Posted on 03/10/2016 9:12:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
HARRISBURG -- Carmon Elliott is not a lawyer. But he got to play one Thursday in state court when he tried to convince a judge that Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is really a Canadian who has no constitutional right to be a candidate for U.S. president.
Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini of Commonwealth Court was as impressed with Elliott's oral arguments as he was his Uncle Sam tie.
"By the way, I like your tie," said Pellegrini, who's known for his wit as well as his probing legal questions.
Some judges don't like hearing election petition cases argued by pro se litigants because they can be unprepared and disruptive to the political process, Pellegrini said. Not so in Elliott's case.
"I have to compliment you," Pellegrini said in court. "You represented yourself well today."
Elliott, a retiree who lives in Pittsburgh and is a Republican with a self-professed affinity for the U.S. Constitution, went up against Robert N. Feltoon, a lawyer from the Philadelphia firm Conrad O'Brien.
Feltoon argued that Elliott's petition should be dismissed. The U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on whether a person born outside the United States as Cruz was can run for president, he argued. It is a decision, Feltoon said, that should be made by Congress and the Electoral College, which ultimately elects the president.
Elliott's petition was one of several "birther" lawsuits filed against Cruz after GOP front-runner Donald Trump openly questioned whether the Texas senator can serve as president.
An Illinois judge tossed one lawsuit last week....
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
Cruz was born a dual citizen. Canadian by place of birth and U.S. by reason of his mother’s citizenship. He was not also born a Cuban citizen, as Cuba - like most authoritarian countries - does not condone dual citizenship. But, I like your colorful language. Mongrel.
Ivanka Trump, a beautiful young woman, born to an American father of German and Scottish descent (hence already a mongrel), was further mongrelized by having a mother who was from the Czech Republic. The same could be said of Baron Trump, a boy who looks so much like his father. But, mongrelized by reason of his already mongrel father and his Slovenian mother.
Human beings, unlike dogs, have citizenship. While humans have ancestries, and these are meaningful, our loyalties can be based on decisions. Dogs were domesticated and bred by humans, over many generations, from their wolf ancestors. Mongrel dogs, we would suspect, become more like their ancestor wolves, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Men and wolf hunter teams survived in the challenging conditions of the Ice Age in the northern regions of the Eurasian landmass.
We humans, on the other hand, are descendants of Adam and Eve, who were themselves fully human. The evidence we have of the most primitive humans indicates that they fashioned tools, counted, expressed themselves in art, adorned themselves in jewelry, braided their hair, and engaged in religious worship. In spreading themselves across the world, those who had skin pigmentation and other traits conducive to survival locally were the ones who survived to reproductive age and, so, procreated the next generation. But, all these traits were in the original genetic mix of our common ancestors.
Regarding who is a Jew and who is foreigner, Jewish Law says Jewishness passes through one’s mother.
“Who is a Jew?
A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.”
http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm
Notice it does not say born in Israel. They are natural born Jews by maternal lineage and naturalized Jews by conversion.
As I recall, the Bible doesn’t define Jew or foreigner, so the rabbis had to figure this out. Similarly, the Constitution doesn’t define natural born citizen, so the Congress has to figure it out, and has done so beginning with its very first act, in 1790. But, if you know where in the Bible it defines who is a natural born Jew, who a naturalized Jew and who is a foreigner, I’d love to hear.
BTW what do you think of the prohibition in the Bible against taking foreign wives?
I see that you invoke Biblical genealogies. Both Jesus’ maternal and paternal genealogy is given. I should tie down when and why the rabbis decided upon maternal lineage: it was in the second century AD. There are two reasons why: First, rape and such, from the time of the captivity to the dispersion of the Jews following the fall of Jerusalem, Jews became concerned about the implications of insisting on paternal lineage. Maternal lineage was at least uncontroversial. Second, it is that the culture of Judaism is more transmitted by the housekeeper than by the breadwinner.
With regard to children born in territories (e.g., Guam): The Congress decides. They could be “U.S. Nationals” and NOT citizens. They could be citizens.
