Posted on 03/20/2016 11:46:56 AM PDT by conservativejoy
With all of the non-stop coverage of the 2016 presidential election, have you noticed as of late that Donald Trump has not said a peep about Ted Cruz not being eligible for the presidency? Earlier this year, Trump questioned whether Cruz was a natural born citizen because he was born in Calgary, Canada (to a U.S. citizen mother). Trump asserted this very question would be caught up in the court for years. Much editorial space was spent on major newspaper and TV networks discussing this issue. Many legal scholars even agreed that Trump may have a case against Cruz.
This weekend, it occurred to me, this issue has faded from the public eye. The major media outlets stopped talking about it (maybe because Trump has moved on to other things.) But, it remains an important and largely unresolved question. So, I decided to look through some of the filings in the lawsuits filed against Cruz, and discovered an opinion from a Pennsylvania Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini that gives an absolute smack down to all of these Ted Cruz birther claims. Judge Pellegrini in his 22 page memorandum opinion found that Ted Cruz was a natural born citizen thereby ruling that Cruz’s name can appear on the Republican primary ballot in Pennsylvania on April 26, 2016. Why this particular opinion piqued my interest is that it is the first I have seen anywhere that actually tackles the Constitutional questions surrounding Cruz’s eligibility. For example, cases in Utah and Florida, were recently dismissed on procedural technicalities (like standing). What is even more shocking - the opinion was issued last week - and I couldn't find any major network or newspaper covering it. (WSJ had a short blog post, and a few local newspapers covered it in PA). You would think that on the heels of such extensive coverage of the issue earlier this year, that the media would jump all over the first major opinion to addresses these important Constitutional questions that Trump brought up during the campaign. I guess, that's wishful thinking, but I will go through the opinion, anyway, as I think its illustrative of what will be found if/when this question is appealed to an even higher court, perhaps even the U.S. Supreme Court.
The heart of the question stems from Article II, Section I, of the U.S. Constitution which requires that a President be a "natural born" citizen. The challenge was filed by Carmon Elliot, a registered Republican in Pennsylvania. Elliot claimed Cruz should not be allowed to appear in the ballot because he is not a "natural born citizen."
Firstly, Cruz's attorneys argued that the Court should not address this issue at all because it is a "political question" that should not be addressed by the Judiciary. The judge found "no Constitutional provision places such power in Congress to determine Presidential eligibility." Bottom line (and this is important), the judge found that the courts can move forward with deciding the case.
So how did Judge Pellegrino of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania arrive at his decision that Cruz was eligible?
The judge relies on several pieces on legal scholarship. First, a memo produced in 1968 by Charles Gordon, then the General Counsel of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, which says: "The Framers were well aware of the need to assure full citizenship rights to the children born to American citizens in foreign countries." He also points out a 2011 Congressional Research Service Memo entitled the "Qualification for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement." The document concludes:
"The weight of legal and historical authority indicated that the term 'natural born' citizen would mean a person, who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth' either by being born 'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents."
Then the judge spends four pages quoting from the recent work of Paul Clement & Neal Katyal in the Harvard Law Review, in which the two Constitutional scholars (from different sides of the political aisle) conclude that "as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase 'natural born citizen' in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth."
In his conclusion, the Judge states:
Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in the opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a "natural born citizen" included any person who is a United States citizen from birth.Accordingly, because he was a citizen of the United States from birth, Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States..
The judge's decision is ripe for a higher court review, but it is significant nonetheless. As election law expert Dan Tokaji points out in the Election Law Blog this case could ultimately be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
"A state court ruling would be helpful, but only a Supreme Court ruling could dispel the uncertainty surrounding its meaning. The good news is that review of a state court decision on Cruz's eligibility could be sought in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to review federal law questions is broader than that of lower federal courts," he wrote.
So perhaps, one thing Trump said is correct that this question could end being caught up in the courts for some time. The petitioner, Mr. Elliot, already said he plans to appeal the Judge’s decision.
So, every child born of U.S. military parents stationed abroad is ineligible to serve as POTUS.
Is that what you mean? Because that's what you're saying.
I have read it was 3 years to get Canadian citizenship. I still would like confirmation if Eleanor did get Canadian citizenship and when.
“Pretty much sums it up. Can I direct all the hate I am getting to you?”
Do you understand the Naturalization Act of 1790 says and does in fact mean Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen of the United States, because the “considered as” phrase is a qualifier and legal term of art indicating the child is not a natural born citizen who must be naturalized under that act to acquire naturalized U.S. citizenship?
Rafael Cruz said “I worked in Canada for eight years” “while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.” http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration
He left Canada in 1973. This means he must have arrived in 1965.
“Do you understand the Naturalization Act of 1790 says and does in fact mean Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen”
That is what I have been saying for about a year now, ever since I learned the circumstances of Cruz’s birth.
I quoted the Act of 1790 for one purpose — it defines natural born citizenship as being born of citizen parents in the United States, and that citizenship descends from the father (at the time) and is therefore locked into the Constitution.
Notice nobody now says Cruz follows the ‘original intent’ of the constitution?
Do they hold dual citizenship?
Article 2 section 1 clause 5 -
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Note ‘....or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution...’!
The founders knew at that time they were not nbc but they were US citizens and they exempted themselves from the nbc requirement, until one generation later...
This is the FACT. Obviously you the non-Trumpanzee don’t know this fact and make a fool of yourself!
You don’t even need to look at the Nat. Acts of xxxx. Intent of law carries weight, especially when it is documented. The intent of the “NBC” was to prevent someone that had foreign allegiance from ever becoming the President. From that, NBC means born with only US citizenship and no other possible claim of citizenship by a foreign entity.
I am very grateful to you for pinging the link!! It is a very easy to understand video and clearly stated.
Again, I thank you very much!!
‘Because the democrats are surely coming for him’
But but but the Cruz fans don’t care!
The Cruz fans have their own fool-proof definition of nbc, no one, not even Hillary or the democrats can touch their foreign born Ted Cruz with a Cuban father!
According to you, they do -- having been born in hospitals in Spain, Germany, Japan, The Phillipines, etc.
They would all be eligible for dual citizenship.
I agree with this post, so I don’t quite understand where you are coming from.
Then I guess they are ineligible.
There will not be a different type of judges - will be the same ones bought out by the democrats socialists!
Also there will be NO looking at the precedent set by obola. Reasons - they ruled that obola, born in Hawaii to a US citizen mother, is nbc;
whereas Cruz was born in Canada, to a US citizen mother, so they can rule that Cruz is not nbc simply because he was NOT born in USA, and, that ruling would not affect the obola case !
See, the RATS are in control - they can rule anyway they want.
Why does obola make a forged online digital image of a bc?
Because he knows you have to be at least born in USA to be the president.
Why do the judges insist obola’s fake bc is real? Because they know they can’t rule him an nbc if he was not born in USA!
Fortunately, you are mistaken
:-))
I’m sure there are many here who disagree with you and me. But I do believe Obama was ineligible and the powers put him in office. And those powers will never admit it nor will they ever give up that power peacefully. That’s why I worry about Trump.
And if it was Cruz with the most delegates and a clear path to the nomination I’d be worried about him.
No, I’m correct. That article doesn’t prove anything. They may be US Citizens, but they can’t be President, as they would have Dual Citizenship, thus have allegiance to a foreign country. The intent of the words NBC being included in the Eligibility Clause was to prevent someone with foreign influence/allegiance from becoming President.
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.