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 ...
“No where can you document that a mother married to a foreigner, can bequeath ‘natural born’ US citizenship birthing that child on foreign soil...”
Yes, I can:
14 U.S.C. 1401(g)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
But it is not a MOTHER who is bequeathing citizenship.
It is the power delegated to Congress under the U.S. Constitution that is “bequeathing” the status of natural born citizen.
The mother does not give citizenship to the child.
The law exercising constitutional authority gives citizenship to the child.
“You think Moses was not considered an Egyptian? Seriously?”
Moses was considered an Egyptian because Pharoah’s daughter CLAIMED that Moses was HER son.
“four previous times throughout history that the SCOTUS has touched on the issue they have acknowledged born in the US of two US parents.”
The four previous times, the Supreme Court was deciding SOME OTHER QUESTION.
You have to first identify what the “question(s) presented” are that the court is deciding.
NOTHING ELSE has any meaning.
Only the question being decided counts.
The court case has no relevance to any other question.
However, the Supreme Court has never said anyone is NOT a natural born citizen because of XYZ.
This is the brain damage of the eligibility crusaders.
When the Supreme Court says that THIS particular person IS a natural born citizen...
... that does NOT mean that others are not.
A child born on US soil to US citizen parents clearly is a natural born citizen.
But nowhere have the courts ever said that someone is NOT a natural born citizen under other circumstances.
You simply refuse to engage in simple logic.
If my Nissan Altima is a car.
That does NOT mean your vehicle is NOT a car because it is not a Nissan Altima.
My Nissan Altima is a car.
Someone else’s Corvette is ALSO a car.
Let’s try it like this:
Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois and he is a natural born citizen.
So — according to your misreading of the Supreme Court cases —
someone born in Florida is NOT a natural born citizen because (you think) * O N L Y * people born in Illinois are natural born citizens.
That is your logic.
One case says ‘obviously this person is a natural born citizen.’
You erroneously think that that EXCLUDES other people under different circumstances.
So....
A child born on US soil is a natural born citizen.
AND ALSO a child born in Canada to a US parent is a natural born citizen.
They are * B O T H * natural born citizens, though born under different circumstances.
There is some of the brain damage:
NONE of the court precedents have EVER decided that someone is NOT a natural born citizen.
“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”
That is correct because it is AFTER the fact.
The Senate cannot pass a law 50 years after someone is born making them a natural born citizen.
Even if the Senate and the House passed a law and the President signed it, it could not work because it was passed AFTER McCain was born — like 50 years or more, maybe 70, after McCain was born.
So it was a stupid gesture.
But if Congress passed a law and the president signed it saying that children born in a foreign country are not natural born citizens, that would take effect as to any children born AFTER the law is signed into law by the president.
I have read it in great detail, long ago.
But you do not even read what you post.
Rogers v. Bellie says:
“He was not naturalized in the United States.”
See? You cannot be naturalized at birth.
Rogers v. Bellei does NOT say that Bellei was naturalized at birth, because such a thing is impossible.
Bellei was made a citizen at birth.
Otherwise, what was there to be taken away?
How can the courts take away citizenship if Bellei never had it?
And what does this mean in Rogers v. Bellei:
““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. . . .””
So, in 1790 those who wrote the Constitution passed a statute, and Congress has been enacting different variations ever since.
"He was not naturalized in the United States."
You are reading that as "not natrualized," period. That is an incorrect read of the case, as you probably know but are misrepresenting on purpose.
The case turned on the distinction between "naturalized in the US" and "natrualized outside of the US." If Bellei and others similary situated are naturalized in in the US, they are covered by the 14th amendment, and under the rule of law in Afroyim and other cases, cannot have their citizenship removed for failure to comply with US residency requirements.
All your questions are answered in the four corners of the case. If you bothered to read it for honest comprehension, which you are either unnable or unwilling to do.
His mother was also a Brit citizen AND Canadian citizen. Read all the convoluted citzenships she (and Rafael Sr) held:
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2016/04/ted-cruz-is-not-nor-has-he-ever-been.html
What does “touched on the issue” mean? It means in relation to another matter but included. I said touched on the issue. I also said the Supreme Court has been sidestepping taking the issue of NBC on.
I deal in the facts. The facts are that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with the natural born citizen issue. Most people erroneously believe it does. That was not the intent and the words natural born citizen do not appear in the 14th amendment. Section 5 gives Congress the power to legislate enforcement of the the 14th amendment but not the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility which is separate and apart from the 14th amendment.
Up until the 2008 presidential election where both parties wanted to run a candidate with eligibility issues it was implicitly understood that the President had to be born in the US of two US parents which is why the only President elected until Obama who did not meet that requirement was Chester A. Arthur. He managed to hide the fact that his father who was from Ireland was not naturalized at the time of Arthur’s birth. Otherwise he would not have been let on the ballot.
The Congress is not going to decide the issue of the definition of NBC. That is for the Supreme Court.