Acts of Congress making persons born there U.S. citizens at birth:
P.R. - 1917
U.S. Virgin Islands - 1927
Guam - 1950
In some cases, the law or subsequent laws made the provision retroactive to a prior date. Similar laws at one time pertained to Alaska and Hawaii. The Panama Canal Zone was never an incorporated territory, so citizenship at birth was only transmitted by lineage, not by place.
The rule is (or should be) this: are the destinies of that place and the U.S. sufficiently intertwined. Clearly, we and the people of P.R. are not so intertwined to be a common people. But, many Puerto Ricans serve in the armed forces and in other ways evidence shared interests and values.
And they could be aliens. The naturalization acts that pertain to Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands do not specify that either parent must be a US citizen, nor that either parent have ever resided in one of the 50 states.
Woodrow Wilson and Democrats generally believe in blood, also race. The Republican was founded to revive the principles expressed in the Declaration, that all men are created equal and endowed with rights. When Lincoln said the country was “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” he meant specifically to repudiate the Democratic doctrine of blood and race as expressed in the Dred Scott decision. Notice which party, today, is the party of race, characterized as “people of color” versus “white people of privilege.” As to whether Republicans will join with white supremacists to counter non-white supremacists may soon be relevant.
Thank you. Exactly. The Constitution does not define natural born citizen, except to grandfather everybody who was a citizen (of one of the states) at the time of ratification. There is a murkiness to this. People who look to English common law preceding the formation of the U.S. make valid points about what it might have meant 240 years ago. But, we have a lot of statutory laws and judicial decisions since then. Including some by the very people who wrote the Constitution and were involved in the process of ratifying it.
There are some things that have come out of this discussion that are of practical importance:
1. Dual-citizenship. In the age of the welfare state, is this practical. When Donald and Melania married, she had to make a decision concerning her Slovenian citizenship (we’re o.k. with dual citizenship, but they’re not). Ditto Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, when somebody figured out he was a dual-citizen, the U.S. government sent him a tax notice. the Congress should look into this matter. Maybe children, when they reach a certain age, should have to decide.
2. Children of illegal aliens and of people here on temporary visas. Let’s deal with this thing. It really has never been an issue. By practice, the children have been considered citizens at birth (”anchor babies”). Let’s have Congress address this.
As he should have done. His job was to determine the facts and the law. He did so, avoiding wandering off on some bunny trail. His decision does two things:
Says that the words Citizen at Birth (language from USC 8, Section 1401) mean the same thing as Natural Born Citizen
Finds that Cruz is a citizen at birth (by virtue of USC 8, 1401)
Appeals will need to challenge these points, or assert that the Congress had no power to act under their plenary power under Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution. I believe that any appeal will affirm the decision and will reject any challenge to the Constitutional power of Congress on this point.
The notion that a law passed by Congress can determine the intent of the Framers in choosing language for the body of the Constitution is not, I believe, sustained by any binding authority. Can you cite any? Examining the intent of the Framers is not a “bunny trail.” If it is why do so many, many opinions by SCOTUS, as well as all the other courts in the nation do just that?
“Who is a Jew?
A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.”
Yes, I know of these facts, in fact, if I so chose do so, today I could miraculously be transformed into a “Jew” because of maternal genealogy. The Bible, however, says something quite different and the biblical family structure was given in the beginning when the man was set up as the head of the house and therefore, all nationality passes through the husband/father respectively. A man does not take the woman's name in marriage & the children do not take the maiden name of the mother, it is the father's character that the family takes.
I also do not know when the change from simply being of the tribe if Judah to being “Jewish” as in a religion began, but it would seem to me that it began well before the 1st century CE. There are times in the Apostolic writings where one is referred to as a Yehudi (Judahite one might say) and then in other cases it is clear they are referencing being “Jewish” as in ones religion.
When the tribes came back from Babylon, only a small fraction of Judah (less than 5%) returned. Also, small fractions of the other tribes (house of Israel) returned as well, and both of these joined those who had remained in the land during the captivity where they were all melded into one pot, being defined by their “Jewishness”, i.e. religion that included both the Tanakh & the oral torah (Babylonian Talmud) that the tribe of Judah had brought back with them. Yeshua (Jesus) rejected this oral torah and He taught that these oral laws of men make void the Torah of the Father, including who was of greater Israel (all tribes including Judah). Paul was clear, he said he was an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, he never referred to himself a “Jew”, however, he did refer to himself as Pharisee, but never a “Jew”.
