Ted Cruz 'birther' lawsuit appealed to Supreme Court

UPI ^ | 04/22/2016 | Eric Duvall

[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.

[Just mythoughts]

It does NOT take a supreme to ‘decide’ the founders intent of a ‘natural born’ US citizen. Cruz knows that he is NOT nor will ever be a ‘natural born’ US citizen... BUT Cruz thinks he is just as entitled as his former class mate OBAMA of HARVARD law school. Cruz is an imposter, a liar, and he claims ‘conservative’ as a means of deception.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: It does NOT take a supreme to ‘decide’ the founders intent of a ‘natural born’ US citizen.

Unfortunately, this matter has not been clarified at all by the framers. They never DEFINED the term in any of their writings and explications of the constitution. That’s the reason why we’re in this situation we are in.

People keep citing Vattel ( see one of the posts above ). But we don’t even know if the framers were thinking of Vattel when they wrote this phrase. Why not Blackstone?

That is why I think the SCOTUS needs to pick this issue up and settle it once and for all.

[Irish Eyes]

Bookmark

[Strac6]

“The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.”

I’m sorry, but like all the other Birther BS posted here, this is BS as well.

This is typical non-lawyer playing lawyer.

For example, it assumes that certain inclusions create all other circumstances as exclusions.

As just one example, Minor held that men could vote. Do you want to argue that Women had no inherent right to vote until the 19th was passed.

Did Dred Scott make slavery Ok until the 14th amendment?

Here is the bottom line: USC 1401 speaks to the issue and is writ law.

Not every right or responsibility is in the Constitution. As an example, the Constitution does not guarantee Rush Limbaugh, Jim Robinson, you or me to make internet posts without censorship, because although the Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech, there is no “Freedom of the Internet” therein.

Finally, why is this BS? Because in order to defeat Cruz and Hillary, Trump and his supporters must concentrate on the issues that effect swing voters wallets, their security, jobs, etc.

Putting ANY eggs in this basket is simply asking to be laughed at, and to vastly dilute Trump’s important, personally relevant issues.

[dforest]

For heavens sake people, Cruz has a Canadian Birth Certificate. What more do you need?

Duh....he is not eligible to be POTUS and Cruz knows it.

[dforest]

Exactly. He is as bad as Obama!

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Cruz has a Canadian Birth Certificate. What more do you need?

So, where in the framer’s definition of the term “natural born” does it say because you have a foreign birth certificate, you are not a natural born American Citizen even when your mother is an American Citizen when you were born.

[patriot08]

Why are Cruz’ records sealed?

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrBTzzgmBpXp5cA3GlXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA3VzaC1tYWlsbl8wMgRncHJpZANzV0N3TU05Z1JVNjZSX19aZTBaMy5BBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMxMARvcmlnaW4Dc2VhcmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MDMQRwcXN0cgNjcnV6JTIwcmVjb3IEcHFzdHJsAzEwBHFzdHJsAzIzBHF1ZXJ5A2NydXolMjByZWNvcmRzJTIwc2VhbGVkBHRfc3RtcAMxNDYxMzYxNDYx?p=cruz+records+sealed&fr2=sa-gp-search&fr=ush-mailn_02

[jdsteel]

From the link provided by Seekandfind:

“Masin relied on the 1898 Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark, in which the court applied the 14th Amendment and English common law to determine that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/n-j-court-declares-cruz-eligible-for-white-house/#2zo3buSSgkMG9u4o.99";

There are TWO, not three types of US citizens. Those that are naturalized and those that are NBC, with citizenship given at birth. There is no type that is citizen from birth but not NBC.

The “lots of people saying it” in my case are those tasked with the duty of ascertaining eligibility of a candidate, judges and the Harvard Law Review. Not, as Lincoln said, those that can be fooled either some of the time or all of the time.

I’ve read the federalist papers and the constitution too, and believe I understand their motivations on this issue.

But, as I said, nothing will change your mind as it is closed on the subject.

[Just mythoughts]

Seriously? The framers did not write above our heads. Only the legal and liberal minded have subverted the founders original intent. Ted Cruz knows full well what the founders intent was when they specified ‘natural born’ US citizenship to hold the office of president. There is none that can make lying Cruz a ‘natural born’ US citizen.

[Strac6]

Sorry, but the courts do not agree with the three class of citizenship argument.

