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 ...
“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 is part of the reason why none of the precedents that people try to point to have any meaning or relevance.
The only court that has EVER decided who is eligible to be President as a natural born citizen in the history of the nation is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision deciding that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.
The only case in the history of the country that has ever decided this question is the one deciding that Ted Cruz is eligible to be President as a natural born citizen.
“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”
That’s why the President has to actually live in the United States for 14 years.
But curiously a President at the minimum age of 35 only has to live 14 years inside the United States.
The founders thought it was just fine for a President to live 60% (21 years) of his minimum 35 years in a foreign country.
That kind of blows the hell out of your sentimental argument, doesn’t it?
If the founders felt as you argue, why didn’t they say the president has to live all 35 minimum years inside the United States?
Why did they say it is okay for the President to live 21 years of his 35 minimum years in a foreign country?
Sort of blows your argument to shreds, don’t you think?
“You are acting as though the framers did not have a common understanding of NBC.”
They did not.
If they did, it would have come from THE BIBLE which was the dominant influence on the Founders.
Under the Bible, citizenship is based on the parents, not the place of birth.
Israelites born in Egypt were Israelites, not Egyptians.
So if the founders had a common understanding, it was the BIBLICAL model that citizenship at birth follows the citizenship of the parents — not the place of birth.
Second, the English precedent was the same.
Nobody takes Vattel seriously, not even the French.
Third, ownership of a book does not mean that anyone followed it.
Thomas Jefferson owned several Korans because as President HE WAS AT WAR WITH ISLAM. He did not agree with it because he owned a copy of the Koran.
What you fail to understand is that the Founders read E V E R Y T H I N G.
They were highly educated, avid readers, had no TV’ or movies or video games, and read HUNDREDS of books.
So the idea that they had access to Vattel is an absurd assumption.
They did not take a private book by a private commentator seriously.
“The only Congressional definition of NBC was that phony ass non-binding Senate Resolution 511”
No, Congress has defined who is a natural born citizen since 1790.
“Do you think that Dems will just “let it go” if there is not verifiable proof? “
Doesn’t matter. First, the question has already been decided. The courts do not allow you to come back in and file the same lawsuit all over again.
Second, the burden of proof is on the challenger, not on Ted Cruz. So they all lose.
[Constitution for the United States of America][1]
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I.
...
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power...
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,...
There is nothing at all in the enumerated powers concerning children born to fathers who are already citizens of the United States, PERIOD! Congress was ONLY given authority over those who were born aliens, a.k.a. citizens of another country, therefore, since Cruz held Canadian citizenship, that he had from birth until May 14, 2014, for purposes of the Constitution, he is a naturalized citizen, PERIOD!
Ted Cruz is perfectly qualified to hold any office except that of the president & vice president.
And the 14th Amendment gives no such power to Congress except that of naturalization because the 14th states, all person born "IN" the United States, PERIOD! Ted Cruz was not born "IN" the United States, therefore, the only way for him to be a citizen is under Congress's authority to naturalize him at birth because his mother was a US citizen.
#1... Article II qualifications were defined in 1787, therefore, any change to Article II qualifications must done by Amendment. The 14th Amendment does not do this.
#2... again, if it takes a “law/statute” to make you a citizen, you are a naturalized citizen. And the governing law at the time Cruz was born defined him as a “nonquota” immigrant.
“And the 14th Amendment gives no such power to Congress except that of naturalization because the 14th states, all person born “IN” the United States, PERIOD”
No, Section 5 gives Congress vast power to define citizenship by implementing it.
You don’t understand Constitutional law or how courts apply the Constitution.
Section 5 gives Congress almost unlimited power to implement citizenship, which means Congress can define who is a citizen.
Constitutional amendments are read BROADLY not in the narrow way that you imagine.
So the “necessary and proper” clause and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment — combined with the lack of any definition in the Constitution — gives Congress AND ONLY CONGRESS vast power to define who is a natural born citizen and decide any other questions about citizenship.