I believe the reason they go by the mother today is simply for religious reasons because, even the most highly regarded geneticists today say that there is no pure blood person of any tribe living today. And so the only way to distinguish them from the world is by religion, that of the Babylonian Talmud, the laws of men that rule over the Temple then & the Israelites themselves to this day.
As far as the prohibition of taking foreign wives, well, for that all we have to do is look to Solomon's reign and how the wives influenced worship, both in the Temple & out. Israel was warned not to do this because in Elohim's eyes, adultery is worshiping false gods (Num 25) & the material things of this world (money/political power- Num 16-17) by turning a blind eye to His instructions (Torah/Law). I am a firm believer in persons marrying someone of the same biblical beliefs so not to create chaos, envy & strife in ones home & family, however, if they be of different beliefs, it is also my belief that as the bible says, the wife takes on the character of her husband, not the other way around for that usurps the family structure that Elohim put in place in the beginning when He created mankind, both male & female.
I have done a lot of research on this and I am still on the fence on this one as there is evidence of this going back long before the 2nd century. Now it may not have been written down before then, however, there is evidence of it being practiced. I tend to lean towards the fact that is the mother who has the first influence in raising a child and therefore, if the mother is a practitioner of the Talmud, then the children will also be raised as practitioners of the Talmud, following every man-made burdensome doctrine of the rabbis.
Did you read my comment about Article I, Section 8 U.S. Constitution. This is an enumerated power of the Congress and has never been challenged by the courts, much left ever found to outside the role of Congress
Of course, you are really talking about the definition of the Natural Born Citizen clause included in the qualifications of the President. I'm sure you know that the founders did not supply a definition. They relied on English Common Law and then granted the power to Congress to rule on naturalization. They did so in 1790, including rules on natural born citizens.
Since Marbury v. Madison, The Supreme Court has interpreted the language of the Constitution, and the Congress since its first session have passed laws to implement instructions of the Constitution. The ship has sailed on the basis of your outrage.
The birthers, of course, have collected an impressive inventory of SCOTUS decisions that, in their minds, prove their case. Most of them don't hold up under scruinity. One of my favorites in Minor v. Happersett which was a case about women's suffrage, so the decision had nothing to do with Presidential eligibility, but since the rationale section of the opinion included discussion of natural born citizen, it became a keystone of the birther argument in 2008 and again this year. Unfortunately for them, that case is useless for their purpose.
The Supreme Court has never considered the specific issue of Presidential Eligibility, although they have tackled a number of issues over foreign born citizens in various circumstances. They have taken positions on the facts, the law, and the Constitution; but they have never found that the Congress did not have the power that exercised, and have never found that the Department of State has no authority to administer these laws.
The only route that is likely to satisfy your issue is for the Supreme Court to consider the Constitutionality of USC 8, Section 1401 and decide that the Congress has no power to define citizenship by birth. I don't think that will ever happen.
“But, I like your colorful language. Mongrel”
Sorry, but I am American 100% on both sides, with ancestors tracing back to the Revolution on both sides. Both grandfathers were naturalized immigrants. I was born to 100% American citizen parent’s on US soil. I am a Natural Born Citizen as are almost all US citizens. I’ll bet even you are! Being a NBC is no great onus on potential
Presidential Candidates, but it is an important one. Look at what happened when we ignored that requirement....we got barracked.....
Your use of “mongrel” is curious. My use in the analogy concerned CITIZENSHIP, your use concerned ANCESTURY. By your usage we are ALL “Mongrels” as we descend from immigrants to this land at some point in our families’ history. To your mind none can therefore be NBC. Your logic lacks credibility. Note the difference between a Cuban father and a Naturalized American father of Cuban birth. One has NBC children the other doesn’t. “ born of a country to parents are its Citizens.” See Minor V Happersett USSC. Further note that those parent’s citizenship may be either born or naturalized.
Don’t deal with analogies well do you?
Doesn’t make a difference if Cuba recognizes dual citizenship. They’ll have discounted his American mother and recognized ONLY his Cuban father’s citizenship. To them Cruz is 100% Cuban so what was your point?
