Posted on 04/10/2016 8:21:55 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in New Jersey resulting from charges of ballot access fraud. A primary ballot disqualification hearing is scheduled by the Secretary of State for Monday, April 11 at 9:00 a.m. in Mercerville, New Jersey.
Washington D.C. Law Professor Victor Williams charges that Ted Cruz fraudulently certified his constitutional eligibility for office to gain ballot access. Williams demands that Cruz be disqualified from several late-primary ballots: "Cruz committed ballot access fraud in each state when he falsely swore that he was a 'natural born' American citizen." Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada and held his resulting Canadian citizenship until May 2014. Cruz is a naturalized (not natural born) American citizen.
Williams' fraud charges had quick effect in New Jersey. Rather than accepting Cruz's ballot petition when filed last week, the Secretary of State ( Kim Guadagno) scheduled the unusual Administrative Law hearing for April 11. The Canadian-born Cruz must prove that he did not falsely certify his eligibility for office.
Cruz's ballot eligibility is also being challenged in California, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at gloucestercitynews.net ...
RULES ARE RULES
yeah but it only pulls up titles and thats only if I separate the phrase
natural born citizen
but the keyword, if you remember, was naturalborncitizen and nothing comes up with that. so frustrating. thank you
bkmk
“A secret sworn affidavit held by “North American Law Center” is not a transcript. It’s birther innuendo and rumor repeated ad nauseam with no facts.”
I agree completely. The idea that you will release “documents” in 2 weeks is a little silly. The only thing that might mean is they don’t have them yet or they may be coming from Canada etc. The idea that this interview was not recorded audio or video is simply ridiculous.
Look at all the crap we got on Obama!! There is enormous amount of evidence, yet we never got passed the media. So unless they know Obama personally, who hates Cruz, that may not even work. I am very disappointed in this threat from this law center....
“Your misunderstanding of standing is pathetic. Do you even know what standing in a court of law means? It means you could be damaged.”
Yes, I have litigated the concept of standing and through the law firm I did the work on, I have appeals pending in US Court of Appeals right now.
I just authored a friend of the court brief in the US Supreme Court challenging standing.
The concept of standing is a complete fabrication by the courts. They say it comes from the Constitution, but it does not. Judges just made it up.
And judges have made inconsistent rulings and it has gotten worse and worse. It is all wrong and needs to be reformed, as Judge Janice Rogers Brown forcefully argued in Arpaio v. Obama on amnesty.
But you are wrong when you say that standing means you “COULD” be damaged.
That is not enough.
Now, I agree that judges just made these rules up out of the clear blue sky and they need to be repealed by Congress.
But you must show IMMEDIATE injury “in fact”
You cannot show that you “COULD” be damaged.
You have to show that you WILL be damaged.
It is a very high hurdle. For example, Sheriff Arpaio was found not to have standing to challenge Obama’s amnesty despite proving that it cost him over $9 million to house illegal aliens who keep coming back again and again in his jails.
“too speculative’ the D.C. Circuit said.
The US Supreme Court refused to take that appeal, although they did take the appeal from Texas v. United States.
So the problem with standing as to who is a natural born citizen is that if you don’t like Ted Cruz, don’t vote for him. That’s how the courts analyze it.
In effect, you (a plaintiff) are trying to DEPRIVE OTHER VOTERS of their choice to vote for a candidate.
You (a plaintiff) are asserting standing to DENY SOMEONE ELSE their vote.
“No constitutional provision can be modified by statute absent the Article V amendment process.”
But the constitution is NOT being modified. You keep fantasizing that your definition of “natural born citizen” is in the Constitution.
Because there is nothing in the Constitution defining what is a natural born citizen, it is Congress’ job to define “natural born citizen.”
You can’t modify something THAT IS NOT THERE.
What you can’t wrap your head around is that the Constitution DOES NOT SAY what you want it to say.
“The intent of Article II, Sec i, clause 5 was to protect the office of POTUS from undue and baleful foreign influence, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty”.
Doesn’t matter what the intent was. It only matters what it SAYS.
Do you imagine that the Constitutional Convention all agreed?
You have no idea what ALL of the voting members intended.
The Constitutional convention spent most of their time disagreeing with each other.
