Posted on 04/12/2016 8:30:28 PM PDT by Sontagged
Obama Friendly Judge A Repeat Offender – Okays Illegal Alien Ted Cruz In NJ/Liberal Judge Who Ruled Obama A Citizen Repeats Same Mistake With Cruz
As was expected, the New Jersey judge who ruled in 2012 that Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen without having to personally see the relevant documents has made the same baseless decision in the matter of Canadian Ted Cruz. He’s accepted the birth certificate of Canadian birth to a US mother as documentation of his fitting the requirements for being a natural born citizen, without ever having to have been declared a US citizen in compliance with the law.
Unless Cruz registered with the State Department as an American citizen prior to his 18th birthday, documenting his foreign birth, or was naturalized in some other way, he is today a foreigner. This judge chose to focus narrowly on the issue of a single parent being able to convey natural-born status, which is almost irrelevant in some ways to the Cruz situation. He missed completely, probably because it fits his globalist establishment duties to do so, the larger issue of Cruz failing to become an American citizen under the law.
The pro-Cruz, pro-GOP establishment Townhall.com reported simplistically, “A judge in New Jersey has ruled that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is indeed a natural-born citizen and is therefore eligible to be on the New Jersey ballot. Cruz, who was born in Calgary while his father was working there, is an American citizen via his mother’s American citizenship.”
American citizen and natural born are two different things. More importantly in the case of this illegal alien Ted Cruz, is the “fact” that his records are hidden, just as his comrade Hussein Obama has hidden his, because he is not an American citizen. Having failed to apply for US citizenship by the age of 18 prevents it from being conveyed to him by birth.
This agenda-driven judge chose to ignore that reality. The citizenship of his parents is of no benefit if he never acted upon it, which he did not. He’s a foreigner and they are deliberately skewing the argument to once again subvert our Constitution and advance the anti-American globalist interests.
The candidate, Victor Williams, has seven more cases filed. Maybe he’ll find an honest judge who will demand that Cruz show his records somewhere along the way. Maybe the other seven will also contend that we must trust and not verify when Lyin’ Ted says he’s an American. Maybe the corruption has already gone too far.
I’m Rick Wells – a constitutional conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. I’m not PC; I call it like I see it.
No that is not true. There have been many legal opinions that reference NBC and they have been posted on Freeper threads. In the morning I will search out the latest list for you.
In the meantime you can find the law you refer to in your statement “In that law, only one parent had to be a citizen for a child born abroad to be a NBC.” I am very doubtful that you will find it.
Well if as you claim the Supremes adjudicated 'natural born' citizenship then why is Mitch the Senate refusing the ineligible Crus a Senate resolution, resolving, Cruz is eligible to hold the office of president?
Not to worry folks... the senate will fix this ruling AFTER Cruz has the nomination.
I said the Supreme Court has NOT adjudicated what an NBC is for the purpose of the requirement for Presidential eligibility. And I have seen all of those decisions which involve the 14th amendment, Happersett, Kin Wong Ark, et al. And those refer to a standard that is not in dispute, but they don’t refer to that standard as exclusive. The founders were influenced by many legal references including, but not limited to, Vattel and Blackstone. Determination of their intent is akin to good detective work and for that reason subject to various interpretations. Legal scholars much smarter than you or I have disagreed on this topic, well before Cruz or Obama were even in the public sphere. So it is really a matter that will not be settled on a political discussion forum.
Yeah, really smart legal scholars divined a Constitutional right to kill the unborn, and call it a marriage when same sex perverts say I do. ‘Natural born’ US citizenship is NOT even up for debate by master debaters.
So you’re saying that since those legal scholars were wrong, we can’t trust any legal scholars then the issue will never be decided and no legal issue will ever be decided again?
Why argue it here? Shouldn’t big bad Donald sue Cruz in court?
He promised he would. Why doesn’t he?
Trump is as phony as they come.
LOL. FR was freaking out over Amnesty in 2006. Where were you?
And I stand with President John Quincy Adams on the actual NWO conspiracy.
My citizenship, yes. But not the Senator who waited until 2014 to renounce Canada.
In our society, judges are like imams. What they say goes, unless a bigger imam says otherwise.
Cruzers = Obots.v2
“Hmmm, Cruz isn’t Chinese......and he wasn’t born to two “non-citizens”.”
The fact that no person born abroad, except those under the protection of diplomatic immunity, lawfully acquired natural born citizenship has been an historical fact in England, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and the United States for more than 700 years and longer. The mention of that historical fact in United State v. Wong Kim Ark has nothing to do with the defendants being Chinese or having two foreign parents. It was the same in other U.S. Supreme Court cases such as SCOTT v. SANDFORD, (1856: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
“BTW, this case you provided also states that NBC are defined in the Constitution.”