There are two:

“Natural” i.e. a citizen at the moment of birth,

“Naturalized,” a person citizen at some point later in life, by application of the person desiring to be a citizen or someone acting for them.

USC 1401 is the current law on this.

[Just mythoughts]

How dare you distort what natural born US citizenship means. No court or act of congress can stamp anyone a natural born US citizen. Only two US citizen parents birthing their child on US soil can bequeath natural born US citizenship. Used to be the liberals had the intent to subvert the original intent. No longer the case, fake conservatives now carry the liberal’s dark water.

[DiogenesLamp]

There are TWO, not three types of US citizens. Those that are naturalized and those that are NBC, with citizenship given at birth. There is no type that is citizen from birth but not NBC.

That is a non-sequitur. If congress declares the naturalization to occur at birth, then they are naturalized "at birth." Just because they become citizens "at birth" does not make them natural citizens.

Now you quoted "Wong Kim Ark" in your response. Let me point out to you something the court was quite clear about in that decision.

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, ...

.

.

The “lots of people saying it” in my case are those tasked with the duty of ascertaining eligibility of a candidate, judges and the Harvard Law Review.

And making a total muck of it because they are all just one big echo-chamber of their own opinions. Not a single one of them has noticed that clause in the Wong Kim Ark decision, and they are all following the same dead-end logical rut that others in their ignorance, have laid down before them.

But, as I said, nothing will change your mind as it is closed on the subject.

Relevant facts, and not opinions from modern day ignorant people will change my opinion. When you produce some of those, I will listen.

The idea that you can pass a law in 1922 (*the Cable Act) to make someone into a "natural born citizen" who wasn't a natural born citizen in 1921 is just logically ridiculous.

Subsequent acts of law cannot change the meaning of the US Constitution.

.

.

* The Cable act of 1922 was the first US law to allow citizenship to be passed down by female citizens to children born in foreign countries. Prior to 1922, *ONLY* males could pass on citizenship to children born out of US Jurisdiction.

[DiogenesLamp]

Was Cruz’s mother a citizen? Seems to be questions about her citizenship.

There are no reasonable questions regarding her citizenship. US Citizenship cannot be lost by accident or neglect. The only way she could have lost her citizenship is by an affirmative act of revoking it.

Such an affirmative act would be in a record of it at the State Department. If any such record of renouncement existed, Trump's opposition research team would have found it.

Ergo we can conclude there are no reasonable questions regarding the citizenship of Ted Cruz's mother. All such efforts to call it into question are the product of an intent to deceive people, and they should be denounced vigorously as a lie.

[Strac6]

The problem is, if you ask 10 people, you will get about 5 answers at to what a NBC is.... and it’s what the courts say that counts.

You may be upset at the courts, but since the courts rulings are what we all live under, either accept it, or elect enough representatives of your liking and change the law.

Otherwise, you have anarchy

Your anger at me for telling what the courts have ruled is like being angry at the LEO who gives you as ticket for 50 in a 30, when you, in your “ultimate wisdom” are quite sure that the road should have a 50 mph speed limit.

By the way, under your “taxi driver/ hairdresser / bartender interpretation,” Barry Goldwater, George Romney and John McCain where not eligible to serve, even if elected.

[Forty-Niner]

“For centuries, the courts have fallen back to the British common law explanation, that a “natural born citizen” is....”

First clue....There are no “Citizens” in Britain, only subjects.

Second clue...The Constitution’s Preamble states that the Constitution is based on Natural Law concepts Not British “Common” (unwritten) Law.

The eligibility question will only be relevant/applied to an “elected” candidate before taking office, otherwise our elections would become clogged with suits every election cycle. I believe that the parties should be vetting their candidates, something those corrupt organizations are now failing to do.

[DiogenesLamp]

Unfortunately, this matter has not been clarified at all by the framers. They never DEFINED the term in any of their writings and explications of the constitution. That’s the reason why we’re in this situation we are in.

They didn't think to define it because it's meaning was very clear at the time... and I will explain why and how.

People keep citing Vattel ( see one of the posts above ). But we don’t even know if the framers were thinking of Vattel when they wrote this phrase. Why not Blackstone?

I'm glad you asked that question. I have searched the complete works of Blackstone, and if I recall properly, he uses the word "Citizen" exactly three times. In all cases he uses it to mean the inhabitants of a City. (As in the Citizens of London.)

