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 ...
Simple: He had NO American citizenship. He followed his Cuban father’s blood sperm. Mother NOT in the picture here. That’s probably why her records being buried !!!
It’s obvious that the Cruz family had every intention of making Canada their permanent home and never returning to their countries of origin (Cuba or USA).
The one—and only—reason Ted Cruz currently resides in the USA and not Canada is his parents had a fight, separated, and his father moved to the USA to get away from his wife. They later reconciled and she moved back to the USA to follow her husband.
Sans that fight, Ted Cruz would still be living in Canada. He certainly would have spent his entire youth, all the way up through High School, in Canada.
So WHAT kind citizenship had he???
But it showed the original thinking of the Founders and Framers who were in the first Congress. The Act that repealed it was also repealed.
Early Naturalization Acts: 1790, 1795, 1798, & 1802.
EVERY SINGLE STATE TO DATE HAS DETERMINED TED CRUZ ELIGIBLE!
Tells you how corrupt the courts are.
Cruz, at best, is a “naturalized” American citizen.
You do know he has sealed all of his citizenship-related records, don’t you? What’s he hiding?
Re: “Cruz was born in Canada but BOTH his parents then and now are USA citizens.”
That is absolute nonsense! Here are the facts:
http://running2016.com/html/canadian_ted.html
“Ever wonder why Cruz has sealed his birth records? Shrug????
Without doubt, it’s because Cruz’s mother listed her nationality as Canadian on the birth certificate.
Why? Because, she would not have had access to Canadian government medical benefits had she not been a Canadian citizen.”
EXACTLY....that is the issue, did she renounce her citizenship or not. If she was no longer a citizen then Teddy is not...if is she was a citizen then Teddy is. Think is per Huffo she was on voter roll in Canada...I did not think you could vote there unless you were citizen of Canada only......time will tell what will happen on this “Obama take 2” issue
[[If a foreign government considers a U.S. citizen to also be a citizen of the foreign country, that is irrelevant to one’s eligibility to be POTUS.]]
Precisely. Nothing in law or constitution bars a sovereign us citizen from being president because of dual citizenship- Sovereign US citizenship trumps other citizenships in dual citizenship- people making the claim that dual citizenship disqualifies a person from being president have nothing to point to to prove this claim
Re: For example, John McCain was born in Panama. Under Panama’s Constitution, he is still considered a Panamanian citizen by the Republic of Panama whether or not he has lived there since birth. The Panamanian government’s views on this issue are irrelevant as to his eligibility to run for POTUS in 2008 (that he was a terrible RINO choice is a political matter but not a legal disqualification).
And that’s exactly why John McCain is a “naturalized” American citizen, and he too was not eligible of the Office of POTUS.
Barry Goldwater wasn’t eligible and neither are Obama, McCain, Jindal, Rubio, and Cruz.
But it doesn’t matter anymore. No on cares — especially the attorneys and the courts.
What does that tell you about the state of the Constitution and the law?
Canadian. Freepmail on the way.
The Courts don’t seem to agree with that.
Martin Van Buren in 1837 was the first president who was a natural born citizen, the seven presidents before him were born British subjects. John Adams was even the attorney for the British crown in prosecuting the American revolutionaries involved in the Boston Massacre.
Blacks got U.S. citizenship via statute, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which negated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v Sandford which said that blacks had never been citizens and could never be citizens. American Indians got citizenship via statute from the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Asian Americans got citizenship via repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act statutes.
I don’t think that there are many people who would say that no black, no American Indian and no Asian-American can be president because citizenship for that group of people was originally created by statute.
The constitutional basis for those statutes is the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens...”
The offspring of naturalized citizens whose citizenship was created by statute are natural born citizens.
In 1898 the federal government asked the Supreme Court to rule on: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”—Government’s Brief, U.S. v Wong Kim Ark
The Supreme Court ruled 6-2: [An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”—United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Since that Supreme Court ruling and for the last 118 years, anyone who qualifies as a Citizen of the United States at Birth also qualifies as a Natural Born Citizen.
As Nero Germanicus said, most people believe that another presidential candidate would have standing. Others believe that the courts consider these cases to be political questions and thus won't hear them.
I read some of Judge Pellegrini's opinion in Elliott v. Cruz. He made some good points about the political question doctrine not being applicable.
