Posted on 02/15/2016 5:54:49 PM PST by mike70
've never started a thread (in 16 years), but I have a question for discussion.
Assume Ted Cruz is the Republican nominee. The Democrat candidate files lawsuits challenging Cruz's Natural Born Citizen status in two or more appellate districts. In one, the Court of Appeals rules that Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen and must appear on ballots. In another, the Court of Appeals rules that Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen and cannot appear on ballots in that district.
Both cases are appealed to SCOTUS, but no replacement for Justice Scalia is nominated and confirmed. In both cases the Supreme Court splits 4-4. Would the matter revert to the decision of the Appeals Court so Cruz would be on the ballot in some states but not others.
To complicate the matter further, some states, California for example, span two appellate districts. If the decisions conflicted, Cruz would appear on some ballots in a state but not others.
What happens now?
Now we can get back to the divided allegiance issue. Even though Rafael Cruz (Ted’s father) sought and was granted asylum in the United States, Rafael Cruz moved his family to Canada and became a citizen of Canada (who would do that). It is very pertinent to understand that at in the same timeframe between 30,000 and 40,000 Viet Nam War Draft dodgers and deserters also fled to Canada which contributed to a very acrimonious environment for the parents of a so called American child to live. A person can only speculate what anti-American feelings and beliefs Cruz was exposed to at home.
Rafael Cruz was granted asylum but fled to Canada along with thousands of other reprehensible expatriates.
“I agree with the author. Cruz is not NBC.”
The founders wrote letters to each other that unequivocally deny the Blackstone legal theory of applying British common law to our nation. We even went to war in 1812 over this very thing.
Further, in order for the law professor to be correct, the very founders who ratified the Constitution also enacted an unconstitutional law just 18 months later. The founders clearly thought it was constitutional and within the purview of Congress to decide if foreign born children of US citizens were “natural born citizens”. This proves that the founders regarded the “natural” part of the formula to be based on jus sanguinis and not jus soli. Their conception of natural law was based on the Law of Nations by Vattel and not British common law as Blackstone proposed some time later.
Under the applicable law, Cruz’s citizenship was conferred from his mother, which means it was naturally conferred rather than by a process of naturalization.
The law professor who wrote the article disagrees. Your opinion is of no more worth than hers or mine. In the mean time, there are a lot of people who will never vote for a guy who was born a NBC Canadian which is what Cruz was for 43 years. You will never convince many people that Cruz is eligible. I know a few of them myself. I guess we will see how it shakes out. BTW, would ‘t that line of reasoning make the children fathered by US citizen GIs all over the world US NBC because they had one citizen parent? Do you think that is the sort of thing the founders had in mind?
Question: has the South Carolina State Election Commission so certified Ted Cruz?
If so, then file a cause of action against the South Carolina State Election Commission challenging their certification of Ted Cruz.
See how far you get.
BTW, this is in a state court; my comments have been directed toward FEDERAL court procedures.
“The law professor who wrote the article disagrees.”
And the founders disagree with the law professor. I am not simply making up something or posting my own opinion. The first act of naturalization explicitly recognized a category of “natural born citizen” that was born abroad. That has to be answered by anyone who claims being born abroad is a disqualification. It isn’t.
No. But that doesn't matter because the suit would be against the political party. If you read the statutory reference, you can easily see that the entity doing the certifying is the political party.
-- my comments have been directed toward FEDERAL court procedures. --
Are you retreating from your statement that "there is no law that can be said to have been broken."?
Not in the context of the exchange.... clearly the entire discussion was about FEDERAL law.
As for the South Carolina issue, go for itI I honestly encourage this. File suit against the Republican Party of South Carolina, or get your AHB to do it for you. See how far you get.
It’s mutual
I understand your point, but you made numerous blanket statements that tend to mislead about the situation overall. As for me "going for it," the context of the exchange is on the viability of Trump's suits.
At least the IL election board rejected Cruz's argument that it lacked the power to get to the merits, and the only argument you have advanced in here is that all federal courts will rule without getting to the merits. In other words, your contention or speculation is so narrow, as to be useless.
Nothing. The Democratic nominee lacks standing to sue.
The Elizabeth Taylor response was to prove that multiple citizenships are well-recognized in law. I spent decades practicing law which I gather you have not.
To both of you:
The constitution says what it says and not what you are wishin' and hopin' it says or what you Birthers delude yourselves to fantasize that it says. That is why the dozens of cases seeking to remove Obozo by a court generated Hail Mary passes after the fact of nominating fifth column candidates like McCain and Romney have ALL failed as will the Manhattan Garbagemouth's case. If you think of TRUMP!!! as a conservative that proves that your approach is as ignorant as it is lazy.
I was a state chairman for Reagan when he challenged totally unprincipled Feckless Ford who also probably would have thrilled you since he was every bit as "faux conservative" as McCain, Romney and TRUMP!!!! and just as ineffective politically in service to the usual gang of Wall Street greedheads.
Conservatives barely lost that fight but it and the election of Carter laid the groundwork for the greatest national election of our lives in 1980. Not only did Ronaldus Maximus sweep braindead Jimmuh Peanut out of office but, despite all the claims of his being an underdog, he won a landslide of historic proportions and swept away the cream of the communist wing of the Demonrat US Senators, about ten of them including Comrade George McGovern himself.
Four years later he won an even bigger landslide against Mondale.
