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.

[P-Marlowe]

It doesn’t matter if I believe it or not.

That is the most likely interpretation that the courts will follow.

Are your legal credentials better than the authors of that article?

Have you been published in the Harvard Law Review lately?

Just asking.

[GrouchoTex]

So let Trump file now, and see what happens, then, we could debate the merits ( or lack, thereof) of the decision.
Trump should file, right away, if he believes this.
Based on his campaign appearance in Iowa today, he does.
He should act post haste

[Bob434]

Concerning the contention made in earlier cases that everyone who is made a citizen only by
federal statute is a “naturalized” citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), it
may be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms “naturalized” and
“naturalization,” as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that
someone who is a citizen “at birth” is not considered to have been “naturalized.”164 Justice
Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that “this kind of
citizenship,” that is, under “statutes that confer citizenship ‘at birth,’” was not intended to
“involve[ ] ‘naturalization,’” citing current federal law at 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(23).165 The
Supreme Court recently recognized in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, that federal law now specifically
defines “naturalization” as the “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth,”166
and thus it could be argued that by current definition and understanding in federal law and
jurisprudence, one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship automatically “at birth” or “by birth” could
not be considered to be “naturalized.”

............................................

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized in a recent
case that one may be a “natural born” citizen of the United Sates in two ways: either by being
born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the
residency requirement. In United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, a case dealing with the
propriety of an appeal based on requested jury instructions not given, the court stated:
No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was “an accurate statement of
the law,” in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968
is a natural born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2)
born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met
certain residency requirements.167

.............................

Article II states that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President.” Article II left
to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers
v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828, 91 S.Ct. 1060, 28 L.Ed.2d 499 (1971). Many decades later, the
Fourteenth Amendment set a floor on citizenship, overruled the Dred Scott decision, and
provided that all born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, were citizens by reason of birth (or naturalization proceedings, for that matter). Id. at
829-30, 91 S.Ct. 1060.

At the time of Senator’s McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that
“[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose
father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States,
is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48
Stat. 797. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of
the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to
encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment. [United
States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687 (1898) ....]

Under this view, Senator McCain was
a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s
circumstances in the Canal Zone, 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.
This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that
Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of
success on the merits necessary to warrant the drastic remedy he seeks. 170

The federal court in Robinson v. Bowen thus implicitly adopted a meaning of the term “natural
born” citizen in the presidential eligibility clause which would include not only the narrow
“common law” meaning (jus soli, being born geographically in the United States without
reference to parental citizenship, as codified in the Fourteenth Amendment), but also the statutory
designation by Congress of one entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth” even if born
abroad when such citizenship is transmitted from one’s parent or parents (jus sanguinis).

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

Congressional Research Service Report

[Bob434]

[[he could file a case, and since it couldn’t be summarily dismissed for lack of standing, it could get serious consideration on the merits.]]

I’m not so sure about the merits- see my above post- looks like the supreme court has pretty much decided possibly that citizen by birth needs no naturalization process, and should be considered NBC- but We’ll see how it plays out in court if it ever gets there- if the court refuses the case, it will likely be because of the previous cases which found that citizens by birth are NBC

[Baynative]

Ferchrissakes, Donald - can’t you find one positive thing to talk about ...just one?

[Bob434]

he always talks positively about hiself

[GrouchoTex]

Yep, with such a “huge” lead, you would think issues would matter.

[P-Marlowe]

Trump won’t file.

He doesn’t want the decision.

He wants the issue.

And people say he’s not a politician.

LOL.

[GrouchoTex]

And all of us, his supporters included, should call him on this.

[Republican Wildcat]

I’ve said Ted has a lot of problems

Yes, you have. You've also said he doesn't have any problems as well.

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion - before I voted against it."

[Republican Wildcat]

You hit the nail on the head. It is about controlling the media narrative - which he has been very effective at doing. That keeps other candidates from highlighting his leftist views across the board, or if they do get highlighted, he is able to drown it out. He has turned the campaign into a TV game show - successfully and by design. No doubt he’s a marketing genius.

