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 ...
RE: How many slaves did Jefferson own? Wasn’t it something like 80 or so? So what was the intent of the man who wrote “All men are created equal” while keeping 80+ slaves? One would think that if he intended that concept to apply to them, he would have freed his slaves, don’t you think?
That of course is the question we have to ask today. When he espoused the idea that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS... LIFE, LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, What was his original intent?
Did he intend to mean that by “All Men: he was only referring to a class of people? ( dis-including people of certain race, ethnicity or gender )?
If it was not his intent, then we have to say that Jefferson and the rest of the slave-owning founders, being imperfect men, were actually living a life of hypocrisy, espousing a noble idea, yet practicing something antithetical to the idea they espoused.
Or did he and those who signed on to the Declaration intend it to be for only a certain class of people?
If his intent was this -— “all free, property-owning males are created equal”
Then Frederick Douglas’ question : “Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?” was moot. IT WAS NOT INTENDED FOR THEM.
And it was not intended for women ( white or black ).
If we understand it to be “only for free property-owning males”, then the companion document which intends to be in harmony with the declaration — THE CONSTITUTION, and all its provisions and original amendments were only intended for a certain class of men.
In which case, we then have latter amendments which in effect, are CONTRADICTIONS of the original intent of the founders of this country.
However, hypocrisy notwithstanding, if Jefferson and the founders understood it to mean that Equality is not something that a government can grant or deny a body of citizens; for this right is unalienable, then we have to conclude that Dred Scott is WRONG, EVEN AT THE TIME IT WAS DECIDED.
And if the Dred Scott decision was wrong and unconstitutional and against the spirit of the founding of this nation, then so was Minor V Happersett. And if so, then so is the idea that natural born citizenship can only accrue to a child through his father and not his mother.
It’s a choice we have to make today — is the Declaration intended for all men, or only a certain class of men?
I choose the former.
You are aware that the Constitution enforced slavery too?
I choose the former.
I acknowledge the reality of something, even if I don't agree with it.
Yeah, it’s just my opinion, but I have tried to tell you why I believe as I do. I cannot be sure what the Supreme Court might do, but I suspect that it will continue to stay away from these problems.
“You both insist that there are 3 legal definitions of Citizen.”
No we don’t. We recognize that there are either BORN citizens or that there are NATURALIZED citizens.
We recognize that one may be a born citizen under several different birth circumstances. These different circumstance are NOT each create a separate definition of citizen.
One of those circumstances is birth in the US to 2 citizen parents. A vast majority of BORN citizens are born with this exact circumstance of birth. Why can’t you understand this? BTW as The TROLL pointed out US CODE 1401 lists the different circumstances that would result in “BORN CITIZENSHIP.” Included in this list is those born in the US to 2 citizen parents.
All born and naturalized citizens share the same Rights/ Responsibilities EQUALLY. There are no “Classes” of citizenship in the United States.
Only one form of BORN CITIZENSHIP is eligible to become President. No Naturalized citizens are eligible to become President. ONLY Citizens born in the US to 2 citizen parents are eligible to be President. That eligibility requirement does NOT create another definition of citizenship. A NBC IS a BORN CITIZEN. One whose circumstance of birth makes him eligible to be President.
Cruz has multiple “citizenships,” Canadian, Cuban, and US. He is not Eligible and therefore ultimately not Electable.
Since you disagree Please list the Presidents, born after the Constitution was in effect, that were NOT born in the US to 2 citizen parents. You have over 200 years worth of presidents to look over.
True
You are both coming around to what I wrote in my original post. It took a lot to get you there, but you did finally arrive.
Not really. Your delusion continues.
You both insist that there are 3 legal definitions of Citizen.
Probably more than that. What about residents of US territories? I'm sure there are many restrictions and qualifiers on various types of citizenships, which make them different from each other.
TWO types, naturalized and NBC.
Yes, ANY citizenship created/defined by statute is naturalized.
You might split hairs, as you did above, and say that there are TWO types of born citizens
Yes, those eligible, and those ineligible to serve as President.
but that is six of one and a half dozen of the other
No, it's pretty black and white, and would preclude the likes of the illegal usurper from sitting in the Oval Office.
it will take a SC decision
There exists such a historic writing.
or written legislation to CHANGE the current working definition.
Written legislation in the form of a Constitutional Amendment, to be ratified by the states. The current working definition is; "born here, two citizen parents".
As such Cruz is ELIGIBLE.
Why, did something or someone travel back in time, and make him US born, to a US citizen father? No. Cruz is barely a citizen, and unless and until he produces his CRBA, he should be considered an illegal alien.
to a later remark by Rocklobster it has nothing to do with either opinion or climate change.
Of course it does, the courts are completely unreliable, packed with devout communists, people just like Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton. They grant rights to micro-demographic groups and trample on the rights of "natural born citizens" Why would this be any different?
It has to do with those that won’t change their view of the matter in the face of 50 states nominating boards
They need to follow original intent, otherwise, they have no bearing on the issue.
and about a half dozen court rulings.
See Kangaroo RAT-courts: (above)
once we get our marginally documented first black president out of the oval office
Your twisted definition is what got him there in the first place. He's less than marginally documented, the BC is fake, he has multiple SS numbers, and all his records and transcripts are sealed. We're not even sure he is the person originally born with that name.
our nation can proceed with the process to actually DEFINE what NBC should be
That was done long long ago by the Supreme Court, reaffirming the framers original intent.
> Any volunteers to search the documents?
What do you want to find?