When people like you lost two elections to Obozo for lack of an understanding of how politics is done, you whined: But, But... he was not an NBC, and, and this just can't be happening and then it just can't be happening AGAIN!!! Your TRUMP!!! will avenge this indignity (incurred by the laziness, stupidity and total lack of principles of McCain and M3R. This time, "we'll" get 'em with dirty language! Yeah, that's the ticket! Maybe Kim Kardashian can be The Donald's silicon-enhanced running mate, strategically having "wardrobe malfunctions" to distract the suckers. It will go well with the lion tamers, the dancing bears and the literal elephants that are TRUMP's idea of a campaign when he isn't blathering about blood coming out of Megyn Kelly's eyes or out of her "whatever" when she had the effrontery to ask him about his low rent track record for manners. Your The Donald sure showed her! And he sure showed normal Americans with manners simultaneously.
There were several major differences between Ronaldus Maximus and this Manhattan poseur who has so many hearts atwitter over THE WALL ALMIGHTY and nothing else. First, Reagan was a true gentleman with actual manners. Second, Reagan did not have to lie his backside off from one end of a campaign to another because he had an actual decades long resume of commitment and participation in conservatism. Third, he did not need a mob of zombies marching through Cairo (or Cleveland?) chanting: Imhotep! Imhotep! Imhotep! (see the first of the recent Mummy movies) or TRUMP!!!, TRUMP!!!, TRUMP!!! as though in a drug crazed stupor. Reagan was a true conservative across the board and even his enemies conceded that he was The Great Communicator whereas TRUMP!!!, Moral Monster Mitt Romney and John Spineless Sellout McCain were/are all demonrats in Republican drag.
All men, even Reagan, fall short of the glory of God but TRUMP!!! has made falling short into a high art form. Reagan made occasional mistakes like signing a permissive abortion bill in California, was shocked by the tidal wave of baby-killing that resulted and then h\did his best to reverse his own action in California and by appointing Scalia to SCOTUS. He failed with Sandra Day O'Connor, and her successor as SCOTUS diva Sandra Day O'Kennedy, both of whom betrayed their promises to Reagan. He also tried to name Robert Bork.
TRUMP!!!! thinks that his galloping pro-abort sister would make a fine SCOTUS appointment but he would be blocked by a federal anti-nepotism law. Maybe if he swears at Congress enough it will repeal that law and let him appoint his sister? Whaddya think?
Cruz understands and practices the actual constitution and not the one you WISH the Founders had adopted. It does not include the Birther theory. It does not include using eminent domain to take an elderly woman's home in Atlantic City for a parking lot at TRUMP!!!'s casino, strip club and probable cathouse. It does not include some general license for Obozo or TRUMP!!! or any other wannabe dictator to rule by "Executive Order."
I bet Larry and Curly and Shemp share your TRUMP!!! addled opinions. Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!
I will match my conservative movement resume and principles and Ted Cruz's against yours and The Donald's any time.
Your mind is certainly made up. Sorry for confusing you with mere facts! Barry Goldwater WAS nominated for POTUS. George (Mexico-born Romney tried. Moral Monster Mitt Romney was not an NBC according to your standards since his daddy was not and M3R was nominated. Give it a rest! No one cares about your Birther fantasies and most certainly not any qualified judge. Learn conservative principles, apply them practically, get a real candidate, work hard and beat the Demonrats and, above all, stop wasting everyone's time whining about NBC "credentials."
When I need you to sit in judgment as to whether my posts are, in your imagination, "senseless and irrelevant" I shall be sure to let you know. Meanwhile, don't hold your breath.
That last sentence is a TRUMP!!!ian masterpiece. Your master has taught you to talk dirty as a substitute for substance. Is that what they taught at the fraudulent TRUMP!!! “University?”
Law professors presumably know the law. Perhaps better than some guy on an internet forum. Cruz is not a US NBC, regardless is how badly Canada Ted wants to be president. He was a Canadian NBC though. Maybe he should run for president of Canada.
Actually, I had become confused between two different threads on essentially the same topic. On THIS one, I had not made the distinction. My bad.
As for the viability of any of Trumps threatened suits, I really do wish he would go for it, just to see him shut down.
Useless? I fail to see why. The election would be over before this issue is resolved on its merits. if any.
I'll help the others see what you refuse to acknowledge.
The legality of Cruz's name being on the ballot is a state law issue. Your argument was that federal courts would not reach the merits, and would instead dismiss the suits on procedural grounds, such as ripeness, judiciability, or some other rationale that resembles those. Being dismissed in federal courts, while an interesting academic exercise, does not resolve how state courts might rule, nor does it address the existence (or not) of state laws that bear on putting the names of ineligible candidates on the state ballots.
In short, the argument is on whether a case lies in any court, which is state court in the first place, and your response is that no case lies in a federal court.
And obviously, not very well. Unless your legal writing was much better than your juvenile ranting above, it's probably better that you gave up the practice.
“I will match my conservative movement resume and principles and Ted Cruz’s”
Othert than that, thanks for the charming war stories.
“Law professors presumably know the law. Perhaps better than some guy on an internet forum.”
That is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Cruz himself is a Constitutional scholar as well. He has also clerked for the Supreme Court and argued cases there. We do not need an ivory tower professor to divine for us the intent of the founders. We can read them for ourselves.
Here is the law I cited:
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Do you see the part about natural born citizens being born abroad? The legal theory of your professor is wrong, because it is clear that the founders did NOT base natural born citizenship on British common law or the legal theory of jus soli.
We have lots of writings of the founders. Letters. Speeches. Laws. Not one iota was written dissenting from the above law. Why is that?
Allowing other people to do our thinking for us, rather than engaging in the discourse and understanding the reasons for our way of life, has brought us to the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in today.
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.