N.J. judge hears challenges to Cruz eligibility

philly.com ^ | Maddie Hanna

[RoosterRedux]

A New Jersey administrative law judge on Monday heard two challenges to GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz's eligibility to appear on the New Jersey ballot, based upon the Texas senator's birthplace in Canada.

The judge, Jeff Masin, didn't decide the challenges to Cruz's eligibility to appear on the June 7 primary ballot, but said he would issue a decision Tuesday. The decision is expected to be reviewed by Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, who is New Jersey's secretary of state.

One of the challenges was brought by three South Jersey citizens, and the other by a law professor who lives in Maryland and is running for president as a write-in candidate in New Jersey. Both parties argued that because Cruz was born in Canada, he is not a natural-born citizen, making him ineligible for the presidency.

Cruz's mother was born in Delaware, while his father was born in Cuba. The senator released his birth certificate in 2013.

Shalom Stone, a New Jersey attorney representing Cruz, argued that the citizens - Fernando Powers of Blackwood, Donna Ward of Mantua, and Bruce Stom of Winslow Township - and Prof. Victor Williams didn't have standing to challenge Cruz's candidacy. Stone also said the state didn't have authority to decide the question.

As for "natural-born citizen," Stone said the words in the U.S. Constitution "have meaning given to them by English common law" at the time of their adoption. He directed Masin to his brief for cases supporting Cruz's position.

[AmusedBystander]

Natural Born Citizen = citizen father + citizen mother + born in US (military & diplomats & travelers excluded)

Then there’s Obama = foreign father + citizen mother + born in US (maybe)

Then there is Cruz = foreign father + citizen (maybe) mother + born on foreign soil

[wastedyears]

I’ve completely lost faith in Cruz, but the “he wasn’t born on American soil” argument is stupid. People said the same about McCain just because he was born in Panama (on a US military base). They’d say the same if the candidate was born to two American citizens (one or both serving) on a US military base abroad.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article RoosterRedux. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

" Stone also said the state didn't have authority to decide the question."

As evidenced by the Constitution’s Clause 2 of Section 1 of Article II and the 12th Amendment, regardless that the states gave Congress the power to count the votes for presidential “candidates,” it remains that Founding States gave full control of “nominating” presidential candidates to the individual states, corrections welcome.

”Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

…

12th Amendment: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; ..."

And in case some patriots hadn’t noticed, the political party rules for nominating a presidential candidate now have almost nothing to do with the Constitution’s enumerated procedure for electing a president.

From a related thread …

The main problem that patriots seem to be having with the political parties is this. Since patriots today have grown up with political parties, they wrongly think that the parties are in integral part of the constitutional republic.

But not only are political parties not defined by the Constitution, they exist to control 10th Amendment-protected state powers and associated state revenues that the corrupt Washington cartel has been stealing from the states since the end of the Civil War, and arguably since the administration of President George Washington imo.

In fact, note that one of the very few powers that the states have actually delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, to decide domestic policy is to regulate, tax and spend for the US Mail Service (1.8.7).

So the key question concerning the political parties is how many political parties does it take to manage the US Mail Service?

I say none.

Remember in November !

If patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they will also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to not only support the president, but also surrender back to the states state powers and state revenues that the corrupt feds have been stealing from the states.

In fact, note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

[grey_whiskers]

I read about 2/3 of it. When it comes down to it, the decision uses the phrase "...no controlling case law..."

Funny. Sounds like Al Gore's 'no controlling legal authority' which is politicianspeak for Bart Simpsons "I didn't do it nobody saw me do it you can't prove anything."

If they mean, there is no case which takes precedence which explicitly defines "natural born citizen" for the purposes of the Presidency, yeah...but I think any such law ought to lean towards excluding people; as there is no right to serve as President, if a particular candidate gets denied.

[Salamander]

What happens when the Dems make an issue of this, if he’s the nominee and a Dem-friendly judge agrees?

[Cboldt]

-- I believe in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution it states that anyone born to a parent, mother or father, that is a citizen of the US and that citizen has lived outside the US for less than four consecutive years at the time of the birth, is considered a naturalized citizen. --

Nope. The citizenship part of the 14th amendment says:

1. 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.

-- That was one of the major problems with the Obama birth in that his mother, Stanley Ann, had lived in Kenya for more than four years prior to his birth. And being born in Kenya created a need to BS on a birth certificate that has wrong info on it if he was to be considered a naturalized US citizen. --

The US laws that confer citizenship at birth have a US residency requirement for the citizen parent. For Obama, the law was five years after the age of 14. Obama's mother wasn't yet 19 years old when Obama was born, so she could not have passed citizenship under the law.

[grey_whiskers]

Given that Cruz *surrendered* his Canadian citizenship in, what was it, 2014

...the whole poinf of "natural born" was 'no competing allegiance' which seems to me to exclude dual-citizenship ab initio and in toto.

But hey, I'm not a sophist Timber Rattler Slime Mold Harvard Lawyer.

[MIA_eccl1212]

The man is running to be President of the United States... he needs to release all his records be locked up in a mental institution prior to his expatriation back to his native land... Canada.

there, I fixed it

[grey_whiskers]

I don’t think Canada lets American citizens vote in their elections.

Since this is already a Cruz thread...

don't sweat it, neither does Colorado, lately. /snark>

[jennings2004]

Is there a publicly available document trail to support this?

[Mr Apple]

Since this is already a Cruz thread...

don't sweat it, neither does Colorado, lately. /snark>

[Bob434]

[[ Already had 2 other courts decide he IS eligible]]

Aye- but by golly they haven’t shopped around for just the right partisan judge yet- and boy howdy when they finally find and get an ‘ineligible verdict’ one look out- that’s the only ruling that will count- no matter how many ‘eligible verdicts’ are out there-

[Mr Apple]

thanks for the ping

[MaxistheBest]

“What happens when the Dems make an issue of this,”

Wait till David Brock at Correct the Record starts on this and all of Cruz’s sealed records. The Clinton’s pay him good money so they can keep their hands clean and he always comes through for them.

Unlike with Trump, the general public really hasn’t taken a good look at Ted Cruz yet. But that’s going to change in a big way if he wins the nomination!!

[MaxistheBest]

“there, I fixed it “ Thanks :)

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Was he born a U.S citizen.....yes....then he is a natural born citizen.

[mc5cents]

The law consistently states a child (singular) born of citizen parents (plural) is a natural born citizen.

Exactly. It is not rocket science as the saying goes. It is fundamental. Two citizen parents = Natural Born citizen. One citizen parent can only transfer citizenship if born in the country of that citizen parent not Natural Born citizenship. Big diff.

[jospehm20]

I don’t get what your point is. Is there a requirement that one must be a dual citizen to renounce their citizenship?

[little jeremiah]

I will post this excerpt from George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address once again, wherein he warns about the dangers of political parties.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.