What really matters, what you avoid, is that Cruz has parentage other than totally American which is the Article II standard and the only place it matters in American Society/Law. He is ineligible under Article II. If he is the great Constitutional lawyer he is touted as, he knows that, but chooses to ignore it. Cruz, by that very fact, is a knowing fraud. No doubt about it. (Except you can’t see it, nor the nose on your own face!)
Dogs do not descend from wolves as you assert. If you let dogs breed indiscriminately their offspring will revert, after a few short generations, to the ancestral form of a yellow animal of about 35 lbs. Hardly wolf-like. Closer to the African Wild Dogs. Think about that and the spread of Homo Sapiens over the earth from their origin in Africa....
No dogs don’t have national citizenship, they have Kennel Club registered Pedigrees....Cruz doesn’t have that Pedigree. Per Article II, which sets the RESTRICTIVE requirements for being President, he is ineligible for the Office. No Westminster Show for him. No BIS!
Your view of Human history is curious. What about Neanderthals? They are separate and distinct species from Modern Man. DNA tests reveal that there is traces of Neanderthal genes mixed in those of some Modern Men. There are examples readily available. Even here!
Your analysis seems to stem partly from transcribed mid east sheep herder’s stories rather than from scientific fact. GOD gave us a BRAIN! .......USE Yours.
Yes, yes selective breeding, just like pedigreed dogs, and the NBC requirement.......The topic of this thread and Cruz’s lack of........
That the "natural born citizen" language for presidential eligibility is much in dispute. There are conflicting authorities at the highest level and the majority of them, as well as that of many Framers, denies the influence of the English Common law as having determined the choice of language in question. Americans, in particular, are not "subjects" of a monarch. That concept was rejected, particularly in the War of 1812.
The 1790 Act was repealed, specifically because of commentary at the time that it was not constitutional. Because of that criticism in 1795 the 1790 Act was revised and replaced, removing the language about "natural born citizen" by removing the word "natural." Through numerous subsequent revisions for over a 150 years it was never restored to the original, much criticized use, of the natural born citizen phrase.
You clearly do not understand Marbury v. Madison. The power to interpret the meaning of the words in the Constitution has, forever since, been applied by analyzing the intent of the Framers at the time that they wrote the Constitution, never by analyzing the intent of Congress in passing law as if Congress could define what the Framers meant.
You chose to ignore the language not only of Waite in Minor v. Happersett but of Marshall in The Venus and Story in Shanks v. Dupont and in his authoritative treatise as well as that of many others of the Framers and the legal authorities of that time. While the issue has not been definitely decided by the SCOTUS, when and if they do decide it, they will not decide based upon anything said in the United States Code but rather upon what was intended by the choice of the actual language used in Article II, not upon your cock-a-mamie idea that a statute can define what is in the Constitution. Neither Marbury v. Madison nor any other authority supports that notion.
Take your case forward counselor, I will be watching with rapt interest. It’s not going to turn out for your liking.
“Says that the words Citizen at Birth (language from USC 8, Section 1401) mean the same thing as Natural Born Citizen.”
Citizen at Birth describes how citizenship was obtained.
Natural Born Citizenship describes a Quality of Born Citizenship. A quality that most, but not all, born citizens possess. It is of no consequence in American Society except as an eligibility requirement for the office of President.
While all NBCs are Born Citizens, not all Born Citizens are NBCs. See Wong USSC.....Wong was judged a “Born Citizen” but NOT a Natural Born Citizen. See the text of the decision.
That one was debunked many years ago, during the Obama birther wars. It was, I believe, the first of the many efforts to convince people of the Birther dogma. Most people first heard of Vattel on this blog. Most of this is nonsense
“A minor quibble, “murder” is to kill without justification, although I can see how “unintentionally” fits that bill too. Certainly hatred is not justification to kill, but The Bible is full of warfare and intentional killing, which doesn’t rise to ‘murder.’”
Homicide describes the “killing” of a human being. The death of a human (except natural death) whether intentional or not, is a Homicide.
Murder is the killing of a human with “malice aforethought.”
Manslaughter is the killing of a human through negligence (accident?) of varying degrees.
Justifiable Homicide describes killing of a human in defense of oneself or of others.
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.