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 ...
You have to be able to articulate and demonstrate an injury to you that is separate and clearly identifiable apart from the general injury that would be suffered by the public at large in order to have standing.
No more so than if they declare a tail a leg, as Lincoln so aptly put it.
The meaning of the term "natural citizen" is like a natural constant. It cannot be changed by legislation or decree. It is based on "Natural Law" which is the philosophical underpinnings that justified our independence from England.
The fact that a whole host of ignorant people say otherwise does not make it so.
Their minds are closed to reason.
Exactly backwards. The people who have researched this term and who have discovered it's origins, arrived at their position precisely because their minds were open to reason.
The people who's minds are closed to reason are the ones who simply believe what people say merely because there are a lot of people saying it.
I could not agree more. And the power to do so resides with Congress. Article 1 Section 8 clause 4.
You are absolutely correct. The "no standing" garbage is just a way for the black robed cowards and traitors to dodge the issue.
LOL! Felito Cruz!
Don’t forget that Edward reliquisthed his Canadian Citizenship back in 2014..
"I could not agree more. And the power to do so resides with Congress. Article 1 Section 8 clause 4."
That section of our Constitution specifically states that Congress only has the powers of naturalization. They can NOT create a natural born Citizen. Only the Laws of Nature and Nature's God can do that.
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
Well we can thank the ‘face of GOD’ for the Roberts ruling over US... Bunch of lying hypocrites. Cruz and his supporters are evil on parade. They will get to have a full accounting to the One who is literally in control. They have NO Godly authority to mess with our Constitution. They are the low information minds. Stupid is as stupid does... nothing conservative about them.
No. Congress can define "naturalization"; they do not have the power to redefine "natural born citizenship", which by definition means that no legislation can affect such citizenship status. One who is born in the country, and born to two citizens cannot be anything else, by any decree.
Article I
Section. 8. Clause 4: [The Congress shall have Power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Sorry but you are incorrect. Naturalization is different than the rules of naturalization. The rules of naturalization is a much broader definition. It includes who is a citizen and who is not, who has to be naturalized and who does not need to be naturalized.
It is under this authority that the very first Congress defined those born beyond the shores of the US as being natural born citizens. Under this precedent, if Congress had the will, they can define what the requirements are for NBC. So far, Congress, other than the first Congress, has lacked the will to do so.
Congress could pass an act of Congress that say, NBC status shall require: born on US soil, born of two US NBC parents, born of one parent, born in the month of May. Until they do so, the courts are going to take a least restrictive view as they are historically reluctant to deny any voter privileges to those that might be entitled to them. More of a strict scrutiny view.
The problem is that we (US citizens currently) are expecting SCOTUS to rule on something that they have no authority. We (US citizens) need to be pressuring Congress to take up this issue and fix it once and for all.
That statement is sheer concentrated idiocy.
Thank you, saved for future reference.
It is not loony at all. What's loony is thinking that any citizen can go anywhere in the world, assume a second citizenship or not, settle outside America and have a child with a foreigner and without even filing papers with the American Consulate or State Department have their child declared a citizen. That is not only loony its loopy.
It sure didn't work for the children of American citizens in Vietnam. How can you be 1/2 American & not a Citizen
If it was so cut and dried we wouldn't have pages of Naturalization statutes declaring who was and who wasn't eligible for citizenship. Naturalization statutes do not confer natural born citizenship in any case, only citizenship, at birth or later in life.
http://running2016.com/html/canadian_ted.html
Was Cruz’s mother a citizen? Seems to be questions about her citizenship.
RE: Why do you think he got Roberts planted on the supremes?
OK, I’ll have defend Cruz here even when I detested Robert’s decision on Obamacare ( two of them ).
If you reviewed the past posts and threads regarding Roberts here in FR when he was first nominated, most posts were POSITIVE about him many optimistic that he would be someone who would at least be like William Rehnquist.
Nobody but nobody expected him to become a legislator off the bench. In fact, based on the questions he asked during the oral arguments on the healthcare mandate, a lot were optimistic that he would make his decision based on what the law was written.
You cannot read people’s minds in advance. All you can do is base your decision on a person’s past record and his responses to questions put before him during the confirmation hearings.
So, to say that Cruz “planted” Roberts in the courts implies that he had some special insight into how Roberts would rule on cases before hand.
That is beyond his capability as a human being.
Heck, even Ronald Reagan did not exactly put an originalist in the SCOTUS. He nominated a less than sterling Sandra Day O’Connor.
and so someone who up until 2014 held, at best, dual citizenship is supposed to be a natural born citizen according to the illiterate and unthinking masses who support Ctuz.
Hundreds of thousands of cases are appealed to SCOTUS every year. There is no indication one way or another SCOTUS will issue a writ of certiorari, i.e. agree to take to the case.
Got it. Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense.
Nope I didn’t say Cruz should be a NBC of the USA. I pointed out
he held birth citizenship from another country, namely Canada.
Agreed, and I didn’t mean to infer you meant otherwise.
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.