Ted Cruz, facing suits on Canadian birth, lawyers up

http://www.mcclatchydc.com ^ | March 1, 2016 | MARIA RECIO

[NKP_Vet]

WASHINGTON Ted Cruz, tagged as "Canadian" by a needling Donald Trump since the GOP race tightened in January, rejects any idea of being ineligible to be U.S. president.

While Trump hasn't followed up on his threat to sue Calgary-born Cruz over what he says is the Texas senator not meeting the constitutional requirement of being a "natural-born citizen," plenty of other people have. Trump has warned that Democrats will disrupt the electoral process by suing if Cruz is the nominee.

And that's caused Cruz a bit of trouble. He has had to lawyer up to fight the more than half-dozen lawsuits around the country, some in federal court, some in state court. A Cook County, Ill., judge tossed one of the suits Tuesday, not over the citizenship issue but over a technicality of how the papers were served.

[Yosemitest]

Tolls NEVER LINK TO FACTS.
Trolls throw accusations with NO BACKING.
Where's YOUR FACTS ?

[grey_whiskers]

Your ALL CAPS.

[Bubba Gump Shrimp]

What disturbs me most about Cruz and all lawyers, is they claim to be strict in interpreting the law.

B.S. Ted and his followers know damn well what Natural Born is. I know what a natural blonde is, I know what a natural left hander is, and I know what a natural born citizen is, and so did the fathers of this country.

ONLY a lawyer or politician could manipulate it into something else. It is disturbing that this so called “defender of the constitution” is willing to twist this around, and his followers are willing to twist this around to get the results that they want.

THIS is the problem with the country. Lawyers and politicians INTERPRETING the law to their best interest.

I’m not saying that no lawyer or judge will declare him “natural born”, but it’s not right, it’s not the intent. I am certain some judge or lawyer or politician will twist it around.

When up is down and black is white we’ve lost it all, and we are nearly at that point, when a candidate who is supposed to be a stalwart interpreter of the original intent of the constitution can play legal verbiage to his own political needs.

If he was a defender of the constitution, he would step down for the good of America and say “this was not their intent, and I strongly defend the Constitution”.

That would show backbone and character, and then I’d say he’d make a fine SC Justice.

[Yosemitest]

WHAT, NOP FACTS TO REBUT WITH ?
Poor Tump DUPE; ALL PROPAGANDA and NO FACTS for his SOCIALIST DemocRAT !

[ri4dc]

Hockey? I am not even certain he can skate ...

[grey_whiskers]

Doubling down on stupid, is not a winning strategy on your part.

[Fresh Wind]

If Cruz is so confident of his NBC status, why would he want to waste all that time and money fighting these suits?

[Georgia Girl 2]

Canadamaybian? :-)

[higgmeister]

The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

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.

---

Not so fast on your Great Constitution Guru, Yosemite

---

1790 Naturalization Act:
"..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..."

1795 Naturalization Act:
"...the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States..."

---

Found this awhile back:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3381700/posts?page=110#110

The 1795 Naturalization Act dropped "natural born" status for children born abroad. Washington signed both pieces of legislation so there must have been a reason for the change.

You were right, sr_ss, and it came right from the pen of James Madison, the author of the US Constitution.

NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act

SYNOPSIS:

1) In 1969 Pinckney McElwee uncovered evidence in the House Committee notes from 1795 which indicate that the reason the reference to natural born citizen (NBC), included in the 1790 Naturalization Act, but entirely removed from the 1795 Naturalization Act, was that people would wrongly infer that that Act was actually intending that those born overseas outside the country were to become natural born citizens. Clearly Madison was not wanting to make natural born citizens of the children born overseas to American parents. On June 14, 1967, Representative John Dowdy introduced McElwee’s unpublished article, “Natural Born Citizen” (pg 10), on the House floor, to the U.S. House of Representatives. Until recently, the import of this evidence has been largely unrecognized.

Largely unrecognized until now when it is precisely relevant to this political season.

---

NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act

---

Here is the text of the 1790 Naturalization Act:

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

1795 Naturalization Act text change:

, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.

James Madison had written "shall be considered as natural born citizens" He did not say, shall be as natural born citizens. In the revised act that abolished the first he corrected his own text to make it less susceptible to misinterpretation.