” Congress was ONLY given authority over those who were born aliens, a.k.a. citizens of another country”
No, that is false. Congressional power over naturalization includes ANY AND ALL aspects of citizenship under ANY AND ALL circumstances.
That had been the actual, real-world precedent under the British Parliament for 100 years before the Constitution was written.
That is what the Founders understood.
that is how the Constitution is read and applied.
Grants of Congressional power are broad, not narrow.
For example, where does it say that the President has the power to fire the head of a department? It is included within the broad power to supervise the heads of departments. It is not explicitly stated.
“therefore, the only way for him to be a citizen is under Congress’s authority to naturalize him at birth because his mother was a US citizen. “
Utter nonsense. It is impossible to be naturalized at birth.
What, is there a judge standing in the delivery room to administer the oath to the baby as the baby pops out?
Naturalization is a process that takes 5-10 years, including an application, a citizenship test, a medical test, a review by the government, an official decision, and a swearing in ceremony.
The concept of being “naturalized at birth” is total bullshit. No such thing exists.
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.
I was adopted by an American military family stationed in Germany, upon US entry at Boston, a 3 minute hearing was conducted in chambers where the judge signed the naturalization documents...I was an infant, no oath.
The Founders state with all perfect clarity that to hold the office of President one must be ‘natural born’. Lawyers love to play ‘god’ with the Constitution, why they even divined a right to kill the unborn and a right to give the sanctity of marriage vows to same sex idiots.
AND here you are trying to play ‘god’ redefining what ‘natural born’ means under the ‘original intent’. S H A M E .. O N .. Y O U!!!!
Pull up your Constitution and note NOTHING has been added to that presidential requirement .... it still reads ‘’ natural born “ akin to a birthright... Esau.
“The Founders state with all perfect clarity that to hold the office of President one must be ‘natural born’. “
Correct, and Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.
The Constitution DOES NOT suggest that “natural born” means what you think it means.
You are the one changing the Constitution to fit what you want it to say.
” it still reads ‘’ natural born “ akin to a birthright... Esau.”
well that is interesting because in the Bible citizenship follows the parents, NOT THE PLACE OF BIRTH.
The child of Israelites born in Egypt was an Israelite NOT an Egyptian.
The Bible was the dominant influence over our Founders’ education and thinking.
So the birthright is based on the PARENTS — not the place of birth.
“I was adopted by an American military family”
An adoption is not naturalization.
But adoption DOES help thick-headed people understand the Constitution.
One can be the NATURAL child of parents.
Or one can be the ADOPTED child of parents, created by operation of law.
So a NATURAL born citizen is one who is a citizen NOT through a legal procedure.
A citizen who is not a natural born citizen is a citizen through a legal proceeding — similar to being adopted.
” upon US entry at Boston, a 3 minute hearing was conducted in chambers where the judge signed the naturalization documents”
Absolutely false.
There had to be MONTHS of previous paperwork, applications, court decisions, etc.
I am doing an adoption right now.
You have to provide notice to the biological parents, get their consent, get everything in order.
My friend from Eastern Europe became a US citizen last year.
It took her 10 years to become a US citizen.
The final swearing in ceremony took maybe 10 minutes.
But there were 10 years of preparation BEFORE that final day.
It is impossible to be naturalized at birth.
NOTE: We are not talking about being an infant. We are talking about AT BIRTH — at the moment of birth.
Ted Cruz was a US citizen at the moment he took his first breath. So he is a natural born citizen.
You cannot be naturalized at the moment of birth. That is utter nonsense.
Page 401 U. S. 817
The plaintiff's father has always been a citizen of Italy, and never has acquired United States citizenship. The plaintiff's mother, however, was born in Philadelphia in 1915
same scenario as Ted Cruz, foreign father, US citizen mother, born in a foreign country
Page 401 U. S. 827...
It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born, and, at the same time, to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship. Of course, Congress obviously felt that way, too, about the two expatriation provisions invalidated by the decisions in Schneider and Afroyim.
