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.
How did Cruz control when this happens?
I think we are going to find it a real chore to get any court with actual jurisdiction to ever let it get much beyond Standing issues. Federal Courts do not like to be put on the spot in deciding political cases.
Is that how it works? Dang I didn’t know that.
Why would any State have any problem with defining NBC though a Constitutional Amendment?
My personal view is that nothing will ever happen, one way or the other, regarding clarifying the meaning.
I’ve read this. I’ve also read similar “arguments” from parties who claim California is a republic, not a state, and therefore the State’s penal code doesn’t apply to them. I have educated myself, starting with a JD degree. You?
And Chump is the one regularly screaming LIAR.
That still leaves Cruz as our only president born as a foreign citizen
Shirley you jest
Can you think of another?
Mr. Tell, the 14th Amendment, and for that matter, any amendment could modify Article II Section 1 Clause 5, and change the eligibility requirements for the president. But the 14th Amendment never mentioned natural born citizenship. Its purpose was to naturalize slaves “uniformly”. Some states granted citizenship to freed slaves and some didn’t. I think we don’t disagree, but your point was not quite clear to me.
At least twenty six attempts were made to amend Article II Section 1 Clause 5, six attempts alone between 2000 and 2007, including Orin Hatch’s effort to make Schwarzenegger eligible and two attempts by John Conyers which were probably intended to make Obama eligible, and others by Nickles, Menendez, Barney Frank, and Rohrabacher. All failed to pass. No attempt to modify Article II Section 1 has ever succeeded.
Obama and his campaign co-chair, Clair McCaskill co-sponsored a “Foreign born children of Military Citizens Natural born Citizen Act” Senate Bill 2678 in February of 2008. It failed to pass. So Obama’s crew sponsored the “Senator John Sidney McCain is an Natural Born Citizen Resolution”, Senate Res. 511, in April of 2008. A resolution doesn’t make law, but can be the foundation for an amendment.
Larry Tribe, both Cruz’ and Obama’s con. law professor at Harvard, wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee with some sneaky mis-direction, and Michael Chertoff made a statement suggesting that being born to parents who were citizen was essential to being natural born. That was sneaky too, probably not just carelessness, because he omitted the place of birth requirement which was the reason McCain’s citizenship had been questioned. The Canal Zone was not sovereign U.S. territory until 1937, the year after McCain’s birth. The Supreme Court could, and should, include the Vattel extension of natural born citizenship to military and diplomats, but it hasn’t yet.
Our congressmen all knew the game being played to avoid the promised race war if Obama were exposed as ineligible. They all know what Minor v. Happersett said, and John Marshall, and Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v. Elg and... King makers with trillions of dollars to direct are using the confusion created to avoid challenging Obama, and to place people they can control in power. Citizens are beginning to learn what the law really says. For Republicans to offer four ineligible candidates is a testament to the corruption of all branches of our government. The media are usually for sale or can be coerced. Cruz, Rubio, Haley, and Jindal are simply opportunists, willing to use the lies explored during Obama’s illegal tenure to acquire power.
“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”.”
Such a claim is false and a fraud on the readers. The Founders knew full well natural born citizens were the children born in the jurisdiction of the United States with a U.S. father by the authority of Nature. Legislative organizations can only confer a subset of the privileges and duties of an actual natural born citizen by the authority of an artificial legislative act that creates the legal fiction of citizenship.
“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.”
That is yet another false statement and a fraud on the readers. In fact the Congress has only the power granted by the Constitution “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Such a Rule of Naturalization entails no more than using a legislative act to grant a non-citizen the right to be considered as if they were an actual natural born citizen in some but not all respects. Ted Cruz was granted U.S. citizenship by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which is a legislative act, an act of naturalization, and can only produce a naturalized citizen as stated in the U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....” Legislative acts can only create naturalized citizens, and the only means by which Ted Cruz had any path to U.S. citizenship was only through the legislative act and naturalization law that creates naturalized citizens. Congress has no power whatsoever to create a natural born citizen, because only Nature can create a natural born citizen in the absence of a legislative act.
“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.”
That is yet another false statement and fraud on the readers. You are behaving like an outlaw by denying the centuries of legal precedent in which Congress and other legislatures have never had the power to create or grant actual natural born citizenship. Your accusations amount to an attempt to smear with innuendo.
“Yours was a total non answer. About as absurd as some other birther saying that only persons born of two legal parents were citizens.”
There you go with the innuendo again. By your logic adoptive mothers who did not give birth to their adopted children are to be magically transformed into natural mothers by the stroke of a legislative pen in defiance of the Law of Nature. Ted Cruz acquired U.S. citizenship only because a legislative act authorized the U.S. Government to adopt Ted Cruz as a citizen, just like another legislative act authorized adoptive mothers to adopt children for whom they were not the natural mothers. The natural born citizen clause was included in the Constitution at a time when only those children born in the jurisdiction of the United States with a U.S. citizen father were natural born citizens of the United States.
“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).”
