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.
States have no authority over citizenship. That is a power EXCLUSIVE to Congress via Article 1 Section 8. A State judge does not have jurisdiction over citizenship.
It is not necessary to have the states ratify the definition of NBC. The constitution already authorizes Congress to establish all the rules of naturalization via Article 1 Section 8
A persons citizenship does not depend on a piece of paper. There citizenship is based on the conditions of their birth.
Whatever the outcome this will result in Trump picking up MORE supporters.
Do you really not understand how the Court system works?
Your issue seems to be with standing. I think Cruz could find a way to get parties with standing. The NBC issue is clearly a federal question and if Cruz were nominated, certainly the Democratic nominee or maybe even the Party would have standing to challenge Cruz’s NBC eligibility. I agree with Trump that almost certainly the Dems would challenge Cruz if he were nominated for President or even VP. The Dems would be stupid if they didn’t and one thing about the Dems, when it comes to political advantage, they are not stupid. It is what they live for.
The problems are not simply STANDING, although Standing is a real tough hurdle to overcome in any lawsuit.
Standing directly relates to being able to show damages that HAVE been done PRIOR to the filing of the suit, not theoretical damages in the future. The Standing issue can only be overcome AFTER someone, Cruz for instance, has damaged the plantiff. That can only be after he is POTUS, not before.
Then comes the Constitution that says that once the person is sworn in as POTUS, he IS President regardless. At that point only Impeachment can remove a President.
That and Standing were two primary reasons none of the NBC suits against the obvious fraud nobama went nowhere.
The other issue with Cruz requesting a declarative judgment on NBC, is that there is no such pathway in our Court system. A suit must be brought by a party, with Standing, first.
Being a very astute Lawyer and Constitutional scholar, why would Cruz ever want to defy both law and the Constitution by not defending both from an illegitimate suit brought by anyone with no standing?
Well, I think standing is more than just historical damage. I think if you can prove that imminent, direct, personal damage would take place, you have standing.
And although I know that federal courts avoid advisory opinions on unsettled states laws or criminal cases, this is clearly a constitutional question. Honestly, why would the Constitution have an NBC requirement if there was no way to prevent a non-NBC candidate from being sworn in? That is not consistent with original intent. I think in this case a federal court would be constitutionally authorized to take this case and give an advisory opinion - basically a decision about Cruz’s eligibility.
Funny one, Slambat. I do indeed love the game of ice hockey.
Read up on it. The only party with “Preventative” Standing is the government and that is very narrowly defined mostly to criminal activity and environment.
“Honestly, why would the Constitution have an NBC requirement if there was no way to prevent a non-NBC candidate from being sworn in?” That indeed is a $64,000 question.
My assumption is that they were concerned right after the Revolution about some Loyalist being able to get elected and sliding us right back to King George. By leaving NBC undefined and beyond natural citizenship, they could “define” by decree, “it” as a case made it necessary and deny any person as they wished, NBC for POTUS purposes.
If NBC was such a big thing they saw in the future, why did not they intentionally leave it both undefined and aside the normally recognized natural citizenship? Simply put, once that generation and immediate Loyalists were gone the need ceased and regular natural citizen is the definition they choose by abstention.
But to create a “natural born Citizen” of the United States both parents must be Citizens at the time the child is born in the USA.”””’
Rubio’s parents became USA citizens in 1975.
Rubio was born in 1971.
Rubio is an anchor baby——I say he is NOT eligible to be President.
Well, again original understanding and intent is the way we should be interpreting the Constitution when the meaning of the text is not plain. Your reasoning may be correct, dunno. But this is a constitutional requirement that obviously should be answered before the candidate in question is pronounced President. Original intent would require this if there is a genuine dispute which there is here.
Precedent has to start somewhere and I think there is strong argument for this issue to be decided in a federal court one way ot the other. This could very well add “constitutional eligibility for President” to states issues, criminal, and environment for “preventative standing”. It is an exception, like an appeal from an objection that is allowed during a trial if the lack of a decision can’t be changed later and irreversibly affects the outcome of the trial.
That doesn't apply. NBCs aren't naturalized, they are natural.
And by the way, that's "Constitution".
Well, you said, all they have to do is....
Why would any State have any problem with defining NBC though a Constitutional Amendment?
Depends on what the meaning of "NBC" is.
My personal view is that nothing will ever happen, one way or the other, regarding clarifying the meaning.
I don't know how much clearer it needs to be...jus soli AND jus sanguinis.
The founders didn't want any freaking foreigners as President.
Article 1 Section 8 covers all the rules of naturalization. That includes who is a citizen at birth and who is not.
Does it cause the Canadian to have been born in the US to two US Citizens?
The biggest hurdle will be getting Congress to pass an Amendment. Unless Congress passes a real doozie, why would any State not sign on?
The best opportunity is between POTUS elections and neither side having an ox in the ditch.
I remember back in 2013, people got the ZOT for trolling about Cruz being ineligible....
Your statement:
“But to create a “natural born Citizen” of the United States both parents must be Citizens at the time the child is born in the USA”.
Where did you find this? On the internet, on the back of a box of Lucky Charms? Don’t pay much attention to the birthers, they have been wrong about this since 2008.
Go to the current law, that’s where the court will go to. Immigration and Naturalization Act, Chapter 2, Section 301. The court (assuming that some court would be foolish enough to even take a look at this)would examine the facts, including the facts that Cruz was born in Canada to an American Citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father; and Rubio, born in the United States to parents not American citizens. Then, they will go to the law, find the applicable section, declare both to be natural born citizen and the court will be done.
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html
If someone wants to appeal, they will have to challenge the Constitutionality of the law. I predict that there is no federal appellate court in the country that would agree to hear that case. Of course, the appeal could go to the Court of Appeals, and eventually to the Supreme Court. But, none of the circuits or SCOTUS will agree to hear it. Let me know if I turn out to be wrong.
Yes, to the extent that this section gives the power of establishing the rules to the Congress, currently enacted within the Immigration and Naturalization Act
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.