[JoSixChip]

Not happening. Let Trump (who said he has standing) bring on the lawsuit.

I would think after all this time, you cruz supporters would start to understand why Trump has 4x the voter support cruz has but has only spent 1/10 the money. Why should Trump spend a dime when all he has to do is mention it and you guys do all the work because it's all you talk about for the next week. I think if Trump could speak directly to you, he would say thanks for your help.

[Republican Wildcat]

Do we have any evidence that Cruz went through a naturalization process to become a U.S. Citizen? If not, it would seem he is either a natural born citizen - or he is not a citizen at all. If the latter is the case, Trump needs to sue to get Cruz out of the Senate as he is not eligible to serve and to have him deported back to Canada.

[Perchant]

American Indians were made citizens by Congress in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1923. If that is when they became eligible to run for potus, then scotus is ceding a lot of power to Congress. I don’t think they’ll do that.

But even more problematic is the Cruz nbc question. If Cruz had stayed in Canada would his children be nbc? And their children? If Benedict Arnold started a family after he went to England, any ancestors alive today would be natural born citizens eligible for the presidency, to hear Cruz supporters tell it. They just need to go to America and get the required years of residency first.

[JoSixChip]

That keeps other candidates from highlighting his leftist views across the board, or if they do get highlighted, he is able to drown it out.

Or maybe Trump does not have any leftist views. Sometimes, when you are not dealing with career politicians, things are exactly as they seem.

[patlin]

If you believe that ones needs a law degree to understand and interpret law, then you do not know your founding fathers who wrote the Constitution and ratified it. And the courts can only decide upon the evidence placed in front of them, evidence that as of yet, NO lawyer is willing to bring to the table because they ALL know it will expose their lies, or ignorance of the law, you pick which one you like, I prefer to call them what they are, liars for political gain.

ALL those defending Cruz ignore the actual law that is on the books to this day and the reason that Cruz had to renounce his Canadian citizenship.

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 Act of Congress in 1868 that Title 8 is referring to 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 citizens 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.”

[P-Marlowe]

Or maybe Trump does not have any leftist views.

I don't think any of the candidates have "leftist views" per se. Bernie Sanders has all "leftist" views.

On the GOP side, all of them have some "liberal" views. Some more than others.

These days it is more difficult finding someone with "solid" conservative views as, when you look under the surface, their conservative views are always somewhat squishy.

It is hard to determine who the most "conservative" candidate is. The definition of what is "conservative" is pretty squishy these days as well.

I think Goldwater defined what was a "conservative" when he wrote his book "Conscience of a Conservative" but by the time he died, his "conscience" took a hard left turn.

Carry on.

[txgirl4Bush]

When Trent Lott, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Orrin Hatch would all prefer Trump over Cruz, you guys might want to reexamine who is the “anti-establishment” candidate. Duh.

When the dude donates to the likes of Clinton, Rangle, Schumer, and Rahm Friggin’ Emmanuel, and the only right side donation that comes close in dollars is to Mitch “Turtle Face” McConnel’s Great White RINO Hunt against the Tea Party Fund, that might be a clue who is part of the establishment.

But the banks own Cruz! Because he got a low interest loan that was fully secured with assets as collateral? Holy sh*t. Have any of you ever actually met an accountant? Do you even business, Bro? Meanwhile junk bond crony capitalist eminent domain deal maker dude who was in favor of single payer healthcare, TARP, and the auto bailout is going to save you from intrusive government?

But Cruz tried to hide it! No. You low information idiot. He declared it on one form and forgot it on another. That’s as stupid a crisis as binders full of women and dogs on car roofs. Quit falling for meaningless diversions.

You are supporting a life long democrat. Period.

Trump is a populist clown, an empty vessel for the wishful thinking low information types to ignore his history and behavior to put all their fondest wishes on. Make America great followed by mumble mumble bullsh*t is just Hope and Change all over again. Yeah, we elected an unskilled narcissist once before and how’d that work out? There were plenty of clues how Obama would operate, and the wishful thinking types ignored them all too.

