Posted on 04/11/2016 12:20:43 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, argue standing.
The Founding Fathers and 229 years of American history indicate that jus solis has been the ideal way to maintain American sovereignty.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3419381/posts?page=599#599
21twelve, you are right about the exception for those who became citizens at the time US Const was adopted:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Although the child of US Citizen is always a US Citizen at the time of his birth, I still say this is a STUPID, disingenuous argument that isn’t going anywhere.
It’s really a smokescreen to hide certain people’s blind loyalty to a particular candidate — in this case Trump.
There were PLENTY of legitimate reasons to attack Obama, yet this stupid birther argument was what so many people focused on. Which only made Obama seem like a victim...
What fundamental “temperament” are Americans supposed to have??
And Cruz senior did not become an American citizen until 2004.
I wonder what the same people who are pro Cruz no matter what would be saying if Obama admitted he was born in Canada.
Obama’s birthplace was the least of our problems with him!!!
>What fundamental “temperament” are Americans supposed to have??
Winning at all costs isn’t winning.
I don’t think that follows. What it implies to my reading is that a child born a Canadian citizen might be adopted or move or have some other right to apply for another citizenship such as by marriage.
“You know, every 6th grader back in the 60’s & 70’s knew that a President had to be a Natural Born Citizen, which is defined by being born to two USA Citizens on USA soil or possession. What in the hell happened to us?”
What happened to us??? It’s a simple case of the U. S. Constitution is now a meaningless piece of paper to feed the elite. It is said that Benjamin Franklin when asked by people after the Convention and the writing of the U. S. Constitution, ‘What kind of a government did you give us?’ and Benjamin Franklin responded, “A Republic” if you can keep it.
I don’t know about anyone else....but I am DONE with voting for the “lesser of the 2 evils”. I’ve done it in the past and have at times held my nose and voted, I’m finished with that. Enough is enough!
ON, NTSA. :)
There are even members of the Flat Earth Society here who proclaim that this is all a Dem conspiracy to get Cruz nominated, then have some judge somewhere declare that he must be struck from all ballots.
“The Fix Is In”
And yes, they were allowed to have children and multiply.
:(
“Winning at all costs isn’t winning”
At all costs huh?
Because Cruz takes the time to actually plan and organize supporters for victory? True to form, Trump incompetently fails to do either, loses miserably on assignment of delegates, and cries theft. Wow.
Which one do you think will actually be savvy enough to take on Hillary this fall?
The Donald is a LOSING LOSER crybaby.
That’s not the point. Many of the same people who say it’s perfectly okay for Cruz to have been born in Canada said Obama wasn’t eligible because he was born in Kenya. The only difference is Obama would not admit he wasn’t born in the US.
Only if they had failed 5th Grade Civics,
Actually, no it was never defined as that under the law.
As far back as Colonial times, even Common Law understood that Native Born and Natural Born are two very separate things.
For the LAW, see US Code 1401
Sheez.
Two Honolulu newspapers reported Obama’s birth to his mother a few days after he was born. Now THAT’s some conspiracy!!
But I guess some folks will believe whatever they want to...
>“Winning at all costs isn’t winning”
>At all costs huh?
>Because Cruz takes the time to actually plan and organize supporters for victory? True to form, Trump incompetently fails to do either, loses miserably on assignment of delegates, and cries theft. Wow.
>Which one do you think will actually be savvy enough to take on Hillary this fall?
Cruz has utterly failed to get GOP voters to vote for him in the numbers needed to win the primaries. He has thus resorted to cheating the voters in the hopes of winning without them at the convention.
Unfortunately for Lyin’, Cheatin’ Ted you can’t cheat your way to victory in a General election. Thus winning at all costs, isn’t winning.
It is significant to note that in a more recent case, in 2001, the Supreme Court indicated that under
current law and jurisprudence a child born to U.S. citizens while living or traveling abroad, and a
child born in the geographic United States, had the same legal status.
In
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 162
the Court explained that a woman who is a U.S. citizen living abroad and expecting a
child could re-enter the United States and have the child born “in” the United States, or could sta
abroad and not travel back to this country and have the child born abroad, and that the child in
either case would have the same status as far as U.S. citizenship: [T]he statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens
abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’
s birth and the other chooses not to return, or
does not have the means to do so.
163
Concerning the contention made in earlier cases
that everyone who is made a citizen only by
federal statute is a “naturalized” citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), it
may be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms “naturalized” and
“naturalization,” as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that
someone who is a citizen “at birth” is
not considered to have been “naturalized.”
164
Justice Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that “this kind of
citizenship,” that is, under “statutes that confer citizenship ‘at birth,’” was not intended to
“involve[ ] ‘naturalization,’” citing current fe
deral law at 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(23).
165
The Supreme Court recently recognized in
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS,
that federal law now specifically
defines “naturalization” as the “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person
after birth,”16
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
No one can seriously equate Cruz’s Cuban/Canadian/American birth with the circumstances of the founding Fathers.
1. George WASHINGTON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) - was born on 22 Feb 1732 in VA.
2. John ADAMS – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) - was born on 30 Oct 1735 in MA.
3. Thomas JEFFERSON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) - was born on 13 Apr 1743 in VA.
4. James MADISON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) - was born on 16 Mar 1751 in VA.
5. James MONROE – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) - was born in 1758 in VA.
6. John Quincy ADAMS – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) - was born in 1767 in MA.
7. Andrew JACKSON – covered by Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) - was born in 1767 in Carolinas.
8. Martin VAN BUREN - Article II (NBC) both parents Citizens when he was born - was born in 1782 in NY. First that qualified under the NBC clause- born in the USA to two Citizen parents.
The entire list:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3419381/posts?page=599#599
Raphael Cruz could had taken his son ‘Felito’ to Cuba; Ted would have been a Cuban national.
How a Trump supporter can keep a straight face while he labels Cruz a “liar” is beyond me.
If Trump’s lips are moving, he’s lyin’
Sad to see deluded conservatives supporting that guy. Shows how desperate some folks are. Hope & Change version 2.
Obviously you're just too damned lazy to check out facts!
After Cruz graduated from the University of Texas in 1961, he was granted political asylum in the United States following the expiration of his student visa.[1] He became a Canadian citizen during his residence in Canada, returning to the United States with his family in the mid-'70s. Eleanor and Rafael Cruz divorced in 1997.[33] He renounced his Canadian citizenship and in 2005 became a naturalized U.S. citizen.[1][36]Rafael Bienvenido Cruz Bio
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.