OK Mr. Vattel counts-for-nothing-in SCOTUS-jurisprudence, this from JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL is lifted from page 12 of the Venus Merchantman case as they were defining the various classes of citizens:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants
Page 12 U. S. 290
them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.”
Put that in your pipe of oblivion and smoke it. This is known has dicta. I know the case had nothing to do with Article II directly. But they do cite Vattel as a source for what an NBC is.
Continue to maintain your fiction that Vattel is not referenced in dozens of federal court cases. I will bet you any amount you care to name that you are WRONG.
“By contrast, your beloved Vattel — who nobody takes seriously, not even in his home country of France”
Again you are wrong. Vattel was a SWISS jurist who was translated and referenced by the French. He influenced them too.
“You are reading that as “not natrualized,” period”
Yes, I am, because you are trying to find things in the court case that are not there.
In the light of the complete lack of rational basis for distinguishing among citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas, the conclusion is compelled that the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to persons 'born or naturalized in the United States' includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time. Congress was therefore powerless to strip Bellei of his citizenship; he could lose it only if he voluntarily renonuced or relinquished it. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 87 S.Ct. 1660, 18 L.Ed.2d 757 (1967). I dissent.
Your claim that the court found Bellie to be "not naturalized, period," is false, and you know it. It is you who are making things up, claiming to find things in the court case that are not there.
“The case turned on the distinction between “naturalized in the US” and “natrualized outside of the US.””
No, it did not.
Absurd.
Rogers v. Bellei turned on whether Bellei had complied with the STATUTE.
And it turned on whether Bellei had anything to lose.
How could Bellei lose his citizenship if he never had it to being with?
HMMMM??
“Your claim that the court found Bellie to be “not naturalized, period,” is false”
No, I am correct and you are false.
Again, you read court cases like a 5 year old reading a technical manual for a nuclear power plant. Sorry, but that’s the reality.
FIRST, you do understand that a dissent has no legal meaning or effect, right?
The dissent is just COMMENTARY by judges who lost the vote and whose opinions were not adopted by the court. You do understand that, right?
SECOND, when judges are exploring the different legal analyses, they are NOT saying that it is actually true. They are arguing that EVEN IF this were true, we would come to the same result.
The majority found that Congress DOES have the power to strip citizenship even from a natural born citizen.
Being naturalized has absolutely nothing to do with the case.
It is 100% impossible to be naturalized at birth. It cannot happen. Not ever.
There has never been a child naturalized at birth in the history of the planet and there never will be.
THIRD, the statement “the conclusion is compelled that the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to persons ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time”
has you completely confused.
They are talking about someone born overseas but naturalized in the United States. THAT MEANS THEY ARE NATURALIZED *AFTER* THEY ARE BORN, at some LATER time.
You cannot see past your assumptions and preferences to understand what you are reading.
You have serious reading comprehension and honesty problems. When I reply to your posts, I am really talking to other readers. Your posts are nothing more than a vehicle for me to start from.
“this from JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL is lifted from page 12 of the Venus Merchantman case as they were defining the various classes of citizens:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says”
Oh, dear Gawd, you are hopelessly naïve.
Try reading other court cases on other topics.
There is a STRUCTURE to the court’s opinion.
One section is a SURVEY of ALL the possible sources of authority to reach a decision.
A thorough court opinion summarizes anything on the topic.
Try reading Roe v. Wade which surveys dozens of different commentaries — most of which contradict each other.
Merely being MENTIONED does not mean that the court ACCEPTED what someone said.
Mentioning every source on the topic is being THOROUGH.
However, no one has ever used Vattel in US law for anything other than paper hanging in the outhouse.
Vattel is a book about MONARCHIES.
Vattel says that the same man can be president or prince of many countries at the same time. How does that fit your loyalty theme?
Try READING Vattel before you post again.
“I deal in the facts.”
I wish you did, but you do not.
“The facts are that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with the natural born citizen issue.”
Yes it does, it empowers Congress to define who is a citizen, under what circumstances, and when. See Section 5.
“That was not the intent”
The intent is not relevant. What the 14th Amendment SAYS is relevant. The intent is only considered if the text is not clear.
” and the words natural born citizen do not appear in the 14th amendment.”
But the 14th Amendment gives Congress unlimited power to define citizenship. So yes, in effect, “natural born citizen” is in the 14th Amendment.
“Section 5 gives Congress the power to legislate enforcement of the 14th amendment”
which is the definition of citizenship.
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship.
Section 5 gives Congress the power to implement citizenship.
Whenever an issue is unclear, that is when implementing requires definition.
You cannot implement without clearing up any uncertainty.
“but not the natural born citizen requirement for presidential eligibility which is separate and apart from the 14th amendment.”
SAYS WHO?
That’s not how the Constitution is read, applied, or interpreted by the courts.
When Congress wields authority delegated to it under the Constitution, that is treated VERY BROADLY — always.
So if Congress defines natural born citizen — which the 1st Congress did in 1790 (including 20 members of congress who helped write the Constitution) — no court will dispute Congress’ vast power to do so.
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.