentage-part-ii/

[patlin]

You forgot ... where is it written in the law that one MUST have a lawyer represent them, in writing or in person, in any court?

[patlin]

You also forgot to address this ... Have all judges always had law degrees? Have all Supreme Court Justices had law degrees?

[P-Marlowe]

I answered your questions.

Now in response to your giving me advice as to how to do my job as an attorney with 30 years experience, you answer these questions:

How long have you been a practicing attorney?

How many appellate briefs have you written?

Then I will answer your questions.... again.

[AFret.]

here is a photo for you https://www.facebook.com/151593575048378/photos/a.489832464557819.1073741828.151593575048378/489832417891157/?type=3

---

Thanks very much. This is the document some are suggesting Mr Cruz does not need, but his staff admits he has. The form clearly says “Citizen”..When he is forced to release it, the tortured and twisted explanation of his CRBA will be very “Clintonesque”, I’m sure...Thanks again.

[xzins]

A CRBA is nothing more than a US birth certificate. The circumstances are the issue.

Your point number 3 is ultimately the issue under current law: “3) the parents had applied and were granted permanent legal resident status because they had begun the process of becoming Canadian citizens.”

If Mrs Cruz was in the process of obtaining resident status, then we are left to guess whether she had renounced US citizenship. I think even then that was a deliberate process, and there would be paperwork saying the same.

If it does not exist, or if it cannot be found, then she was a US citizen and that makes Ted a citizen at birth.

And we’re back to square 1 awaiting some future court that addresses the issue whether citizen at birth and natural born citizen are synonymous.

In my opinion, Cruz would not have been considered an NBC in the days of George Washington. In our day, I think the law as written now supports his running UNTIL the Scotus ever gets around to deciding the issue.

[Gil4]

his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, had not yet reached the age of consent to confer her citizenship to her newborn baby.

What is that "age of consent? What is its source?

this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship

He was a citizen entering his own country

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States

Irrelevant. He was not naturalized.

(a) Public ceremony
A person who has applied for naturalization

Again, Ted Cruz was not naturalized. It should be easy to refute this if I'm wrong. When was he naturalized? Where did this alleged public ceremony take place? Answer: He wasn't and it didn't.

an applicant for naturalization shall, before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony held within the United States

He didn't take an oath before a judge in the U.S.. He sent his renunciation request to Canada to and received a certificate by mail from a court in Alberta.

You can see it here (I couldn't get the image to display right, so it's just a link)

[patlin]

It doesn’t matter what our laws say today as A2,S1 qualifications were written BEFORE the US Congress passed any laws pertaining to immigration and naturalization, therefore, we must look to the state laws of the time that said ONLY children born to FATHERS who were citizens of that state were citizens at birth, therefore, those children born to the citizen fathers were, for Constitutional purposes, ‘natural born’ children. These were the children born to the founding fathers AFTER the 1783 Peace Treaty and especially AFTER the ratification the US Constitution, because children born BEFORE the Peace Treaty and before the ratification of the US Constitution were at birth, British subjects. Sure they were citizens of the states they resided in, however, until the formalization of the Federal Government, no one was a citizen of the US as the US did not exist as a formal nation until 1789 when the Constitution was ratified. And we see this specifically addressed in the 1802 Naturalization Act of the US Congress.

An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
Approved April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States

And here is the Virginia law at the time of the adoption f the US Constitution,

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

The ONLY time a mother’s citizenship comes into play is if the father is deceased, or the child is born out of wedlock and the father has not stepped up to take responsibility. Cruz does NOT meet either of these. And I think we can assume that Canadian law is like US law in that when a family moves here legally from a foreign country and the head of the household applies for permanent legal residency because the head of the household has decided to become a citizen of that nation, the other members of the family under the head of that family follow suit. Cruz’s parents were married and so it would stand to reason that his mother was FULLY aware and thus the reason Cruz’s records are sealed, just as Obama’s are to this day. And this also proves that Cruz is not a biblical disciple of Christ for a disciple of Christ admits who he is and suffers with integrity, the consequences for speaking truth as Paul did.

[patlin]

I do not think you get it, the Supreme Court ruled that there are but 2 paths to citizenship, naturally & naturalization, there is NO third. The 2 paths that the Constitution speaks of, BOTH of them require EXCLUSIVE allegiance to the United States, either at birth or either upon the election of the person to be after their coming of age. The reason Ted is a US citizen is BECAUSE his mother CHOSE to return to the US per the Acts of Congress from 1934-1952. Had she not chosen that path before Ted turned 18, then Ted himself would have had to go and fill out the applications himself.

In law there is a right of expatriation, that one should not be held to be legally bound by 2 countries at the same time. It is the right of ‘expatriation’ that determines who is and who is NOT a natural born citizen. If one is born a citizen of a foreign country, that person, at some point, MUST expatriate themselves from the country & allegiance of their birth. THIS is Ted Cruz, the now for less than 2 yrs, expatriated Canadian citizen from birth. Natural born have no need to expatriate themselves so to become members of the political society in which they live because from birth, that is the ONLY political society they were tacit members of prior to their coming of age, when under the tutelage of their parents.

[Gil4]

The 2 paths that the Constitution speaks of, BOTH of them require EXCLUSIVE allegiance to the United States, either at birth or either upon the election of the person to be after their coming of age.

Source? (Hint: There is none, because you are making it up.)

The reason Ted is a US citizen is BECAUSE his mother CHOSE to return to the US per the Acts of Congress from 1934-1952. Had she not chosen that path before Ted turned 18, then Ted himself would have had to go and fill out the applications himself.

