Posted on 05/06/2013 9:44:33 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
“Another birther controversy could be brewing for 2016,” MSNBC host Chuck Todd informed on Monday. Though this time aimed at a Republican: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who was born in Canada. While Cruz likely doesn’t face any real eligibility problems, Todd acknowledged, “questions are being asked.”
Snip~
How exactly is “natural-born citizen” defined? Since Cruz’s mother was born in the U.S. and his father became a citizen in 2005, Todd explained, going on to list similar scrutiny faced by President Obama, George Romney, and John McCain.
“The legal evidence seems to side with Cruz,” Todd argued, “but there is a grey area, and that may be all his opponents need.”
“It’s pretty clear that he qualifies as natural born,” Peter Spiro, a professor at Temple University, stated in response to Todd’s earlier question about how the term is defined. To clarify, Todd summed up: “If you are born to U.S. citizens abroad, no matter where, if they are U.S. citizens, if…one of your parents is a U.S. citizen — then that should qualify as natural born.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
When you know the rock that the snake is hiding under its amazing how you can pick-up a 100 rocks and and not find a snake.
No one in the power circle - include judges - want to pick the correct rock. They know what is waiting if they do.
The fact remains, Minor v. Happersett has been presented to the Supreme Court of the United States in several Petitions for Writs of Certiorari as cited precedent in Obama eligibility appeals, to no avail.
Twenty-four years after Minor was decided, the Supreme Court ruled that:
[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, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”
I think you may have forgotten that this thread is about a modern day elected politician who might run for president in 2016 and who might have his eligibility determined by modern day courts and contemporary elected officials.
As always, the people will decide, with God's guidance.
Trust our Constitution. Trust the people. Trust God.
Ok, if you say so.
Have we figured out why the birthers had Ted Cruz so much??
Are they Christie guys???
Maybe members of the Jeb Bush fanclub?
However, some of them just trapped themselves with baloney about Vattel and Kenyan birth certificates. If Cruz gets the nomination, they will come around.
There will be nothing to prevent them from "discovering" Cruz's real [American] father and a Cincinnati birth certificate. Or, maybe there is a previously overlooked Vattel footnote.
Whatever it takes.
There has been no difference whatsoever in the rulings of liberal judges and conservative judges on issues related to presidential eligibility.
Only modern day courts have been and will be ruling on this issue with regard to Obama or potentially Cruz, Rubio and Jindal. That’s why the rulings are pertinent. If you find reality to be “provocative,” so be it.
There will be a very interesting test case soon, McInnish, et. al. v. Chapman. Every party in this Obama eligibility challenge is a conservative Republican: the plaintiffs and their attorneys, the defendant who is the Secretary of State of Alabama and her attorney, the Alabama Attorney General; and every member of the Alabama Supreme Court, without exception, is a conservative Republican including two of the widely acknowledged most conservative jurists in America, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker.
The SC tends to avoid political questions.. so wouldn’t the eligibility of the President as a Natural Born Citizen qualify as a political question?
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
- - -
the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
This is the last point in the Wong Kim Ark decision which uses the specific term "natural-born citizen." It could not be used in any application to Wong Kim Ark because his parents were not citizens.
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
Absolutely right. Many eligibility challenges have been dismissed under the political question doctrine. One of the earliest was a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court of the United States and was denied a hearing before the full court. The original trial judge wrote: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
Barnett,Keyes et. al. v Obama, et. al., US District Court Judge David O. Carter:
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
Do you know where he was born?
Yes, you've summarized it all perfectly. However, in order to avoid committing themselves completely by admitting that the courts have no role in presidential selection, they tend to phrase it in terms of a lack of standing. The result is the same. The Supreme Court has never so much as hinted that it has the power to overrule a decision by voters and their electors that a presidential candidate is qualified.
The selection of a president is a political decision. The judiciary plays no role. Under our Constitution, the voters and their electors (and only the voters and their electors) have been entrusted with that decision.
In Iran, the qualifications of all presidential candidates must be approved by the Guardian Council. As we speak. the Guardian Council is hard at work to ensure that the Iranian people will not be given any meaningful choices in the next presidential election.
Do Americans want a Guardian Council to screen our presidential candidates? Do we need one? Do we really think that nine elitists in robes will be better than the rest of us at testing the qualifications of presidential candidates?
With the guidance of God, the voters and their electors have selected our presidents for 57 straight presidential elections. There is no need to change our system now.
And I have a Modern day court answer for this. Rogers v Bellei.
A Natural born citizen cannot be stripped of citizenship through inaction.
Conservative Judges likewise do not overturn Liberal Court precedents either. This does not make them correct.
The Entire system deserves contempt. Since Roosevelt damaged it, it is overflowing with idiocy and anti-American concepts of law.
There will be a very interesting test case soon, McInnish, et. al. v. Chapman. Every party in this Obama eligibility challenge is a conservative Republican: the plaintiffs and their attorneys, the defendant who is the Secretary of State of Alabama and her attorney, the Alabama Attorney General; and every member of the Alabama Supreme Court, without exception, is a conservative Republican including two of the widely acknowledged most conservative jurists in America, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker.
All this means is that someone has obtained the best venue so far, but it doesn't guarantee that they will look at the entire history of the issue, or all the evidence, rather than simply relying on Liberal Precedent.
US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
His 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, 7 Rep. 6a, ”strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President onThrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court, “independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger694*694 born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.” Ex. Doc. H.R. No. 10, 1st sess. 32d Congress, p. 4; 6 Webster’s Works, 526; United States v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a; Ellesmere on Postnati, 63; 1 Hale P.C. 62; 4 Bl. Com. 74, 92.
To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
Diogenes Lamp wrote:
And I have a Modern day court answer for this. Rogers v Bellei.
A Natural born citizen cannot be stripped of citizenship through inaction.
Now your rebuttal ought not include a reference to Wong Kim Ark unless you can find somewhere in that ruling a place where it says a "natural born citizen" can be stripped of citizenship by inaction. If you can find such text in that decision, then it is appropriate to quote that decision. If you cannot find words to that effect in that decision, then it is merely a waste of both our time's for you to quote that decision.
Now I presume you regard yourself as knowledgeable, intelligent and logical, so therefore I would also presume you understand what is the meaning of "addressing the point."
With that in mind, rebut my statement with a pertinent cite if you can, or if not, do the honest thing and admit the point is beyond reproach.
Back to you.
You do not get to control the procedure of the discussion, particularly when your side has lost 317 legal challenges in a row in courts at every level of the judiciary from small claims court in Florida to the Supreme Court of the United States.
You’re a one trick pony: Minor v. Happersett, a women’s suffrage case at that.
US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898): “ [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, 7 Coke, 6a, ’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.’”
Ping
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.