Gotta look thru the pages...this is first page that opened..
Posted on 04/22/2016 10:14:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A Utah lawyer has appealed a lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging Republican presidential candidate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is not a "natural born citizen" and therefore ineligible to become president.
Legal scholars say there is virtually no chance the high court will consider the appeal, partly because they do not want to encourage a wave of similar suits.
Cruz has faced questions about his eligibility to become president from his chief rival, Donald Trump. Cruz was born in Canada, though his mother is a U.S. citizen.
The U.S. Constitution sets only a few standards for presidential eligibility. Candidates must be 35, have lived at least 14 years in the country and be a "natural born citizen."
To some, legal vagaries exist surrounding the constitutional language. Congress has never passed a law explicitly defining the term "natural born citizen" and the nation's founding document does not specify what qualifications someone must have.
For centuries, the courts have fallen back to the British common law explanation, that a "natural born citizen" is anyone who is granted citizenship at birth and, therefore, does not have to undergo any naturalization process later in life. Traditionally, that has included anyone born on American soil and the children of American citizens born abroad.
But that definition has generally not been tested in courts because federal judges are first bound to consider whether a plaintiff has standing to bring a lawsuit. To establish standing, someone making allegations has to pass the threshold they have been personally injured in some way.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
We were in Germany living on an American kasern (which was considered American territory) when our second daughter arrived, in an American military hospital. Nonetheless, three years later, upon our return states, we went into the big city to the immigration office to confirm her citizenship. When the nice lady asked our daughter to hold up her hand and give her name, she proudly replied “Mary Jane Smith d’America.” :-)
Gotta look thru the pages...this is first page that opened..
As an NFL fan, it drives me crazy when teams try to "run out the clock." It almost never works, and, in fact, often backfires. Cruz is hoping to run out the clock on the RNC ...only to find that the DNC would have it before a favorable federal judge within days!
Please Ted Cruz, go back to Winnepeg and open a Godman Sachs branch office or something!
Any volunteers to search the documents?
I won't promise a particularly thorough search of whatever section I might be assigned, but I would like to see the source, etc. I'm traveling and working nearly all of this week, and definitely won't have time to do much, or to remark much.
“One is where a person has been NATURALIZED. The other is NBC, where they were born as an American.”
This is where you missed the boat. As you state there are two (2) ways to obtain citizenship. Naturalized Citizenship and Born Citizenship. No one claims a 3rd as you assert.
Natural Born Citizenship is a specific form of Born Citizenship and the majority of citizens fall under this form (quality) of born citizenship, BUT not all do.
While Natural Born citizens are all Born Citizens not all Born Citizens are Natural Born Citizens.
Ponder those declared born citizens under the 14th Amendment. The Court in deciding the Wong Kim Arc case declared Wong a born citizen. They specifically said he was NOT a NBC, but had all the rights of one thereby avoiding creating the concept of a 2nd class citizenship.
You’ll note by Not calling Wong a NBC they, in effect, eliminated him from seeking the Presidency. Both Cruz and Rubio are similarly ineligible from becoming the POTUS because they lack the 3 elements of Born Citizenship.....Native birth, US citizen father, and Us citizen mother necessary to be a considered a Natural Born Citizen.
NBC has no cachet in US life except for Presidential eligibility. Both Rubio and Cruz lack this quality. No one seriously doubts their born citizenship (well there are some questions about Cruz, but none about Rubio) what is lacking about their citizenship is the quality of NBC (Nativity and/or linage.)
If you can’t, or won’t understand this simplest of explanations don’t bother to reply. I won’t reply any further to willful ignorance.
Maybe it's a timing thing. You know how theatrical he is.
So then it means what it meant when the framers wrote it...born here to two citizen parents.
He might be, but that doesn't make him wrong. (See: global warming)
> Suppose the Supreme Court should decide that the Supreme Court should decide who can and cannot run for president
They do no such thing, they decide questions of law. Article II eligibility is a question of law. The Electoral College performs a ministerial function, they do not decide questions of law.
Of course, we can remove any doubt by just beginning with a conclusion. If we begin with the assumption that measuring the qualifications of a presidential candidate must be a judicial function that can only be performed by the judiciary, then we will conclude that it is a judicial function that can only be performed by the judiciary.
If, on the other hand, we begin with the assumption that measuring the qualifications of a presidential candidate must be an elector function that can only be performed by electors, then we will conclude that it is an elector function that can only be performed by electors. We should not begin with a conclusion.
There is a legal question as to WHO under our Constitution is empowered to determine the qualifications of a presidential candidate and the judiciary can decide that legal question, but we should not assume that the Supreme Court must decide that question by ruling that only a court can determine the qualifications of a presidential candidate. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the Supreme Court, if it decides that legal question at all, will decide that the electors decide with finality the qualifications of a presidential candidate and that their decision is not reviewable by a court. If the Supreme Court really wanted to decide that legal issue as you believe they should decide it, then they certainly had a recent opportunity to do so. As you will recall, they made no effort to get involved.
So, maybe we shall soon see. You may be right about what the Supreme Court will do, but I believe that you are wrong. I don't think the justices want to be looking over the shoulders of electors and I do not believe that they want to get involved in DNA tests or comparing photos of putative fathers and sons or hearing testimony of who was sleeping with whom or engaging in any of the baloney that we saw in the social media during the last eight years. It is inherently political.
There is nothing wrong with the procedures that we have followed for more than 50 presidential elections.
Congress exercises a ministerial function in counting the electoral ballots, and such ballots can be discounted only if the certificates are not in regular form or are not authentic, the role of Congress is limited to problems with Electors and does not extend to the eligibility of a candidate (3 U.S.C. § 15). Only in a special circumstance may they exercise any other power (Amend. 12). In no circumstance do they possess authority to determine who is and who is not eligible for the Presidency.
The role of the Electoral College is limited to casting votes in accordance with the popular vote of the State that each Elector represents. Their function is a ministerial function. In no circumstance do they possess authority to determine who is and who is not eligible for the Presidency.
Neither Congress nor the Electoral College decide questions of law. The Judiciary has exclusive authority to decide questions of law.
5. Is a "cafes" previously mentioned'? Newspapers.com premier edition. Keyword naturalization
That "f" is probably an "s". They used to do that a lot back then.
That would make the word "cases".
5. Proof of parents citizenship before certificate of citizenship issued...
You did not find those notions in our Constitution. Under our Constitution, each state decides how it shall choose electors and those electors vote for president and vice-president. The Founding Fathers did not believe that states should be required to choose electors by popular vote. What you have written is what you apparently believe the Founding Fathers should have written. Lots of people believe that we should get rid of the electors and let the president be chosen by popular vote. But, we haven't done that yet. The electors are still choosing the president and vice-president. I believe that they are obligated to vote only for candidates who are qualified to serve. So far as I know, every elector has agreed with that view of their responsibility.
We're just going to have to wait to see if the Supreme Court wants to become a screening committee for presidential candidates. I don't think it will, but again, we'll have to wait to see. ;-)
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.