“This reflects the patriarchical belief of the framers, derived from the vattelian notion that the citizenship condition of the children followed that of the father.”
No one takes Vattel seriously. Why is it that EVEN THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT does not pay any attention to Vattel?
The Framers followed THE BIBLE and they followed BRITISH precedents — not a private book that isn’t even taken seriously by the French government.
The Framers followed the BIBLICAL example in which the citizenship of the child follows the parents.
Israelites born in Egypt were Israelites, not Egyptians.
“Congress ONLY has authority to make citizens through the process of naturalization. “
Says who?
That’s only your fantasy.
Your crusade hangs on that fantasy.
You just made that up out of the clear blue sky.
For 100 years before the American revolution, the British parliament was using the power of naturalization to define who is a “natural born subject.”
That is the example that the framers followed:
Congress has the power to define “natural born citizen” by statute just as the UK parliament had been doing for at least 100 years before then.
Correct: One can be a NATURAL BORN son or an ADOPTED son by an artificial legal process.
If one is born NATURALLY a citizen, they are a natural born citizen.
If one is an ARTIFICIAL citizen — by a legal process of naturalization — they are a non-natural citizen because they went through a naturalization process.
BTW naturalization takes 5-10 years.
Don’t repeat the utter bullshit that one can be “naturalized at birth” which is complete horse manure.
It takes 5-10 years to be naturalized, including taking the oath of citizenship and being sworn in by a judge.
So many absurd premises, so little time.
You continually invoke the absurd syllogistic premise that since the constitution isn’t a dictionary, it is impossible to discern the true intention of the framers. So you insert the meaning that YOU want, and voila, it is so. John Jay wrote a letter to the president of the constitutional convention, George Washington importuning him to insert the natural born citizen clause, even as he knew that NONE of the founders were NBC. Unlike many ignorant folks here today, everyone then knew what a NBC was, and yes they did adopt Vattel’s definition. You again are ignoring the inclusion of the 212th paragraph taken in whole from the Law of Nations in the Venus Merchantman decision of 1814 as they defined what a NBC was. Here is a reference from the Virginia Law Review on the significance of the Law of Nations in federal common law decisions http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/http://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/729.pdf?article=1478&context=faculty_publications and another on citizenship and the Law of Nations http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html and yet another: https://themarshallreport.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/vattels-concept-of-natural-born-citizen-in-our-constitution/.
I can cite dozens more, but I know that you would just stubbornly insist that no one has ever paid Vattel any mind, no matter what you see. I place this into this thread for the edification of others who happen on this discussion.
Dozens of US federal appellate court cases have cited Vattel. Do not let your ignorant desire to validate Cruz obscure fact and law.
Natural born citizen has only applied to FORTY FOUR people in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the US. It has constitutional applicability to ONLY ONE purpose, and that is eligibility to assume the office of POTUS. That alone should enable you to divine the true intent of the framers by simply acknowledging the unique singularity of this provision. Any other of the constitutional offices of the federal government may be assumed by being a US citizen of any other type. Your blind adherence to the cult of personality and not to the rule of law does a disservice to the brilliant foresight of the framers, and the protections that they intended Article II, section 1. clause 5 to provide to the office of POTUS and to the American people.
Says who?
It's called the Constitution of the United States. In it you will find no clause giving authority to make as citizens, children of citizen fathers.
Library of Congress, Immigration & Naturalization(1840-1950)
“Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.”
key word search ‘naturalborncitizen’ works fine for me... http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/naturalborncitizen/index?tab=articles
The logical fallacies of your position are endless. Winston Churchill was born in Great Britain to MP Lord Randolph Churchill and a natural born US citizen mother, Jennie Jerome. After she married Randolph, She took up residence in Great Britain, where prior to the passage of the Independent Woman’s Nationality Act, she was unable to pass on US citizenship to her child.
Even though Winston Churchill was born under the auspices of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1854, I suspect that you would maintain that had that Act been worded as the Immigration Act of 1952 was (which governed Cruz) the framers would have been just fine with the former PRIME MINISTER of GREAT BRITAIN being elected POTUS. There was a small faction in the US advocating for this after he lost the postwar PM election. (BTW, he probably would have made a good president, certainly better than another Brit subject at birth, Barack Obama) They would be spinning in their graves so fast at such a notion that they would burst to the surface.