You Guru is wrong.   And you know Dude, Cruz ain't bona fide.   Just saying.

[higgmeister]

WHAT, NOP FACTS TO REBUT WITH ?

Poor Tump DUPE; ALL PROPAGANDA and NO FACTS for his SOCIALIST DemocRAT !

So, you also like to be wrong at the top of your lungs too.

[Yosemitest]

Mr. NO FACTS, Who's the STUPID ONE ?
Vote your VALUES backed up by demonstrated ACCOMPLISHMENTS, NOT your FEELINGS, DUPED Trump voter !

[jpsb]

Sorry if you can not handle the truth, without the 1934 and follow up legislation Ted Cruz would not even be a citizen of the USA. If congressional legislation makes you a citizen you are not a natural born citizen and as our founders understood natural born citizen. Our constitution grants congress the power over naturalization. Anyone made a citizen via legislation is a naturalized citizen not a natural born citizen.

[Yosemitest]

You're sill pushing that John Vernard DowdyCRAP.
This garbage is so hilarious,

Dowdy was a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from the 7th District of Texas from 1952 to 1967 and then served as a congressman from the 2nd District of Texas until 1973, when he decided to retire under indictment for bribery.

According to prosecutors, he accepted a $25,000 bribe to intervene in the federal investigation of Monarch Construction Company of Silver Spring, Maryland.
In 1971, Dowdy was convicted on eight counts:
two of conspiracy,
one of transporting a bribe over state lines,
and five of perjury.
... Dowdy ... served a sentence in prison for perjury.

Try again, LOSER !

[Yosemitest]

WRONG !

In 1798, the law on naturalization was changed again.
The Federalists feared that many new immigrants favored their political foes, the Democratic-Republicans.
The Federalists, therefore, wanted to reduce the political influence of immigrants.
To do so, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed a law
that required immigrants to wait fourteen years before becoming naturalized citizens and thereby gaining the right to vote.
The 1798 act also barred naturalization for citizens of countries at war with the United States.
At the time, the United States was engaged in an unofficial, undeclared naval war with France.
The French government thought the United States had taken the side of Britain in the ongoing conflict between Britain and France.
A related law passed in 1798, the Alien Enemy Act, gave the president the power during a time of war to arrest or deport any alien thought to be a danger to the government.

After Jefferson became president (in 1801), the 1798 naturalization law was repealed, or overturned (in 1802).
The basic provisions of the original 1790 law WERE RESTORED except for the period of residency before naturalization.
The residency requirement, that is, the amount of time the immigrant had to reside, or live, in the United States, was put back to five years, as it had been in 1795.

The 1802 law remained the basic naturalization act until 1906, with two notable exceptions.
In 1855, the wives of American citizens were automatically granted citizenship.
In 1870, people of African descent could become naturalized citizens, in line with constitutional amendments passed after the American Civil War (1861-65)
that banned slavery and gave African American men the right to vote.
Other laws were passed to limit the number of people (if any) allowed to enter the United States from different countries,
especially Asian countries, but these laws did not affect limits on naturalization.

Within a decade of adopting the Constitution, immigration, and naturalization in particular, had become hot political issues.
They have remained political issues for more than two centuries.

Did you know ...

Naturalization laws relate to the process of immigrants becoming a citizen.
Other laws have provided for losing citizenship -
- by getting married!
In 1907, Congress passed a law that said a woman born in the United States (and therefore a citizen) would lose her citizenship
if she married an alien (who was therefore not a citizen).
In 1922, two years after women won the right to vote,
this provision was repealed and a woman's citizenship status was separated from her husband's.

Also Notice the signature blocks at the bottom of this:



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

[RC one]

The issue never went away.

[jpsb]

spam away, prior to the 1934 naturalization act Ted Cruz would not even be a citizen of the USA. That is a fact Jack. No way the son of a Cuban, born in Canada is a natural born citizen of the USA as the founders understood natural born citizen.

[Yosemitest]

Donald Trump refuses to release birth certificate and passport records
Presidential hopeful Donald Trump has refused to release his long-form birth certificate and passport records, despite demanding the same from Barack Obama during the 2012 election.

The Guardian contacted the Trump campaign to request the birth certificate and passport records of the Apprentice host, but a spokeswoman refused to share the documents.

