Posted on 02/15/2016 7:07:25 PM PST by 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!
Please cite binding statutory law or binding legal precedent (not dicta) to support your conclusion.
Peace,
SR
John, I am no legal expert, but people in this country can and do sue over just about anything. Donald Trump has spent a lot of his own money and he claims that Ted Cruz who he believes to be an ineligible candidate has already caused irreparable harm to his candidacy and reputation through what he characterizes as lies. He has made numerous warnings that he is going to sue if Ted does not cease and desist.
So he has:
1. Something to adjudicate.
2. He can demonstrate injury and has standing.
3. This is not a political question... it is a constitutional question.
Will he ultimately win... with a 5 to 4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court... probably not. With a deadlocked court and a panel of liberal judges from the 9th Circuit hearing the obligatory appeal... who knows? From my experience the judges will go with their political inclinations and construct legal justifications. This will most likely mean 2 judges to 1 judge ruling against Cruz and the Supreme Court deadlocked.
Thank you for posting this. Now I really understand what natural-born citizen means. What I still can’t understand is why, with so many good candidates, would anyone want to take a chance of Cruz’s and Rubio’s status?
No act of Congress or ruling of the 'legal precedent' can make anyone a 'natural born US citizen'. 'Natural born' US citizenship is akin to a birthright. Show me where any act of Congress or 'legal precedent' can make a child a 'firstborn'.
I find it plenty sinister that people find themselves playing 'God' with the law. It is people like you that are destroying the Constitution.
I find it hard to believe also. A lot of time and effort has been put into both of the cruz and Rubio, not even talking about the monetary expense.
There could be some REALLY “upset” donors and workers if they are both found not eligible when they could have just been up front about it to begin with.
LOL! So you admit there is no place in our law where your particular theory of natural born citizenship is established as the rule. OK.
Peace,
SR
Let us go back to the 'law' giver. A little study on Esau and Jacob... Esau SOLD his birthright for a bowl of 'RED' pottage (lentils)... God made sure Esau lost his blessing... And God made sure HE was repeated twice saying Jacob He loved and Esau HE HATED.... None can make the claim that our Constitution did not come from God's LAW....
Christ did have a bit to say about those that sit in Moses (the law giver) seat... Play on because you are treading in God's purview. I happened to appreciate the blessing and liberty the Constitution protects. You trash it and it is gone.
2nd Division Vet I just want to say that no one appreciates and admires the work you have done here on Free Republic over the years more than I do.
That is a good start, and I am glad that Cruz has gotten those decisions. Unfortunately, the real challenges are probably still ahead and I believe that the changed balance on the Supreme Court is going to embolden those who probably wouldn't have risked taking it that far previously. More lawsuits are likely to be filed even before the dust settles on the departure one of the greatest Supreme Court Justice ever.
IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
(Oct. 18, 2009) The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President (and VP), it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Peace,
SR
BTW, noting the distinction between dicta and holding isn't just legal nitpicking. Law is like medicine. The wholeness of people's lives is at stake. The dicta/holding distinction is a way of protecting people from judges who want to meander through some interesting legal issue that in the end doesn't control the outcome of the case. In that sense it is a shield against judicial malpractice. That's a good thing, and that is why, in a thing so important as trying to make the Constitution say things it is not in fact saying, I must insist, at least for my own part, on binding legal precedent, and not sidebar musings.
Peace,
SR
God’s law is God’s law. God is the same yesterday, today and will be forever... He does not have a double standard. Unlike so many that claim they follow Him.
It is NOT an Act of Congress or a Court that can give or take ‘natural born’ US citizenship. PERIOD. I am NOT a natural born US citizen... My birth certificate does not come from ‘born in the USA’... I have known this most of my life... NO scribe or lawyer, or act of Congress or some judge in a black robe needs to tell me I was NOT born in the USA. ‘common sense’.
I was born in Germany, to two US citizens, my father was in the military... I am their only child NOT born in the USA... I am NOT eligible to hold the office of president. But I will with my every breath defend my siblings and my children’s birthright... They are all ‘natural born’ US citizens.... Common sense says that people that are ‘natural born’ US citizens ought to protect their birthright and not let the likes of you strip them of their Constitutional and God given right.