The requirement was for TED to return (not his mother) prior to the age of 23 (not 18) and to continuously remain in the U.S. for 5 years between age 14 and 28. Had he not done that, he would have lost his citizenship (which presumes that he had it from birth to begin with.)

Here is the full paragraph:

(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State for at least five years: Provided That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.

[patlin]

Does or does not the A1, S8 & its subsequent statutes (Acts of Congress) that are the authority of A1, S8 require EXCLUSIVE allegiance to the United States at the time of applying for naturalization & upon receiving the certificate of naturalization?

[Gil4]

Does or does not the A1, S8 & its subsequent statutes (Acts of Congress) that are the authority of A1, S8 require EXCLUSIVE allegiance to the United States at the time of applying for naturalization & upon receiving the certificate of naturalization?

Without looking it up I will grant that it is probably true and definitely irrelevant. Ted Cruz did not apply for naturalization. Ted Cruz does not have a certificate of naturalization. Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth, which is synonymous with "natural born citizen" (contrary to the unsubstantiated assertions of some around here.)

If you question his loyalty, by all means present your evidence. Of those polling over 10% in either party, there are two whose loyalty I don't doubt: Cruz and Rubio. (Trump is loyal to Trump. Hillary and BS are loyal to international socialism. I think that's the full list.)

[patlin]

It is absolutely relevant! A2,S1 reads: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution"

They are both citizens, citizen being defined as one whose allegiance is EXCLUSIVELY to the United States. One from birth, the other at the time the country was founded, their former allegiance having been cast off or upon naturalization and since we are WAAAAY past the founding generation, that leaves us with 2 types of citizens, birth & naturalization, there are ONLY 2. And for the record, not all the original citizens were British. There were residents of many different nations living in the colonies at the time of the revolution and the subsequent adoption of the Constitution. ONLY those who chose to remain and attach their allegiance to the newly formed union of the states became citizens.

And you talk about loyalty, well, where was Ted Cruz's loyalty when he was touting amnesty a few years ago right after he was elected to the Senate? Where was Cruz's loyalty when he sold his constituents down the poisoned cesspool called 'Monsanto' and their GMO seed that is in bed with the pharmaceutical drug lords that kill 1000's every day by their drug sorcery when Cruz voted to give 'legal amnesty' to Monsanto & Big Pharma? Cruz talks about being against ethanol, however, he doesn't tell you the whole story as ethanol is but a drop in the bucket compared to the physical & economic harm done to this nation through the government subsidizing of genetically modified seed/foods & drug sorcery research.

And where is Rubio's loyalty as he currently supports blanket amnesty? And where is their loyalty to educating the citizenry by calling for a return of the proper application of the 16th Amendment rather than wanting to abolish the 100% Constitutional agency called the IRS? NO, Cruz & Rubio, neither are qualified, not just for the fact that at birth, they were citizens of another country, but especially for the fact that both of them are hell bent on abolishing by fiat, a good & proper agency for the collection of that which belongs to the federal government.

So please, quit painting these politicians as saints, NO politician is a saint, including Trump, however, Trump is a threat to ALL the above that I mentioned and THAT is why the "Establishment" (big money & big pharma) do not want Trump in the White House because Trump will not play their evil games! With Trump, what you see is what you get and Trump knows A LOT more than he is out right revealing in his campaign stop speeches, thus he is a threat to the R&D Establishment, funny, R&D ... research & destroy ... yep, that pretty much sums up every politician that has to take campaign contributions from the big R&D guys such as Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Bros, Goldman Sachs, etc. etc. to get elected.

[Gil4]

It is absolutely relevant! A2,S1 reads: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" They are both citizens, citizen being defined as one whose allegiance is EXCLUSIVELY to the United States.

Go back and read what I called irrelevant. You were quoting laws about the process for naturalization, which, if it has any relevance, it is to prove Cruz is NOT naturalized because he hasn't been through that process.

And for the record, not all the original citizens were British. There were residents of many different nations living in the colonies at the time of the revolution and the subsequent adoption of the Constitution. ONLY those who chose to remain and attach their allegiance to the newly formed union of the states became citizens.

How exactly did that work? For those residing in the U.S. at time of the adoption of the Constitution, was there some process for declaring their loyalty, renouncing loyalty to all others, and becoming citizens? Or were they just presumed loyal and presumed citizens? (My guess is the latter.) If some later chose to return to the countries of their birth, would they have had to apply for naturalization or would they have been recognized as returning citizens? (My guess again is the latter.) Could their children, born in the U.S. under the Constitution, go to the country of their parents' birth and be welcomed as citizens? (My guess is it's a mix, depending on the laws of the country.)

These are the points:
1. There have always been citizens (even NBC) who have also been recognized as citizens of other countries (dual citizenship.)
2. What other countries chose to recognize is irrelevant to U.S. law. (I would say that many those naturalized under U.S. law by renouncing their loyalty and citizenship to their former countries are still recognized by that former country as citizens.)

NO, Cruz & Rubio, neither are qualified ... especially for the fact that both of them are hell bent on abolishing by fiat, a good & proper agency for the collection of that which belongs to the federal government.

They are not trying to abolish the IRS "by fiat." They are recommending changing the law. While the IRS may be proper (constitutionally), I would disagree with your contention that it is "good" an it's certainly not required by the Constitution. As for the rest of the policy disagreements, that's what they are. We can certainly discuss the merits of them, but not in the context of "is he legally qualified" or "does he have loyalty to some other country".

So please, quit painting these politicians as saints, NO politician is a saint, including Trump,

I have done no such thing. You have said Cruz (and now Rubio, apparently) are disqualified due to citizenship issues, and I have argued against the points you have made. I just see too many people straining gnats while swallowing the Trump camel.