Something a lot of modern people do not understand is that the word "citizen" did not mean the same thing in 1770s English that it does now. In old English, the word "Citizen" literally meant "someone who lives in a City."

Shakespeare uses the word a few times. He too uses it in context of the "Inhabitants of a City." The King James Bible uses it a few times, but it too refers to the inhabitants of a City.

I have checked Four English Law dictionaries from prior to 1770, and the word does not even exist in any of those English Law Dictionaries. It just isn't there.

Usage of the word "Citizen" to describe the members of a Nation was not a correct or normal usage of the word in 1770 English. The correct word for inhabitants of a Nation was "Subjects."

So if the word "Citizen" meaning "members of a nation", did not come from the English language, from whence did it come? As it turns out, the only place in the world in which the word "Citizen" meant members of a nation was in the Republic of Switzerland. (The only Republic in the World at that time.)

The Word "Citizen" had meant members of a country to the Swiss since their "Charte des prêtres" of 1370. (Considered to be the founding document of the old Swiss Republic.)

This makes a lot of sense because the Swiss Republic was cobbled together out of several independent states, and they were no longer "Subjects" of any Monarchy.

So why did the US Start Using it? Why didn't we use the word "Subject" just as we had always done before? Why did Jefferson deliberately eschewed this word to describe the Inhabitants of the New Independent States? Why did he deliberately chose to use this word "Citizen" in a manner that was not at the time, correct for the English language?

Well it's probably because they got the idea for creating a Confederated Republic from this book that was then currently sweeping across the nation. This book was called "Droit des Gens" (Law of Nations) and it was written by this Swiss guy who used the word "Citizen" to describe the members of a Republic which he suggested be created from a confederacy of Independent States. (Like Switzerland.)

Here is what this guy Vattel wrote in 1758.

Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

Vattel used the word "Citizen" a lot. The English legal writers of the time seldom used it at all, and even when they did use it, they meant "Denizens of a City" or "City-zens."

So why did they not feel the need to define it? Because pretty much everybody at the time knew they got the word from Vattel, and he got it from the normal Swiss usage.

[DiogenesLamp]

As just one example, Minor held that men could vote. Do you want to argue that Women had no inherent right to vote until the 19th was passed.

Yes. Yes I do. Women did not and do not have an inherent right to vote. Their "right" to vote was given to them by men in 1919, and as it has turned out, was most likely a mistake. For a better argument as to this point than I feel the urge to make, you should watch this very profound and astute video which touches on this subject.

Did Dred Scott make slavery Ok until the 14th amendment?

No, slavery was "Okay" (meaning legal) since long before the country was founded. Dred Scott upheld what was the actual law at the time, and this continued to be the law until Dred Scott was overturned by the 14th amendment. Prior to this time, the US Constitution protected slavery quite effectively, though people started deliberately ignoring it when the Abolition movement picked up strength.

Here is the bottom line: USC 1401 speaks to the issue and is writ law.

USC 1401 does not have the power to redefine the constitution. No statute can change the US Constitution. Only an Amendment can change it.

[little jeremiah]

What’s even loonier (or perhaps deceitful, as well as ignorant)is to think or pretend to think that “Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” are the same thing.

And who knows what citizenship Cruz’ mother had at the time he was born anyway. No one knows unless and until he gives in to the FOI requests and releases his and his mother’s citizenship documents; he won’t make public anything except her US birth certificate and his Canadian birth certificate.

Or unless a courty demands that he release them in order to make an actual judgement based on evidence and SCOTUS precedent.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, but the courts do not agree with the three class of citizenship argument.

The fact that the courts agree or disagree on anything is irrelevant to the truth. Currently the courts "agree" that two homosexuals can get "married" though the word "Matrimony" literally means "Ceremony to create a mother."

“Natural” i.e. a citizen at the moment of birth,

Non-sequitur. Citizen at the moment of birth does not mean "natural citizen." People who are "naturalized at birth" are citizens at birth, but they are "naturalized citizens", not "natural citizens."

“Naturalized,” a person citizen at some point later in life, by application of the person desiring to be a citizen or someone acting for them.

Nonsense. Congress can specify whenever they like that someone becomes a citizen. They could naturalize them at two years old if they wanted to. The fact that Congress chose to write a law to naturalize them "at birth" still makes them naturalized.

USC 1401 is the current law on this.

USC 1401 has no effect on natural law constants. It also does not amend the US Constitution.