In October 2012, Trump, a prominent figure in the “birther movement” – a loose affiliation of people who claimed Obama was born outside the US – accused Obama of being “the least transparent president in the history of this country” for refusing to release the very details Trump is now refusing to publish.

“We know very little about our president,” Trump said at the time.
In a YouTube video the 69-year-old said he would donate $5m to a charity of Obama’s choosing if the president released his college records and applications and passport applications and records.

Yet when Trump’s representatives were contacted and asked to release the same documents the campaign refused to send them, despite the Guardian providing both a fax number and a full postal address.
The campaign declined to comment further. ...

[higgmeister]

See my # 29

[Yosemitest]

WRONG, LOSER !

Even the extremely LIBERAL CNN acknowledges it.

Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president
Thu January 14, 2016
(CNN)I do not embrace Ted Cruz politically, but I do embrace his right to run for president, and so should you.

Here is our first question:
Who decides whether Cruz is eligible?
My answer:
At first, you do.
We, the people, do.
We do this on Election Day when we cast our ballots with the Constitution in our hearts and minds if not in our hands.
If you think Cruz is ineligible - - if what I say here does not persuade you - - you can vote against him.

If Cruz gets enough electoral votes this fall,
then Congress
and not the Supreme Court
should be the final legal judge of Cruz's eligibility.
The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says that
Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized
to refuse to count any electoral votes that Congress considers invalid.

Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear that
each house of Congress may "judge" whether
a would-be member of that house meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says
the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here,
because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

Presidents should pick judges, not vice versa.
This is one reason why the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore was a disgrace
and is now widely viewed by experts as such.

What's the right answer?

OK, so voters and Congress decide, but
what is the right answer to the Cruz question
and how can ordinary citizens deduce this right answer?

Simple:
We can read the Constitution,
which was written for ordinary citizens.
And then we can fold in a few simple points about constitutional history, tradition and common sense.

Article II requires that a president must be either a U.S. citizen "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" - - that is, 1788 - - or else "a natural born Citizen."
Though old-fashioned, Cruz was not around in 1788.
So he needs to be - - just like everyone else running for president today - - a "natural born Citizen."

For starters, put aside the word "natural."
Ask yourself whether Cruz is a "born Citizen."
In other words, was he a citizen on the day he was born?
Was he a citizen because of his birth,
because of where and how and to whom he was born?
Note what the text does NOT say.
It does not say, Springsteen-like,
that a president must be "born in the United States."
Yet it would have been so easy to say that,
had that been the founders' legal meaning and the legal purpose !

So the question is,
was Ted Cruz born a citizen?
The Constitution says, in the 14th Amendment,
that anyone born in the United States and subject to our laws is a U.S. citizen.
Today, that means everyone born on American soil except children of foreign diplomats - - even children whose parents are not themselves U.S citizens.
Donald Trump, are you listening?

Unlike Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii - -
again, please pay attention, Donald!
- - Cruz is not a citizen at birth because of where he was born.
Cruz was born in Canada.
But neither Article II nor the 14th Amendment says that ONLY those born in the United States are birth citizens.
The 14th Amendment says that birth on American soil is sufficient to be a birth citizen.
But it is NOT necessary.

How else can a person be a citizen at birth?
Simple.
From the founding to the present, Congress has enacted laws specifying
that certain categories of foreign-born persons ARE citizens at birth.
The earliest statute, passed in 1790, explicitly called certain foreign-born children of U.S. citizens "natural born citizens."
It did not say they should be treated "as if" they were "natural born citizens."
It said they were in law deemed and declared to be "natural born citizens."
Congressional laws have changed over the years, but this 1790 law makes clear that
from the beginning, Congress by law has the power to define the outer boundaries of birth-citizenship
by conferring citizenship at birth to various persons born OUTSIDE the United States.

And here is the key point:
The statute on the books on the day Cruz was born made him a citizen on that day.

The statute conferred birth-based American citizenship on ANY foreign-born baby who had at least ONE parent who was a U.S. citizen,
so long as that parent HAD MET CERTAIN CONDITIONS of extensive prior physical presence in the United States.

On the day of his birth, Cruz's mother WAS a U.S. citizen, even though his father was not;
and his mother also apparently met the relevant rules of extensive prior physical presence.

... (Continued)

[moonhawk]

Ted “The Constitution for thee, but not for me” Cruz