Posted on 02/29/2016 3:59:25 PM PST by drewh
A New York judge will hear arguments on Tuesday in a lawsuit that challenges Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s ability to run for president given that he was born in Canada.
State Supreme Court Justice David Weinstein will hear the claim of two men who contend that Cruz is not a citizen of the U.S. and is therefore ineligible to run for president, NBC has reported. Cruz was born in Alberta, Canada.
Barry Korman and William Gallo will argue that despite Cruz’s mother being an American, the senator is not a citizen because such status cannot be passed from parent to child, Newsday reported.
The defense of Cruz’s place in the election is being argued by the New York Board of Elections, which put Cruz on the ballot, NBC added.
Cruz, a lawyer, was elected to be a senator from Texas in 2012, Newsday added.
To be fair the law has changed several times so it might depend on when the child was born. But it does happen, esp after 1986.
A couple of years ago Cruz said because of his birth in Canada he could never run for president. That’s why he never brings it up now and his records are sealed. Neither of Cruz’s parents were in the US military stationed in Canada and neither of them worked for the state department in Canada when Ted Cruz was born. This two requirements have to met before a child born in a foreign country can claim to be a natural born citizen, which is a requirement to run for president.
Where is the form to give him ‘citizenship’ to be an American Citizen? He can’t ever be a ‘natural born citizen’ because he didn’t have (2) parents born on American Soil and he wasn’t born on American Soil...all he can be is a ‘citizen’ of America...that’s it....
Canadian citizenship by descent
Every person born outside of Canada in the first generation abroad is a Canadian citizen by descent. Prior to Bill C-37 becoming law on 17 April 2009, this only applied to those people born after 15 February 1977 (those born prior to this date but who did not have citizenship reacquired it or gained it retroactive to their date of birth or date citizenship was lost). Every such person whose Canadian parent or parents were also not born in Canada and obtained their citizenship at birth by descent (second generation born abroad) must have successfully applied to maintain their Canadian citizenship before their 28th birthday, that is, if their 28th birthday took place before 17 April 2009. People falling into that category who did not take steps to maintain their citizenship lost their citizenship on that birthday.
With Bill C-37[11] coming into effect on 17 April 2009, there is no longer a requirement or any allowance to apply to maintain citizenship. Additionally, the first generation rule requires at least one parent to be born in Canada or be a naturalized Canadian citizen in order to pass citizenship to their children born outside of Canada (government and Canadian Forces employees are exempt from this rule).
How does a, "New York Judge" have jurisdiction in a federal matter?
Everyone knows he is an American.
Are you sure? He has only produced his mothers BC - nothing proving his citizenship. He never got a CRBA because his mother applied for Canadian citizenship prior to little Rafael’s birth.
If his mother applied for Canadian citizenship did she lose her American citizenship? If that is the case, then he is a man without a country...
His father, born in Cuba, came here on a green card, went to Canada and obtained a Canadian Citizenship, then came back to American, and in 2005 became just a ‘citizen’ of America...
His mother, born in Delaware, went to England, came back to America, then went to Canada, and then came back to America....
Ted was born in Canada in 1970, left there in 1974 came to America....has a Canadian Birth Certificate...where’s the rest of the papers?
Well why did the Founders go to the trouble? Or how could the Founders have been so brash to think they could say who is and who isn’t a citizen? Its called “self government”.
Unless you are some wildeyed libertarian anarchist, of course Congress has and the Founders had the authority to write laws regulating citizenship. To think otherwise is pure OneWorlder thinking.
Yours was a total non answer. About as absurd as some other birther saying that only persons born of two legal parents were citizens.
You are very right about one aspect, “A natural mother is natural by the law of Nature” and that precisely gives Cruz NBC (if there is such a thing under the law).
He openly renounced his legal Canadian citizenship less than two years ago.
Ergo-he is not now, and never has been, a natural born citizen.
He is clearly a naturalized citizen. Good for him!
Again, I don't see point of the question.
Statute law cannot make one a Natural Born Citizen. Only ones circumstance of birth can make one so.
The statutes you cite have no bearing on either Cruz or Rubio’s qualification to hold office under the Constitution.
Well, the communist indoctrination position is, that any turd-whirled dirtbag is eligible to serve as US President.
Most school kids in the 60s were taught that eligibility required two US citizen parents, and to be have been born in the US.
Then the Soviets took over (hippies, black panthers, feminazis, abortion, faggots, etc etc etc) now they're running the public schools, higher education, the media, and the country.
So according to you, Cruz’s eligibility fro President can’t be decided in federal court until AFTER the election? That is ludicrous. Cruz’s eligibility for President should have LONG SINCE been decided in federal court, state eligibility notwithstanding.
I didn’t say that. The courts can certainly decide before the election if they are so inclined. I believe that they will decline to consider the question, leaving the law intact. Can you find any serving Justice who thinks the current law ought to be overturned? I’ve only heard the opposite.
They didn't define the Little Baby Jesus either when they mentioned him in the Constitution, but everyone at the time knew what they meant.
Just like everyone at the time knew what Natural Born Citizen meant.
Do you not know how to read the Constitution?
No...I'm stupid.
So he needed to show —something— to prove he was a citizen of the US.
Because if he didn’t have US citizenship and renounced the only citizenship he had (Canadian), then after renouncing, he would then be stateless.
He had to have showed them -something-, even if it was a CRBA or US passport.
And that’s just to establish citizenship; plain citizenship, not natural-born.
Sorry, but you are simply not correct. The facts for Cruz and Rubio are not in dispute, so that part is easy. The next step is the law and the law says that they are both eligible. The next step would be to convince the courts to overturn the law. Windflier’s proclamation doesn’t count for much, unfortunately. I don’t think that the courts have any inclination to overturn the law and therefore, the Supreme Court will never agree to hear the cases.
In the very unlikely event that a court goes off the deep end and overturns the law, SCOTUS will step in quickly to tell them that they have erred.
This is the way this will play out.
Laws? Statutes?
No, but I am able to cite a unanimous Supreme Court decision where the Chief Justice lays out the NBC definition a mere hundred years after the signing and ratification.
Was there a Constitutional amendment since then that changed it?
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.