Hmmm, I thought FortyNiner was done with this and wouldn’t reply anymore. It’s OK to change your mind. Both you and Rock Lobster have clearly laid out why you think the way you do. I’ve pointed out what the current working legal definition is, which you disagree with. It was never my intention to try to persuade you to change your minds. As a matter of fact, I believe my comment was that there are folks (like you) that wouldn’t change their minds if the heavens opened up and the founding fathers themselves disagreed with you.
Now that we’ve all spoken our piece there is nothing to be gained by simply restating the same thing over and over in different ways. No one is changing their mind on this because of this conversation.
BTW, while none of us have gone to who we support in the primaries it’s a pretty good bet that you both support Trump. I hope that he’s successful in hitting the magic number before the convention so this argument doesn’t continue. My opinion is that Cruz would do a better job at following the Constitution and as such be better for our country, but Trump is my second choice. As such I’ll happily vote for him if he gets the nomination.
“My opinion is that Cruz would do a better job at following the Constitution and as such be better for our country”
I don’t see how you can say that considering how he doesn’t even understand Article II. His record in the Senate is abysmal. Given his votes for Coker, TPA, and TPP, Cruz’s love for Globalism is on display...too bad he doesn’t hold the Constitution in similar respect.
Cruz’s “VP” choice, Carly, is yet another example of Cruz’s Tin Ear. With the California primaries coming up in a few weeks, he should have known how disliked Carly is in California. His act of desperation in nominating her only cemented his loss of any hope of a California victory....
All in all Cruz has made his ineligibility issue go away. Not being the nominee, and therefore impossibly the elective candidate, the issue is therefore moot....until the next time.
Where’s that list of Presidents who were NOT born in the US to 2 citizen parents (NBCs), elected after the Constitutional work around expired, you promised????? Still looking???? Lololololol..........
“Where’s that list of Presidents who were NOT born in the US to 2 citizen parents (NBCs), elected after the Constitutional work around expired, you promised????? Still looking???? Lololololol..........”
Easy...Barack Obama.
But that doesn’t change a thing. Now that I had my fun, I am done.
Ska-rew the baby-killing, alien-loving faggot courts!
Otherwise, you have anarchy
We obviously have anarchy...pick your issue.
“Pennsylvania as well. And the election boards of 50 states too. But for some that is not enough. Neither would a Supreme Court decision be enough. Not even if the founding fathers spoke from the heavens and declared Cruz an NBC would it be enough. Their minds are closed to reason.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly decided a person born abroad is not and cannot ever be a natural born citizen, yet you dishonestly and dishonorably disregard their prior decisions to propagate the lie that Ted Cruz and the other ineligible candidates are somehow supposed to be natural born citizens when they are either aliens with no lawful U.S. citizenship or they are at best naturalized citizens. Such lies may continue only so long as the dishonest people continue the charade and control the courts of law in defiance of the law and in defiance of the Constitution. This is why there will be a day of reckoning and they will be removed from their offices in disgrace and punished in a court of law for their dishonorable acts. Their enablers will be held in ill repute.
“This is a classic case of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Looney to think a child of a citizen isn’t really a citizen at all.”
That remark of yours demonstrates you are some kind of willfully ignorant and blithering idiot to disregard the historical fact that the U.S. Supreme Court decided persons born abroad with TWO U.S. CITIZEN PARENTS were born without ANY U.S. citizenship whatsoever. LET ME REPEAT THAT TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL!!! THEY WERE BORN WITH NO U.S. CITIZENSHIP in the periods when there was no U.S. Naturalization Act in effect to grant them NATURALIZED U.S. CITIZENSHIP! That’s NO U.S. CITIZENSHIP, nada, none, zero U.S. citizenship. Now, you and the corrupt and/or incompetent justices in the courts of law can repeat the lies over and over and over again to infinity without changing the historical fact natural born citizenship has never been inherited from citizen parents by children born abroad in English, British, British American, or U.S. law during the last millennia without the protection of diplomatic immunity. So, please stop propagating bald faced lies in defiance of the historical record.
“Interesting. I have several friends who were in the Navy and who were told that when born in the base hospital, their children were no different than a child born inside the US on a military base, i.e. natural born with no need for them to send mommy home to have the child.”
Total myth and well documented as a myth.
“Are there differences between the Navy and other services since a US ship is always considered part of the US just like land within any state is ?”
That statement is totally and utterly wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court decisions have established that birth within the jurisdiction of the United States of America requires the birth to occur within the incorporated territories of the United States and within the jurisdiction of the Article III Federal Courts and not in the Federal territorial courts established in unincorporated U.S. territories or the courts martial of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.
“Oh please, 1401 interprets and enforces the USC”
You are so incompetent you failed to realize 1401 is not the citation applicable to Ted Cruz, because it did not even exist when Ted Cruz was born on 22 December 1970. The applicable code comes from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, carried a very different U.S. Code, and was changed in some details when rewritten and published Under the new U.S. Code years after Ted Cruz was born in 1970. Given how you repeatedly failed to get even that simple little detail correct, it is no wonder you are so spectacularly ignorant about the whole subject and propagate lies about the subject.
“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.” :-)”
So what? The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act authorized your daughter to acquire naturalized U.S. citizenship. In the absence of the naturalization act for the children of U.S. citizens your daughter would have been born without any U.S. citizenship whatsoever, just as the U.S. Supreme Court decided was the case for the children born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents in the period of 1802 to 1855 and afterwards in other instances. Likewise the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a child born abroad is incapable of being born as a natural born citizen of the United States: United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
“There are only TWO legal types of citizenship recognized by law today. Naturalized and NBC. Once again, you can have your opinion but that is the current working law. If you disagree get a SC ruling or get a law passed. As of now you have neither.”
All of the above is a lie, a fraud, and a strawman argument. You are inventing fake definitions that contradict historical fact.
United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
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.