9th Circuit Court Would Likely Keep Cruz Off Ballot

London Telegraph ^ | February 5th, 2016 | reasonmclucus

[kathsua]

Those who think Sen. Ted Cruz can be elected to a job he isn’t eligible for are ignoring the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. If Republicans make the mistake of nominating Cruz for President of the United States, Democrats in California and other states will challenge his eligibility. There’s at least a 90% probability the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco would rule him ineligible because he is a naturalized citizen rather than a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.

[Springfield Reformer]

And as we stated before, the exceptions are as lawful as the main rule. They were enacted by parliament, and addressed the meaning of natural born subject, precisely as the 1790 act did. Exceptions are valid law if validly legislated. That’s just how law works. It really doesn’t matter what the historical forces were that drove it. The British common law allowed for the edge cases, and the founders, clever chaps that they were, obviously were aware of this.

Peace,

SR

[fireman15]

Anyone who thinks that this thing would end well for Ted if it gets to the Supreme Court is deluding themselves. It is true that if he were Obama it would be a completely different story.

[Secret Agent Man]

Thought both parents had to be American citizens, not having allegiance/citizenship to any other country.

[CurlyDave]

...We have never elected a candidate born outside the USA.

It is far from obvious to me that Obama's obviously forged birth certificate proves he was born in the USA.

[wiggen]

Thinking about what you aptly stated we see that in fact the Trump supporters are relying on the far left to help their cause. Pathetic.

[wiggen]

I’m totally convinced Bruce Jenner, who was used to being the center of attention, did what he did to recapture the spotlight. Trump running was his Bruce Jenner moment, pretending to be something he’s not.

[hadaclueonce]

We are eating our own about if Cruz is a NB C.
While we ignore Obama’s made up past with a made Birth Certificate and made up SSN.
Isn’t America great!

[BlueDragon]

Game over. It's in your own postings.

But you insist.

His US citizenship is derived and defined by a naturalization statute.

His citizenship is derived from the citizenship of his mother.

That that has been by further codification of the law,in light of the Constitution, to now extend not only from fathers alone (CHECK THE ANCIENT STATUTES and commentaries as for fatherhood transferring citizenship upon offspring) to now unreservedly include motherhood being of equal status (even motherhood alone, by interpretation) in this regard, is the point which you do appear to be overlooking, relying upon contrivances of your own imagination (or so it appears to me) in order to do so.

"They very specifically mean that none but a native born citizen..."

You seem to be here relying upon being ju soli consideration (meaning "right of the soil") to be the single and only consideration.

Congress has spoken.

Their clarifications are now being described by yourself as a "naturalization statute". I should thank you for distancing from the previous red herring, I suppose...

Yet that duly enacted congressional clarification of law in regards to what the Constitution states is still binding until, or unless justifications can be more properly produced for why those acts of congress should be set aside in this instance.

[PLMerite]

The 9th Circus would keep all Republicans off the ballot if they could.

[RC one]

The exceptions were specific and upon investigation of said exceptions, Horace Binney came to the conclusion that: The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.

Dicey's Conflict of laws first edition comes to the same conclusion: The acquisition, of nationality by descent, is foreign to the principles of the common law, and is based wholly upon statutory enactments.'

Binney's work and Dicey Morris & Collins have both been cited by the SCOTUS in determining US citizenship cases,most notably US v Wong Kim Ark.

[Nifster]

You’re words

[Bob434]

[[Put another way, the test for NBC cannot simply be -if it is in a statute, it is not a natural born status,- because the founders themselves acted contrary to that. What then can be the perfect brightline test? Nguyen (2001) gets close to finding it in the question of conditionality:]]

Thank You- that is what I was trying to recall from our previous conversation o nthe issue

[[B) But even if citizenship is conferred at birth, said citizenship may be surrendered voluntarily by failure to meet some condition, such as living within the US for some fixed number of years. This would be the case of Bellei, who ostensibly had his citizenship from birth, but by his own voluntary act, surrendered his ability to claim that status.]]

Thanks- I thought it was about not meeting conditions, but couldn’t remember well enough to post that explanation- your explanation explains it well

[RC one]

Citizens are either natural-born or naturalized. One who is born in the United States or under its jurisdiction is a natural-born citizen without reference to the nationality of his parents. Their presence here constitutes a temporary allegiance, sufficient to make a child a citizen.

Theodore Dwight, Edward Dwight, Commentaries on the law of persons and personal property, pg. 125 (1894)

Which is Ted Cruz?

[bushpilot2]

[BlueDragon]

Exceptions are valid law if validly legislated. That's just how law works.

That's what I thought. Thank you.

It should not have to go to any court at all.

