Video Explaining The Eligibility of Cruz and Rubio

http://powderedwigsociety.com/eligibility-of-cruz-and-rubio/ ^ | 02-15-2016 | http://powderedwigsociety.com

[musicman]

VIDEO Title Page: THIS is why Cruz and Rubio didn't attempt to have a court decide their eligibility in the past. They would have been ruled ineligible!

[John Valentine]

So, can you explain where you get this definition? I ask only because after 12 years of searching, I have not been able to turn it up anywhere it could have been available to the Framers. At least not unless they had a time machine that could propel themselves forward to the late 19th century.

If one accepts that the words in the Constitution must carry the meaning intended by the Framers, one cannot use a definition that did not come into use until nearly 100 years later.

In truth the Framers meant nothing at all beyond or in addition to the commonly understood definition of a citizen by birth. That’s it.

John Jay to George Washington, July 1787:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

That is, no naturalized citizens were to become President. That’s it.

[Just mythoughts]

Ol ‘original intent’ of the Constitution Cruz is still not eligible... Notice how fast all have shed the claim that Cruz follows the ‘original intent’ of the Constitution... Very telling of the blowhards of ‘conservatism’ they evolve as much as the living breathing Constitutional liberals..

Now the slogan is consistent constitutional Ted... WHAT a sick joke...

And lawyer Rubio is and will always be a Constitutional anchor baby.

Think about it with all Obama’s Syrian refugees he has imported, start bearing children, they will be just as eligible as both Cruz and Rubio... Some legacy for the preservation of this nation. Sharia law will be the law of the land. Stupid people.

[musicman]

This would be ONE of the many presentations used IN COURT to argue the eligibility of both Cruz and Rubio, but since there will not be a chance of either of them actually becoming close to enough to becoming POTUS in this life cycle to actually be challenged about it, the video does serve as an example for future seekers of the POTUS position.

[ASA Vet]

I think it will be a unanimous decision, but for different reasons.
The leftists would vote ineligible just because it's a republican.
The conservatives would rule as the founders understood the term before the leftists dumb downed education.

[John Valentine]

I have written on this subject already, and plan to add more but I just got my computer back.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3384632/posts

[Berlin_Freeper]

Cruz is already on ballets in the process to become President. A process that involves counting legal ballots that you can’t be bothered with.

[John Valentine]

None of these would make it to court, but if it did, I would LOVE to demolish this tripe before a panel of judges.

[Just mythoughts]

And was it not you that made the same case regarding Obama a few years back? Want me to copy and paste what you had to say about eligibility then?

[John S Mosby]

And thus— the right of States to do just that. Any ONE state that then does not— sued and immediately must allow- due to the Equal Protection Clause. Game.

[fireman15]

I am sure that you are correct! Unfortunately, what is going to matter is not what we think, but what a panel of judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decides.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Already two states have said he is eligible, including Illinois.

[statered]

Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading it.

[John Valentine]

No Federal Court can take this case, for at least three reasons:

1. Nothing to adjudicate: There must be a justiciable dispute; “The parties must not be seeking an advisory opinion.”

2. No standing: A party to a suit must have suffered actual injury. Where’s the injury?

3. Political Question: “The suit must not be seeking judgment upon a political question.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justiciability

[fireman15]

I am no legal expert, but my family lost a fortune when we appealed a lawsuit to our State Supreme Court. We were 100% in the right and had no doubt that we would win. Unfortunately, the decision came down exactly along political lines and there were more liberals than conservatives. Most judges decide based on their political orientation and then construct a legal justification to back it up. In our case the liberal justices actually added an untrue narrative from the state that was never even introduced in court hearings. It was a totally bogus ruling, but the states primary tactic all along was to eventually run us out of money.

So I don’t think that it would be a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court. I think that it will deadlock and the 9th Circuits decision will then stand. My guess is that the 9th circuit will rule against Cruz 2 to 1. But we will have to see. Their determination will be timed to cause the maximum disruption to the Republican contest.

[Springfield Reformer]

... common sense tells me ...

The law and common sense have very little to do with each other. Occasionally an intervention is attempted, but it usually goes badly.

And that is why it is so hard to explain these things if you haven't been "programmed" to think like a lawyer. "Natural born" citizenship, viewed historically and not limited to just the US, has had two basic mechanisms, jus soli and jus sanguinis, right of soil and right of blood. Arguably, the founders found jus soli the easier case, but not to the complete exclusion of the other.

The result is twofold:

A) You cannot have "natural born" on a jus soli basis because you cannot have (AFAIK) one "soil" under two sovereign jurisdictions. That would be a non sequitur.

B) However, you CAN be "natural born" by right of blood under jurisdiction X and also be "natural born" by right of soil under jurisdiction Y. It's counterintuitive, but it can happen.

And that is precisely the Cruz scenario. His claim to natural born status for the US is based on the right of blood through his mother. His claim to natural born status in Canada is based on right of soil. It is a case of overlapping legal principles, which, BTW, is a very common occurrence in the law, but often trips up even first year law students, who often assume two things are mutually exclusive, when in fact they are not.

Peace,

SR

[John Valentine]

Do whatever you like. I readily admit that my views have evolved with deeper understanding. Not only that, I can make a persuasive case that I understand these issues from all perspectives, and can appreciate where folks go wrong.

[Just mythoughts]

There is NOTHING hard to explain. Cruz is a ‘natural born’ Canadian!!!! He will never ever be a ‘natural born’ US citizen. And neither will Rubio.

It takes two US citizen parents birthing their child on US soil to bequeath a natural born US citizen.

[Springfield Reformer]

Correction:

A) You cannot be "natural born" in two countries on a jus soli basis because you cannot have (AFAIK) one "soil" under two sovereign jurisdictions. That would be a non sequitur.

[okie01]

common sense tells me that one can only be natural born on the soil he or she is born on.

So, John McCain is a Panamanian?

George Romney was a Mexican?

Sen. Michael Bennett is an Indian?

Rep. Chris Van Hollen is a Pakistani?

Rep. Tammy Duckworth is a Thai?

Sen. Mazie Hirono is a Japanese?

Sec. Madelyn Albright is a Czech?

Just a few examples from the political category...

[Just mythoughts]

Do whatever you like. I readily admit that my views have evolved with deeper understanding. Not only that, I can make a persuasive case that I understand these issues from all perspectives, and can appreciate where folks go wrong.

It is people like you that pervert the Constitution that led to the obscene ruling of Roe v Wade... evolution my .....