No, and the Constitution has no authority to define a legal term of art from Natural Law.
“Maybe you would like to look at the numerous links I provided to see what is said about the Constitution’s meaning of NBC.”
I was given a writing assignment 52 years ago on the Presidential eligibility issue and Barry Goldwater during the 1964 Presidential election, and I have been studying the law on this question ever since. Suffice it to note, you have many years of research to go before you will come remotely close to teaching me or any other knowledgeable person something new about this eligibility question. It is only too painfully obvious you are clueless about the true meanings of the legal terms you are slinging around so ignorantly. If you think otherwise, then knock yourself out and cite the case law that established a child born abroad without diplomatic immunity acquired no U.S. citizenship at all.
Since Coloradans can’t vote, I say re-open this controversy as a form of solidarity with voters.
Witch doctors with gavels, that’s what most modern judges are regarding the Constitution. No one respects them. Their mumbo jumbo of court precedents only snake charms and never truly persuades. Easy enough to break the spell any time the Esbalishment wants to.
By some definitions Winston Churchill was eligible.
Can you believe that????
Churchill was a die-hard Brit nationalist. He sent agents to the US to blackmail pacifist politicians.
Besides, the original intent of natural born status [its primary aim to prvent men such as Churchill from becoming preisndent] was never redifined by a single constitutional amendment.
So come this Convention, McStain and Mc-Conman [already on record] can quote Professor Tribe and pull the rug right from under Cruz over eligibility if they need to.
Washington would. I doubt reagan would.
Fwiw, Cruz had a passport as a young man is what I’ve read someplace. I’d have to find it.
He has already done #2 and won three court cases, but keep posting the BS...
He's got the money, the best lawyers, and he's stated over and over again that he could sue Cruz, so he must have standing.
Let's put an end to this business if it's so "cut and dried".
“Let’s put an end to this business if it’s so “cut and dried”.”
It’s not so cut and dried because of the corrupt and incompetent judiciary. I had a long discussion with one of the GOP attorneys at a recent GOP event about the Cruz eligibility issue. When the debate reached the point of invalidating each of his claims for eligibility of Cruz, McCain, Rubio, and Cruz; the attorney resorted to the time honored lawyer practice of changing the subject to the notion a present day judge doesn’t care what “some old dead guys had to say” and contended he and the judges were only interested in what the “people” of today wanted. In other words, he resorted to the practice of saying the law of today is whatever they want it to be and have the power to rule it to be without regard for what some old dead guys had to say about it. Their claims that Cruz, Obama, and the others are natural born citizens comes down to a raw exercise of power in defiance of the precedent rule of law with the exception of any points of law they think can be used to buttress their present day argument and spin on the subject.
Presumably Trump is well acquainted with how these lawyers think and work, so he is not going to risk his opportunity to gain a broad political power capable of changing some of the corruption when it appears the contest against ineligibility is already firmly and corruptly fixed against the plaintiff.
Whether it is Trump or someone else, the person wanting to reverse the endemic corruption needs the support of the citizen voters and allies in the legislatures and the judiciary who are ready, willing, able, and uncorrupt enough to do the job.
I agree with your sentiments and with the let’s get ‘er done vibe. I believe the original definition taken by the Founders from Vattel and common law is best for America: two citizen parents, American soil. It may disenfranchise a few travelers or people temporarily abroad but erects a blockade on foreign influence for all but the most forward planning of enemies.
However what is as important to me is the effect on America from having part of the Constitution flaunted. It sets us against each other, people don’t know what to believe. This ambiguity where people get away with what they can and others turn a blind or smug eye, creates an atmosphere that encourages disregard for the law in other instances and breaks down the bonds we share as Americans. I think we should follow the Constitution or amend it with a chance for all Americans to vote on the question. It has gotten so that I don’t trust the Supreme Court, I feel that some are vulnerable to blackmail or greed and some have agendas. I am glad to have met you.
....so spending a few hundred thou on eligibility lawsuits is chump change...
Demonstrates very poor decision making skills, and a complete disregard for the value of a dollar.
Fake Christian, cheating corrupt Cruz > just not ready for the office of President
Hate to break the news to you, but Ted’s past is under seal and locked up.
Ted has not replied to numerous FOIA requests.
Governments of Canada and US will not release records without Ted’s approval.
Ted Cruz is the only one who can remove his ineligibility stain
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.