Pull your head out of your a$$. The Planned Parenthood supporting, assault weapon ban supporting. deal making, wealthy Manhattanite isn’t going to save you. He is a populist telling suckers what they want to hear.

Oh, he’s really going to secure the border? B*tch please. He thought squishy Romney was too harsh on the border, until he discovered it polled well this election.

He stands up against the media? Whoop de friggin’ do. And that’s coming from somebody who has been slammed as a racist/sexist/homophobic hatemongery wife beater in the national media for not being a liberal in a liberal dominated business. That doesn’t mean you should hire me for a job I’m unqualified for. Sure. Reporters hate me. I’ll operate on your brain tumor.

The liberal media has hung on Trump’s every word and given him tons of coverage, way out of proportion to every other candidate. You think that’s a coincidence? Or because they always pick the republican who they think their candidate can beat, and if they don’t they are liberal enough to live with.

Even if Trump is telling the truth (he ain’t, but bear with me) and he actually converted on this giant list of issues where he has been a flaming liberal his whole life, he is still a loud mouth moron unsuited for the job.

So you give the populist hair piece a pass on this giant list of liberal statist big government positions, but then you nitpick the dude who has been an actual conservative, who has a history of pissing off the Hatch/McCain group you supposedly hate?

REMEMBER Trump condemned Cruz for calling McConnel a liar... You can’t just do that in the senate and still make deals! Sure, McConnel is a liar and Trump is a jackass who will be cutting back door deals with Turtle Face to screw over the Constitution, but hey, you can’t insult people, because that’s uncouth!

No sh*t... You hypocrite. You can’t insult people. This is coming from somebody who makes me look like Mother Theresa on Twitter.

How stupid do you have to be to believe anything Trump says?

New York values? They are stupidly liberal. Period. Oh, play the 911 card. You really came together! America! Great. Then you all went back to your gun bans, absurd business regulations, high taxes, big soda bans, smoking bans, salt bans, horse bans, self righteous left wing snobbery, and electing socialists.

You StormTrumpers are p*ssed at the establishment? . Welcome to the party. You are p*ssed about big government cronies bailing out their friends? Wonderful. Then pull your head out of your a$$. The system you are mad at exists because guys like Trump bribe people like Clinton.

Remember that Bible verse about straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel? That’s you jackasses comparing Cruz and Trump.

Is Cruz perfect? No. But he has been a happy warrior with principles. Cruz actually gets the Constitution, so the establishment fears him, and the media slanders him when they can’t ignore him. Trump is Mussolini in a hair piece. The establishment doesn’t like him, but they figure they can make deals with him.

[P-Marlowe]

If you believe that ones needs a law degree to understand and interpret law

Not at all. The fact is that your interpretation may be exactly what the founders intended and any court that would interpret it any way other than yours would not be consistent with the founders.

Ahh, but here's the rub. You do need a law degree to be an appeals court judge and it is Lawyers and not historians who get to decide issues like "Is Ted Cruz eligible?"

As a practicing attorney I am very confident that if this issue is heard by Appeals Court Judges or the Supreme Court, they are going to follow the reasoning in that law review article. Why? Because for the most part, judges are lazy and the easiest decision they could make is that if you are born a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. If they have to go beyond that, then they have to write pages and pages of reasoning and quote the founders, and quote Vattel and Cicero and Julius Ceasar and St. Paul and the Beatles.... and that ain't gonna happen.

So if you really really want this issue decided once and for all by the courts, you are going to be sorely disappointed at the end result.

Trump doesn't want the courts deciding this issue for 2 reasons.

1) He wants the issue. He wants people to wonder and argue as to whether or not Ted Cruz is an NBC.

2) He knows he would lose and it would embarrass him.

Carry on.

[kiltie65]

Cruz could have gotten “an out”for trying to do the oath of office and screwing it up.. He could have said he wanted to read it out from a copy as he didn’t want to risk botching it the way Roberts/Obummer did.