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 ...
PS, both you guys make me exercise the old gray natter.
That is good.
Sleep well
In the current law on NBC, AS IN EVERY LAW, (read that phrase again) there is an assumption that every passed and signed bill is a constitutional law, unless challenged in the courts and found unconstitutional.
Sorry, but Congress and SCOTUS override your personal objections. It’s called The Rule of Law
C'mon, RATs are everywhere, all the way up and down the food chain. They don't need a personal memo from O'Blowma to do his bidding...Communists are just like the Borg collective.
why would Obama want to help Cruz?
So he could be given the nomination, and then when the timing was right, the appellate courts could reverse the lower court decisions...leaving the GOPes with no candidate.
By the way, if you disagree with that law, our system gives you a clear path to learn if you are right.
Sue any state official trying to put Sen. Cruz’s name on the ballot, seeking to have it struck.
If you win, you were right.
As a matter of reference, there are few nations that give a citizen that right.
> here is an assumption that every passed and signed bill is a constitutional law, unless challenged in the courts and found unconstitutional.
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Under constitutional challenge here, primarily on Fifth Amendment due process grounds, but also on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, is § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 236, 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(b).
We hold that § 301(b) has no constitutional infirmity in its application to plaintiff Bellei.
This is not a self incrimination case. Nothing to due with this case, and you know it... or I certainly hope you do.
I don’t play legal BS games. The law, and the citizens it protects, are too important for that.
End of replying to your posts.
Jay Galt knows what he’s talking about. I just try to learn form those who know more than me, and take pot shots (or sharp nips) at those who obfuscate. Chihuahuas do what chihuahuas do.
SCOTUS has found the Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. No. 82-414 § 301(b), 66 Stat. 163, 236 (1952) is constitutional.
Congress’s authority to impose the requirements of § 301(b) isn’t because “they said they could”, Congress is exercising it’s power to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization.
In the current law on NBC, AS IN EVERY LAW, there is an assumption that every passed and signed bill is a constitutional law, unless challenged in the courts and found unconstitutional.
Sorry, but Congress and SCOTUS override your personal objections. It’s called The Rule of Law.
If that is "the rule of law", it is merely another way of saying "Might Makes Right". Robber baron stuff. Iow, the Republic as intended originally, is over.
> “self incrimination case”
What the hell are you talking about?
So basically, if one "wins", one is "right". And of course they way everything is organized and stacked, the outcome is already guaranteed; "they" will win and "we" will lose. If you think this is a good way for the country to stumble along, I'm disgusted.
And you as well. Pleasant dreams.
Yes, he could. Get of your hind quarters and get his citizenship squared away.
So if Kasich and Trump can be lead plaintiffs with other registered Republican primary voters, can't these registered voters be the lead plaintiffs?
Forgive my ignorance, and thank you in advance for explaining it.
I picture a trollbot in pieces on the floor, springs and gears all about, and the distinct smell of ozone wafting up from the fried circuits.
All 3 son’s have an American mother, a foreign father, and were born outside of this country. It is the exact same situation.
Everyone knows if any one of them moved here and tried to run for President everyone would scream they aren’t eligible.
[[As is patently obvious this advances the idea that a citizen created by naturalization statutes is the same as a NBC not one iota.]]
On this we are going to have to disagree and I’ll side with the CSR scholars, who’s main job description is to study case law day in and day out and present DC lawyers and scholars and judges with detailed reports on issues such as this issue of Naturalization and NBC status- I’m also going to have to side with two of the most respected Lawyers on this topic- having studied it for their entire careers- I’m also going to have to side with the recent court cases- SC cases and federal ones that found that there is no difference between a woman who travels abroad, and comes back to the states to have a child, and one who either can’t come back for the birth or chooses not to- I’m also going to have to side with the several court cases challenging Cruz’s eligibility now that have found him eligible- There is no reason for them to be finding this on their own if there is nothing to the idea that NBC includes children born abroad to a us parent- Someone up-thread gave a list of the cases now-
Unless we’re going to claim all those cases, and more to follow- are all presided over by corrupt judges?
Actually the Nyguen case does reflect the status mentioned- the child is no different than that of one who’s mother had a child in the US- the only stipulation being that for unwed parents one must prove paternity and like you say establish the bond for purposes of allegiance- This doesn’t make the stsatute an act of naturalization- but simply clarifies that congress is within it’s right to stipulate stricter requirements for certain situations- and like you mentioned By birth is ‘original’ while At Birth is ‘derivative’ however derivative does not denote less important or as of having less rights- The statute does not grant citizenship- it stipulates what must be done in order for citizenship to be recognized- this might sound like semantics, but it’s a very important distinction, and one that, liek you mentioned about 1409- is important in order to shwo that a bond and allegiance are properly nurtured- whereas if them other is a citizen and she alone brigns the chidl into the world without her donor- then the child automatically assumes the allegiance of the mother citizen as a child is legally bound by the parent’s allegience until the age of 18 when the child can then decide for themselves if they wish to remain a citizen, or to expatriate
Cruz is a U.S. citizen, no doubt. But he’s a citizen by law, not birth. That’s naturalized.
Naturalized!!! You guys are spinning your wheels on this.. They will throw this out of court!!! No standing..
Look at it this way: If there was a car accident with damages, a bystander who observed the accident can’t sue either party because the bystander wasn’t injured in the accident; or a wife’s parents can’t sue for divorce from an abusive husband on behalf of their daughter. Neither the bystander nor the parents have standing. They weren’t injured.
Attempts of voters alone to be granted standing in eligibility challenges have been largely unsuccessful. Voters HAVE gotten standing however in situations where the candidate being challenged did not question the standing of the plaintiffs. Obama, for example, often didn’t mount any defense in eligibility lawsuits so those proceeded without a standing challenge.
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.