That is yet another false statement. Eleanor Cruz was the natural mother of Ted Cruz, and she gave birth to Ted Cruz in a foreign jurisdiction while she was a Canadian Permanent Resident with her foreign Cuban citizen husband. The only natural affiliations with a sovereign Ted Cruz was born with was the sovereign of Canada, due to place of birth, and the sovereign of Cuba, due to the father’s Cuban citizenship. The only claim to U.S. citizenship was through the legislative act, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which can only produce naturalized U.S. citizens, regardless of whether the United States adopted the child as a U.S. citizen at birth or after birth by the authority of the legislative act.
OK. Then please provide me with the definition of Natural Born Citizen from the language of the Constitution. Of course, you can’t find it because it’s not there. This is the argument of the birthers, they insisted that we must follow the Constitution and then proceeded to provide their own definition of NBC that they insisted we follow.
The law on citizenship has been laid out by the Congress since 1790, as intended by the Constitution. The courts have provided opinions from time to time on specific points of dispute. That’s how it works. If the Court decides that the eligibility of a candidate raises a Constitutional issue, then they may take on a case. I don’t think that they will because they don’t believe a Constitutional issue must be resolved. Most other judges and legal scholars agree. So, it doesn’t matter if I’m “not getting this” or what you think.
Since, the Republican nominee will essentially be decided today, this will not happen. Today marks the end of Birther War II.
“OK. Then please provide me with the definition of Natural Born Citizen from the language of the Constitution.”
You already know where to look, but you refuse to. Nothing I can do to force you.
Again, no court has the power or authority to redefine the meaning of the words of the Constitution. If we grant them that power, then the Constitution may as well not exist, for men will soon reinterpret it into meaningless scribblings.
The Framers didn’t define any terms in the Constitution. They wrote it in the clear language of the day. If we modern people are befuddled and confused about what those simple words mean, there is a remedy. Pick up an 18th century dictionary and look them up.
I think the founding generation would be astounded at how ignorant and incapable of simple problem solving their progeny have become. We’re practically unworthy to call them our ancestors.
Of course I know, English Common Law as SCOTUS has pointed out several times. By that measure, both Cruz and Rubio are eligible.
Are you this passionate about the 10th Amendment? Interesting that no one seems to get upset about blatant disregard about that part of the Constitution.
Nice talking with you.
Ted Cruz Asks Houston Federal Judge to Dismiss Eligibility Suit
Cruz is not cooperating but fighting having this decided. If America’s future came before his own political future, then he SHOULD WANT a valid case with parties having standing, possibly even a fellow candidate, brought before a federal court so the DQ question is resolved one way or the other. That would show selfless good faith on Criuz’s part, something we need desperately from all of our candidates for public office.
That’s one reason I find myself against career politicians more and more. I’m beginning to think that career politicians are per se corrupt because their own political self-interest comes first.
“Nice talking with you.”
Regards.
No, regardless of today’s outcome, unless Cruz doesn’t carry Texas which he probably will, Cruz will keep going.
Birther II or not, there is a genuine dispute of a material fact about Cruz’s NBC eligibility and his refusal to cooperate to get this decided in federal court shows me bad faith on his part as far as his putting America’s future ahead of his own political future.
Come on now, you are smarter than that. It is more or less SOP for a defendant to ask the judge to dismiss.
Must have been dismissed, its not in the news down here in Texas. Your link requires to sign up for another spam shipment. If you have the rest of the story, post it.
Don’t know where you are. but most in Texas, other than the yellerdog dems, know that Cruz has proven to stand by every word he uttered in his Senate campaign. One’s history speaks volumes or as its said “Actions speak louder than words”.
All that being said, Cruz still has a problem and if he were to be nominated, America (those that love her) would have a big problem - the unresolved genuine dispute of a material fact about Cruz’s eligibility that one way or the other. Cruz should have cooperated to get this cleared up a long time ago.
I don't think that there is any dispute about the facts: he was born in Canada to an American Citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father. There is no doubt about that. And a simple reading of the Immigration and Naturalization Act says that makes him a citizen by birth. The only other class of citizen is a naturalized citizen. One is eligible to be President, the other is not. The burden of disputing the law is not on Cruz. 99% percent of these legal challenges will be dismissed. The other 1% percent will be decided in favor of Cruz and the courts will let that stand. There will never be a court fight unless some state refuses to put Cruz or Rubio on the ballot. In that very unlikely circumstance, the courts will swiftly act and force the state to put them back on the ballot. End of story.
The Dems could immediately sue if Cruz were nominated. Please don't try to say this issue couldn't be resolved in federal court before that. I mean worst case, Cruz could cooperate with an opponent who has standing to get this into federal court. You don't wait on the railroad tracks for the locomotive to be inches from you before you take action.
Perfectly said:
“And a simple reading of the Immigration and Naturalization Act says that makes him a citizen by birth. The only other class of citizen is a naturalized citizen. One is eligible to be President, the other is not.”
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.