We look again, then, at the Constitution, and further indulge in history's assistance:
Of initial significance, because of its being the foundation stone of the Court's decisional structure in Afroyim, and, perhaps by a process of after-the-fact osmosis of the earlier Schneider as well, is the Fourteenth Amendment's opening sentence:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The central fact in our weighing of the plaintiff's claim to continuing and therefore current United States citizenship is that he was born abroad. He was not born in the United States. He was not naturalized in the United States. And he has not been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. All this being so, it seems indisputable that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to plaintiff Bellei. He simply is not a “Fourteenth Amendment first sentence” citizen. His posture contrasts with that of Mr. Afroyim, who was naturalized in the United States, and with that of Mrs. Schneider, whose citizenship was derivative by her presence here and by her mother's naturalization here.
Page 401 U. S. 828
The plaintiff's claim thus must center in the statutory power of Congress and in the appropriate exercise of that power within the restrictions of any pertinent constitutional provisions other than the Fourteenth Amendment's first sentence.
The reach of congressional power in this area is readily apparent:
1. Over 70 years ago, the Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Gray, reviewed and discussed early English statutes relating to rights of inheritance and of citizenship of persons born abroad of parents who were British subjects. United States v. Won Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 668-671 (1898). The Court concluded that “naturalization by descent” was not a common law concept, but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment. The statutes examined were 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 29 Car. 2, c. 6 (1677); 7 Anne, c. 5, § 3 (1708); 4 Geo. 2, c. 21 (1731); and 13 Geo. 3, c. 21 (1773). Later, Mr. Chief Justice Taft, speaking for a unanimous Court, referred to this “very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray,” and observed
“that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute. . . .”
Now go read the rest of the 1971 SCOTUS ruling that took place 1 year after Cruz was born, however, was a case in which the plaintiff's situation at birth was exactly the same as Ted Cruz. The SCOTUS ruled that Bellei was “naturalized at birth, just as the SCOTUS had determined to be the case over 100 years ago. Rogers v. Bellei has never been overruled, therefore, its decision is still valid and it applies to Ted Cruz who by law is a naturalized US citizen.
Well actually now that I’ve schooled you about standing I have to educate you as to the final word on Natural Born Citizen. That would be the Supreme Court. They keep side stepping the issue but at some point they will be forced to weigh in and define it. The four previous times throughout history that the SCOTUS has touched on the issue they have acknowledged born in the US of two US parents.
In 2008 when John McCain’s eligibility was called into question the Senate voted a “resolution” stating that he was a natural born citizen and eligible to run for President. A resolution of the Senate carries no weight of law whatsoever. The Senate realized that they didn’t have the power to pass legislation deeming McCain a natural born citizen so they passed a “resolution” and the DNC just went a long with it as they also had an ineligible candidate they wanted to run.
Are you absolutely sure you are an attorney? :-)
You think Moses was not considered an Egyptian? Seriously? The founders intent was to give 'we the people' government status, not hire out some interloper to rule over US... Which the 'land' became an object requirement of TWO US citizen parents birthing their child upon US soil...
No where can you document that a mother married to a foreigner, can bequeath 'natural born' US citizenship birthing that child on foreign soil... Cruz's father did not become a US citizen until 2005. Cruz is a natural born Canadian at best.... IF Cruz were the 'face of Jesus' he would show exactly what paperwork he used to get a US passport. Apparently he is too afraid of the truth and thinks he is just as entitled as Obama.
“IF Cruz were the ‘face of Jesus’ he would show exactly what paperwork he used to get a US passport. “
REALLY?
So will you show us the paperwork YOU used to get a US passport?
I have had a US passport for about 40 years.
I don’t have a copy of my application from 40 years ago.
Do you?
No, of course you don’t.
But the fact that Ted Cruz does have a US passport says all we need to know.
At least 30 years ago The US State Department determined that Ted Cruz was a US citizen.
Case closed.
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.