"The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for"
The foreign-born children of citizens have always required naturalization
|
an important point in the Nguyen case that was brought out during questioning- The issue at hand was whether a child RETAINS their citizenship status if the unwed father doesn’t meet the higher standards of citizenship requirements imposed on children born to a citizen parent overseas
1 MS. DAVIS: What this Court has indicated, both
2 in Rogers v. Bellei and also in a majority of the justices
3 in the Miller case —
4 QUESTION: But that’s your position is all I
5 wanted to —
6 MS. DAVIS: — stated that it’s recognition of
7 existing citizenship and continuing citizenship.
IF the requirements are not met, the father goes into a state of ‘statelessness’ and could not pass his citizenship down to a child- the child would lose their citizenship status because the father failed to comply with the statute, which the courts then interpret as ‘intent to expatriate’- and since the child assumes the allegiance of a parent until 18 years of age- that child would lose it’s ‘at birth citizenship’ (remember, we are talking about the child of one citizen parent either mother or father- in htis case the father- an unwed father- which the congress has a right to impose stricter stipulations on because of the whole bond/allegiance issues associated with a child being brought up by an unwed father alone)
The whole point of the Nguyen case was that the lone citizen in an unwed case (husband not being a citizen), the citizen mother, had certain rights that a lone citizen father (when the mother was not a citizen) in an unwed case, the citizen father didn’t’ have, or rather, a Citizen mother had a much easier statute requirement than a lone citizen father had- The basic argument was that there is no difference between the status of a child born to a US citizen mother on soil as a US citizen mother’s child born off soil, while there was a difference when it was the unwed father who had sole custody of the child, and hwo had to meet much higher standards and present greater burden of proof to show their parentage
Congress has the right and obligation to enact higher standards for children born off soil, however, the bottom line is the child is born a citizen by birthright, but can have that birthright stripped if conditions aren’t met
[[QUESTION: Yes, I mean, their — their
13 citizenship is conferred by statute, and they are citizens
14 from birth, and there are probably tens of millions of
15 them, and George Romney was one of them, and I had not
16 thought that they were naturalized citizens. I thought
17 they were citizens who were citizens by virtue of their
18 birth, and they’re citizens from birth, but you were
19 saying they’re the same as naturalized. Or maybe I
20 misunderstood.
21 MS. DAVIS: Yes. Your Honor, the wording of the
22 Constitution is natural born citizens for purposes of
23 being President or Vice President. And what — I haven’t
24 done the research myself. What commentators say is that
25 natural born is the equivalent of — includes, encompasses
23
1 jus soli and jus sanguinis. But that’s a different term
2 than naturalized.
3 QUESTION: If that’s so, then those who — then
4 those who are born abroad of an American parent are
5 natural born citizens in your view?
6 MS. DAVIS: That’s correct.]]
MS. DAVIS: Your Honor, I guess the question is
12 whether the term naturalized in the Constitution also
13 encompasses natural born citizens. In Rogers versus Bellei
14 suggested that it did.
15 QUESTION: Well, I — for present purposes what
16 we’re interested in is what standard of review to apply,
17 and whether the extremely deferential standard applies to
18 these natural born citizens.
19 MS. DAVIS: I think it’s — I think it’s totally
20 clear that jus sanguinis citizenship has a different
21 history than naturalized citizenship and has traditionally
22 by this Court as well as by Congress been treated
23 differently.
The whole purpose of Nguyen, and of stricter requirements for proof of paternal relationship in he case of sole guardianship, is to determine who the child belongs to- if it can’t be established who the child belongs to, who the child derives from, then citizenship can’t be established- and congress determines the child can not have citizenship even though the child may, by all rights, be an actual citizen even though no proof is available- The father, for obvious reasons, must establish that he is the actual father and must demonstrate that he is a citizen, in order for the child to retain it’s citizenship status
While Jus Sanguinis citizenship has different stipulations, it is no different when it comes to the citizenship status of a child- that child, if found to be a citizen at birth, has every right afforded a Natural Born Citizen
Touche
However the actual bill that was passed in Congress and that President Washington signed into law stated that: “”the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
“The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” It specifies that such children “shall be considered as natural born citizens,” the only US statute ever to use the term.”—Wikipedia
Truthfully I do not think we have enough data to reason from. http://running2016.com/html/canadian_ted.html
The history the campaign has given unravels upon attempts to verify, as enumerated at the link above. I am sitting back with some popcorn to see how it all plays out.
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.