Posted on 01/23/2016 6:52:25 PM PST by 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?â€
Trump said he was confident he would defeat Cruz and win the Republican nomination, so he doesn’t need to file the lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I am not ignorant of the fact that the courts are not going to rule on what is written in the language of the Constitution, that citizenship means exclusive allegiance to the United States at birth or naturalization as these are the only 2 methods by which citizenship is derived. As Scalia says, to them “it’s water over the damn”.
My purpose for posting is not because I want the courts to rule, it is to wake up the public at large who vote, that they might educate themselves in the law as I have and then place an educated vote.
And for the record, Clarence Thomas is already on the record, recorded on video, that the SCOTUS has no interest in taking any cases on presidential eligibility.
You also may be a lawyer, but obviously not a well educated one because one doesn’t need to go to Vattel or Cicero, etc. because the US Supreme Court has already ruled on ‘natural born’, as recently as 1939. Sure, every one wants to go to WKA, however, WKA was not ruled a ‘natural born’ and when one reads the bloviating opinion of Justice Gray, it is evident that it was WKA’s renunciation of his Chinese citizenship before he left for China that was the deciding factor. WKA’s birth on US soil only made the naturalization process easier as WKA had never lived in China. And the Justice who wrote the opinion in WKA also wrote the opinion in Elk v. Wilkins and in the Elk case, Gray cited Minor v Happersett, and ALL those cases boil down to one pertinent point of law, EXCLUSIVE allegiance to the United States, at birth or naturalization. WKA was a native, he was not a natural born because of the allegiance factor at birth.
The 14th as it is written in the statutes at large: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power”
In which ruling of the court in Elk v Wilkins, written by Justice Gray stated, ““[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.†... and ... “The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.†The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”
So please, refrain from throwing your, “I’m a lawyer” out there as if you have more authority to interpret the law than I do, a lay person who is self educated and better off because I wasn’t indoctrinated with the liberal ‘British Blackstone” bull$hit that you were. I prefer Wilson, Story & Tucker, the men who actually took part in the drafting & ratifying of the Constitution and who actually wrote commentaries on American jurisprudence for free citizens who are no longer ‘subjects’ of British jurisprudence.
To conclude, I do agree with you on Trump, I too believe that he is merely using the eligibility issue as a political tool. I wasn’t born yesterday, I want to vote for the Constitution, however, its representative has not yet announce his candidacy.
Except there was a great deal made of the fact that Obama's mother didn't meet the residence requirements to confer citizenship if the birth was overseas. Cruz' mother did.
Totally irrelevant. Cruz did not apply for naturalization. He was not naturalized. He was a citizen at birth, which is synonymous with natural born citzen (unless you can show otherwise, which I doubt).
Well, on that we are in agreement.
You also may be a lawyer, but obviously not a well educated one
And you may be a teacher but if you expected me to read anything after that remark, you are mistaken.
I could not believe how many people are ‘officially’ running for president, and will appear in the official ballots. Lots of total unknowns.
One of which, Ms Chomi Prag, is registered as a candidate in the NH ballot and as such has standing.
I think she made an official complaint to the election board to remove Ted Cruz from the New Hampshire ballot because of the natural citizen issue.
Is any one following that story? I haven’t heard much since the original news came out.
2.. was that distinction ever made in the birther arguments for’s for 8 years?
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?
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?
5... do you have any doubt the dem and media going to drag this to court?
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
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?
8... do you understand the expression:....whistling past the 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...
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
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 ?
If you’re point (”he [Trump] would have to show harm”) is merely to point out that Trump is the clear frontrunner and, were he to win Iowa, would be unstoppable, then, o.k., ha ha.
But, the matter has been ruled upon many times. Rivals have standing, citizens do not, to challenge the decision of election officials to place the names of candidates on the ballot whose qualification for the job is being challenged.
Conversely, the decision of election officials to not place a name on the ballot for such a reason can be appealed by the candidate.
Thus, the many election officials who have placed George Romney, John McCain, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, not to mention Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin, and the summary judgements of many judges in the cases of McCain, Cruz and Rubio all speak to the qualification of natural born citizen as developed by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark (persons born on U.S. soil of non-citizen legal residents) and Rogers v. Belle (person born oversea of at least one citizen parent).
Donald Trump has himself said that Cruz and Rubio are natural born citizens, and only claims that the Democrats will bring a law suit (meaning some Democratic election official won’t put Cruz’ name on the ballot or meaning that Hillary Clinton will challenge Cruz’ eligibility). It is obvious Trump is making citizenship a political issue because it makes political sense.
We’re not playing marbles. This is for President of the U.S. Four years ago, Trump made an exploratory attempt to get the Republican nomination. He found out that he couldn’t win without being pro-life and pro-gun, contributing more money to Democrats than to Republicans, being friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and voting for Barack Obama. So, he had a come to Jesus moment and became a naturalized Republican. In contrast, Cruz is a natural born Republican.
There is a BIG difference in emotionally exciting PO’d potential voters getting in on mass hysteria and the sobriety that often sets in when the vote booth curtain closes and its just you and your responsibility to protect the greatest country on the planet. In the end Conservative principals win out over empty Hot Button sound bytes.
The “Wilder Effect” could look like kindergarten compared to the “Trump Effect”.
This one sentence speaks volumes but is highly ignored. When listening to my sociopath con husband I realized that there were bits of truth that I had to gather to get a true picture.
