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.
Yes, I believe Obama and Cruz are both ineligible and when Obama was installed there was too much money to get to be stopped by a document written two centuries ago. They already knew there were trillions of dollars to get.
And yes, lots of people here disagree with me...but then I disagree with them. :-)
The left WANTS a white Republican foreigner appointed President for two reasons:
First, to cement their lawlessness in defense of Obama's ineligibility into the appearance of a continuous, permanent policy allowing birth-status fudging; andSo, as long as the Uniparty are in power, nothing will be done; and the Democrats might not even bring it up if Cruz gets the nomination. They would be more likely to try to trot it out in the unlikely event that he would be elected, about a month or two into his Administration.Second, to further their OneWorld goals of extinguishing national borders and increasing the erosion of US sovereignty.
There are only 2 types of citizenship in the U.S., birthright and naturalized. There are no legal documents, no official papers, no authorities at any level that agree in a separate and 3rd form of citizenship. Birthright citizenship is NBC. There is no argument because there is no legal authority that agrees with you and you can quote Vattel until you turn purple but you will continue to be ridiculed mercilessly.
WTF are you talking about. There is no such thing in law. Naturalized is clearly defined in law. Anyone who is not naturalized has birthright citizenship (unless of course they are not citizens).
I understand that you don't like what the article says, since it conflicts with what you've come to believe.
However, the article represents the researched and considered view of the military community -- which gives it a certain credibility.
And, if military children born under these circumstances are "natural born citizens", so too is Ted Cruz.
A tough pill to swallow, I'd grant. But there it is...
Some people are born to deceive and some people are born to be deceived.
Precisely. The system is fixed.
I follow the Constitution, not what someone believes. Constitutions intent is clear. Cruz isn’t eligible.
In your opinion...
Ain't that the truth...
I think the birther court case score card is:
Senator Cruz: 3 or 4 (NY, FL, IL any others?)
Birther Fever Swamp: 0, zero, goose egg, airball
But keep howling at the moon and cutting and pasting NBC theories onto websites. It’s fun for everyone - especially for those of us who enjoy a laugh. Meanwhile in the real world, in real courts, where it actually matters, birther nonsense will, of course, always be swatted away.
I read an idiotic article blaming the Middle East uprising and Syrian refugee crisis on climate change, not resurgent Islam.
And we know Islam is by its nature a conquering religion because that’s how it spread across Arabia in a few years once the founder decided he had the right to raid and kill those who wouldn’t convert, and his immediate successors continued that trend to conquer a mostly Christian Middle East and north Africa.
But no, don’t blame a religion that calls non-Muslim lands “The House of War”, blame climate change instead.
well, its what I think the Founders/Framers meant! They suffered too much and were committed to the new nation too much not to have someone as committed as themselves holding the Office of President, and more specifically, as Commander in Chief. Birthright would have been their idea of a situation providing that unswerving loyalty.
“So, every child born of U.S. military parents stationed abroad is ineligible to serve as POTUS.”
Yes, with the exception of children born abroad under U.S. diplomatic protection with two U.S. citizen parents to give them natural born citizenship. Birth in a military hospital on a U.S. military base located in the territory of a foreign state and sovereignty, contrary to the common myth, does not qualify as the U.S. territory and/or U.S. jurisdiction required for natural born citizenship.
Author lost me after the first sentence. Trump mentions Cruz’s ineligibility in pretty much every ralley, including both rallies in Arizona yesterday (one day before this article was published).
You are correct on that point. But otherwise mistaken.
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.