Yet if a legal challenge did gain enough traction to get it's foot far enough to open door to Appellate level, and went all the way to the top, Roberts would possibly need recuse himself (it would be the honorable thing to do).

But that's ok, just wake Ginsberg from one of her naps and she'd be sure to stand up for "women's rights".

I can't imagine how 'the wise latina' and Kagan could justify setting aside acts of congress and throwing the wymens under the wheels in the process either, not in light of present-day sexual identity & immigration politics, but that's inside baseball out of my league.

What does occur to me however, is knowing how our (I say "our" generally) political opponents (think Obama, and the gang from Chicago, such as guys like David Axlerod) are cynical enough to bring suit (if they could hide their own personally identifiable hands while doing so) even knowing full well they would lose on the merits and the law, yet force us to go through the process in order to try to establish some immigration consideration precedent.

What attorneys can think like those particular Chi-town snakes? That gang is real damn slick. Saying so is not tinfoil conspiracy territory, but talking about actual behind the scenes manipulations.

Just because the snakes are good at hiding, taking bite after bite in what should be full light of day and few seem to notice -- many, or most are unaware of what happens because the daylight is obscured, eclipsed on purpose and by design in order to muddy things through enough complication that daylight is turned into mid-day darkness.

It's like Pharoah's magicians. They turn the sun into darkness (like God turning momentarily away from the sin which Christ was made to be) thus making themselves as gods, having none other before themselves other than themselves.

Sorcery, At Law.

Dear God, send us a Moses(?)

Trouble with that request though, is that Moses -- what a troublemaker!

[BlueDragon]

You're being one helluva FUD packer.

Are you from Chicago?

[BlueDragon]

Thanks.

My apologies for not assisting you previously.

Not that I'm a lawyer, but apologize nonetheless because I did see the very arguments before and didn't get around to commenting. I am used to how people will turn towards using the inherent depths of complexity regarding an issue (if those complexities exist) when simpler, more direct answers are available, and those, for whichever reasons not be to their liking.

[Cboldt]

8 USC 1401 is not the controlling legal authority. It's predecessor statute, Naturalization Act of 1952, applies to Ted Cruz.

A serious inquiry does not end with the correct statutory language. One looks to how the courts view the acquisition of citizenship by statute.

As you well know, and choose to ignore, the controlling court cases find all persons born abroad to be presumed alien at birth. If the circumstances of birth, of a person born abroad, comport with language in an Act of Congress, that person is considered a naturalized citizen.

Under controlling legal precedent, Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen of the United States.

[Cboldt]

You have been corrected on this point before, you contemptible liar.

The "equivalence" remark in that paragraph, you are making into "birth abroad is equivalent to birth in the US." For purposes of citizenship, this equivalence DEPENDS ON 1409. It is the statute that gives citizenship to the birth abroad case. Take the statute away, and the unwed citizen mother's child, born abroad, is an alien, period. The born abroad child is not a citizen under the constitution.

post 213 and post 214 of Jan 31, 2016.

Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001) says exactly this ...

Before considering the important governmental interests advanced by the statute, two observations concerning the operation of the provision are in order. First, a citizen mother expecting a child and living abroad has the right to re-enter the United States so the child can be born here and be a 14th Amendment citizen. From one perspective, then, the statute simply ensures equivalence between two expectant mothers who are citizens abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child's birth and the other chooses not to return, or does not have the means to do so. This equivalence is not a factor if the single citizen parent living abroad is the father. For, unlike the unmarried mother, the unmarried father as a general rule cannot control where the child will be born.

Second, although S:1409(a)(4) requires certain conduct to occur before the child of a citizen father, born out of wedlock and abroad, reaches 18 years of age, it imposes no limitations on when an individual who qualifies under the statute can claim citizenship. The statutory treatment of citizenship is identical in this respect whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father. A person born to a citizen parent of either gender may assert citizenship, assuming compliance with statutory preconditions, regardless of his or her age. And while the conditions necessary for a citizen mother to transmit citizenship under S:1409(c) exist at birth, citizen fathers and/or their children have 18 years to satisfy the requirements of S:1409(a)(4). See Miller, supra, at 435 (opinion of Stevens , J.).

The statutory distinction relevant in this case, then, is that S:1409(a)(4) requires one of three affirmative steps to be taken if the citizen parent is the father, but not if the citizen parent is the mother: legitimation; a declaration of paternity under oath by the father; or a court order of paternity. Congress’ decision to impose requirements on unmarried fathers that differ from those on unmarried mothers is based on the significant difference between their respective relationships to the potential citizen at the time of birth. Specifically, the imposition of the requirement for a paternal relationship, but not a maternal one, is justified by two important governmental objectives.