Under our Constitution, distinctions between the legal rights of males and females have been erased.
You cannot discriminate between husbands and fathers.
And the governing law when Ted Cruz was born makes no distinction between fathers or mothers. See 14 USC 1401(g).
““Congress ONLY has authority to make citizens through the process of naturalization. “
Says who?
It’s called the Constitution of the United States”
WHERE in the Constitution does it say that Congress only has the authority to make citizens through the process of naturalization.
BE CAREFUL: First read Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. then read the “necessary and proper clause”
The Constitution DOES explicitly give Congress that power. See Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution does not say what you WANT or what I WANT>
The Constitution says what it says.
That is a major part of the brain damage here.
IT doesn’t matter whether you like it or don’t like it.
It only matters what the document SAYS.
Under the Constitution, if Winston Churchill had lived in the United States for 14 years — he did not — and if the law defining citizenship at the time had made him a US citizen — it did not, it was different than the law passed in 1952, and if his mother had lived for 10 years in the United States, 5 of those years over the age of 14 — she did not as far as I am aware,
then Winston Church would be eligible to be President of the United States.
Do you like that? WHO CARES? Do you approve? WHO CARES? The Constitution says what it says whether you like it or not.
But of course if Winston Churchill claimed US citizenship from birth, he would be rejecting citizenship in the United Kingdom.
So he could ONLY run in the United States.
He COULD NOT be an elected official at any level in the United Kingdom.
Like my sister who was born in Panama, in the same hospital Gorgas Hospital, as John McCain,
NOTE: Gorgas Hospital is NOT on U.S. soil, it is not on the base or U.S. territory,
who had to choose whether to claim U.S. citizenship or Panamanian citizenship and had to disclaim Panamanian citizenship when she was an adult and old enough to make legal decisions,
Winston Churchill would have forfeited any claim to be a UK citizen if he claimed U.S. citizenship.
My sister flew with us as a family to Europe on a US PASSPORT as young as 5 years old, even though she was born in Panama.
My sister can run for President if she wants.
By contrast, your beloved Vattel — who nobody takes seriously, not even in his home country of France — argues that a man CAN be the prince or head of many countries at once.
So under Vattel’s “Law of Nations” Winston Churchill COULD be simultaneously Prime Minister of Great Britain and President of the United States — both at the same time.
That’s why it is so laughable that people try to prop up Vattel as if any one cares what Vattel says.
“You continually invoke the absurd syllogistic premise that since the constitution isn’t a dictionary, it is impossible to discern the true intention of the framers.”
No, that is a false summary of my argument and reality.
Because the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen” — and nothing else does, either, despite your efforts to gin up one —
it is the duty of Congress to resolve any uncertainties by filling in the gaps.
It is the very lack of a definition that empowers Congress to define natural born citizen under the “necessary and proper” clause and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
Congress has power to define who is a natural born citizen.
That is the core of the issue.
You think Congress does not have that power.
You are wrong. Congress DOES have that power.
Congress has exercised that power since 1790.
No court is ever going to tell Congress you can’t do that.
“Unlike many ignorant folks here today, everyone then knew what a NBC was, and yes they did adopt Vattel’s definition. “
No, they did not. That is a total fantasy made up in your dream world.
“Dozens of US federal appellate court cases have cited Vattel”
No, they have not. I have searched in the legal databases.
Vattel is not considered meaningful EVEN IN HIS OWN COUNTRY, FRANCE.
Not even France pays any attention to Vattel.
“You again are ignoring the inclusion of the 212th paragraph taken in whole from the Law of Nations in the Venus Merchantman decision of 1814 as they defined what a NBC was”
The Venus Merchantman decision has nothing to do with who is a natural born citizen. NOTHING whatsoever.
The case is about whether a citizen of England’s property can be seized as part of the War of 1812.
“Here is a reference from the Virginia Law Review “
Law reviews are only OPINIONS by lawyers, usually new graduates.
The purpose of law reviews is to CONTRAST competing opinions.
The way to get published in a law review is to write something controversial that conflicts with prevailing opinion.
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.