This is a bit...
Ah I remember the good old days when Trump said he wouldn’t bring a suit. Or the good older days when Trump said Cruz was eligible. I wonder what his position on this will be next week.
As for Cruz as his VP, people need to get over that. According to Trump, Cruz is a nasty human being who is worse than Hillary Clinton. That’s not who you make as your VP.
Exactly - he would have to show ‘harm’.
I think he can only show ‘harm’ if/when he lost to Cruz, and Cruz is eventually elected the president (by then Trump can claim that the constitutionally ineligible Cruz’s winning the primary destroyed his chance to run against/defeat the DemocRAT.)
Right now, when they are only competing against each other, the court will most likely NOT rule one way or the other, (bear in mind that the Constitution does not say a non-nbc cannot run for the presidency. It only says a non-nbc cannot BE the president.) The court will probably bounce it back to Congress and/or the Sec of State of each state to determine if Cruz is an nbc who can run for the presidency (i.e. whose name can appear on the ballots).
Even if/when Trump is defeated by Cruz and Cruz becomes the president, the court will still not rule - just look at obola’s case! By then the court will say: ‘it is moot!’, ‘You should have sued before he was elected president!’
The court will never rule on this issue! They’d say it is up to congress to decide. Congress will say it is up to the court......
So if I were Trump, I would not sue Cruz.
I would do whatever it takes to defeat all my opponents, then, as the president, I would make sure the court and/or congress addresses this issue once and for all, and, to prosecute obola for usurping the presidency!
The basic problem is that if Cruz has already been certified to appear on a state-wide ballot, then that means the state presumes he is qualified for the office. People forget that it is the states, who choose the electors. and after the electors have voted IN their states, they results are sent to Congress for the final count, and it is up to Congress to certify the result. Trump, it seems, would have to sue in every state he loses. He used the term declaratory judgement, but there has to be an actual controversy between parties for that to be an option, and that is the nub of the matter. Cruz is not going to ask for one, and Trump has no right to ask.
As one of the *birthers* who has been doing the screaming all this time -
It's immaterial if his mother were older, if he was was born in Kenya OR in America. He's still not eligible.
The 14th Amendment was a naturalization act.
I just hope that Cruz has a Senate seat after this...
Why wouldn’t he...Texas is proud of Ted Cruz. By the way, Ted Cruz is up for reelection in 2018, the same time your senator Orrin Hatch is up for reelection. Why don’t you focus on getting him out instead of trashing Cruz.
Did or did not Cruz go before a judge in 2014 and formally renounce his Canadian citizenship that he had from birth?
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. I have read the Canadian citizenship laws of 1970 and in 1970, Canada did not grant citizenship to babies born in the country unless, 1) one of the parents was a Canadian, 2) both of the parents were Canadian & 3) the parents had applied and were granted permanent legal resident status because they had begun the process of becoming Canadian citizens.
Cruz Sr. was a Canadian citizen when the family relocated back to the United States. He remained a Canadian citizen until 2005. So for Constitutional purposes, Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz was a natural born Canadian citizen at birth. One can not be natural born of 2 countries and Cruz legally admitted he was a natural born Canadian when he formally & legally renounced his foreign citizenship in 2014.
It’s all in how one approaches a judge, whether they will listen or not and MOST lawyers have not perfected the art of writing briefs that will intrigue a judge to read the entire brief rather than toss it aside. And a lawyer who says that basically all judges are lazy, IMHO, is a lazy lawyer who failed to get to know the judge so to write a brief that the judge would entertain as legitimate.
Now I am not a hardcore Scalia fan, his views on stare decisis makes me want to vomit, however, he is a good write and he does give good advice. Maybe, as a lawyer, you should invest some time in the advice he has to give before casting such a blanket scathing opinion of those who serve on the bench. Maybe the problem isn’t always with the judges, but how the lawyers approach the judge in their bloviating and quite often, incoherent briefs. “Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges” as well as “Reading the Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts”
Did or did not Cruz go before a judge in 2014 and formally renounce his Canadian citizenship that he had from birth?
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. I have read the Canadian citizenship laws of 1970 and in 1970, Canada did not grant citizenship to babies born in the country unless, 1) one of the parents was a Canadian, 2) both of the parents were Canadian & 3) the parents had applied and were granted permanent legal resident status because they had begun the process of becoming Canadian citizens.
Cruz Sr. was a Canadian citizen when the family relocated back to the United States. He remained a Canadian citizen until 2005. So for Constitutional purposes, Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz was a natural born Canadian citizen at birth. One can not be natural born of 2 countries and Cruz legally admitted he was a natural born Canadian when he formally & legally renounced his foreign citizenship in 2014.
_________________________________________________________
This is very interesting..indeed. This fiasco gets wormier by the day.
Does anyone have a screenshot of a sample CRBA? It would be interesting to see if the classification of citizenship is annotated on the certificate.
I know there are those that say he never had/doesn’t need one, but his campaign staffer, Francis I believe, has stated that Ted does in fact possess a CRBA.
How long have you been practicing law and how many appeals court briefs have you written?
How many of the drafters & signers of the Constitution were lawyers? How many of the founding era Presidents, Senators & Congressmen who wrote the laws were lawyers? Have all judges always had law degrees? Have all Supreme Court Justices had law degrees? And where is it written in the law that one MUST have a lawyer represent them, in writing or in person, in any court?
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.