14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship & The Law of Statelessness
April 10, 2011
The definition of “natural born†comes from the common law of nations. Under the law of nations, all treaties and the laws of the foreign nations must be considered if a child is born on foreign soil. Therefore the fundamental rule for NBC is “exclusive allegiance to the United States†at birth. According the US Government, to answer the question, is one born without the soil (jus soli) a natural born citizen, we must ask ourselves this question…If the US denied citizenship to a child born abroad, would that act of the US government leave the child stateless?
Take for example, George Romney who was born in Mexico because his refuge parents, who were mormons, were being persecuted in the US. George’s parents never changed their citizenship. They never renounced their US citizenship & took Mexican citizenship. Under the citizenship laws of Mexico at the time, George Romney was born an alien/foreigner as Mexican law did not recognize him as a citizen by the mere fact that he was born on their soil. It was “jus sanguinis†& the law of “parens patriae†(the jurisdiction to make decisions) under the law of nations that governed George Romney’s status at birth. Therefore, if the US had denied citizenship to little George, he literally would have been left stateless because the foreign nation in which he was born never claimed him as a member/citizen of their society. His “exclusive†allegiance at birth was to the United States.
This is the same for children born to 2 citizen parents in the military, no matter where they are born. Vattel, Bk1, sec 217: For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
During the hearings and testimony on S.Res. 511, the revisionists brought in 2 highly respected revisionist constitutional lawyers to obfuscate the truth by using English feudal law. Feudal law is not common law. It is the law of the Sovereign King. It is statute law, not natural law. Had McCain or any of the other spineless GOP establishment known their history, they would have refuted that resolution and stood firm on the law of their birthright. This is especially disturbing to me because of the stress it is causing our men & women in uniform who are temporarily stationed overseas. By saying that they are subject to the citizenship laws of foreign nations is ludicrous and absurd.
Since 1920 & the right of women to vote, our country’s basic foundation, the family as “One†standing under one allegiance, has been usurped by statute law. Women already had citizenship. Voting is not a fundamental right, it is a privilege. I am a woman & I am sick of the feminist movement. There are certain things in nature that are vital to the preservation of a society/nation and that is unified allegiance of all households. When a man & woman get married they become “One†in the eyes of the law and this includes allegiance to the society in which they have their main domicile. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791:
[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good
[T]he most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.
Children are a consequence of marriage, therefore they become in the eyes of the law part of that “One†union.
“Jus sanguinis†& the law of “parens patriae†and the effect of statelessness should children find themselves born without the soil (jus soli) of the parents is the common law of nations.
The 14th Amendment requires “exclusive allegiance†to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization. All others are aliens in the eyes of the law of the US Constitution.
Harvard Law agrees with my assessment. The Harvard & Michigan Law Reviews used by SCOTUS are copyrighted and thus I am not able to publish the pdf’s. Those with Hein-online access will be able to access the entire documents:
See also the official government notices published nationwide by the Buchanan Administration. These documents were the founding documents for the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later was Constitutionalized as the 14th Amendment, the 1868 Expatriation Act(also still law, it is the authority for the oath of allegiance all naturalized citizens must take) as well as the 1870 Act passed to enforce the 14th Amendment and the basis of all citizenship treaties with all foreign nations since then. Click the link for each pdf file to save a copies of them. The state legislators need these documents to enforce their new election laws pertaining to constitutional eligibility:
So you admit there is neither Scripture nor binding US law of any kind that specifically establishes your preferred definition of natural born citizen as the rule. Alright then.
Somewhat disappointing though, because I thought you were interested in the rule of law, yet you want me and others to rely on your personal experiences and beliefs, which is really the exact opposite of the rule of law.
And I believe in Scripture, FRiend. I have been a frequent contributor to the religion forum here and in my personal life I give testimony to the Gospel of Jesus Christ when the opportunity presents itself.
But just as some folks do with Scripture, so they do to the Constitution. You can’t expect me to allow you or anyone else to add things to the text that are not there and take it lying down. That’s not how my dad raised me. We love the Constitution. I have sworn oaths on more than one occasion to defend it, and by insisting it says only what it actually says, and NOT what Vattell says, I am defending it.
Now I know you don’t see it that way, and I respect your passion. But you are engaging in friendly fire, FRiend. I am not the enemy. If you want the Constitution to contain the rule of Vattell, work to get an amendment passed that makes it clear once and for all. I’d be truly fine with that. Think how much unholy language we would be spared on FR if we didn’t have this to fight about. Just sayin ...
Peace,
SR
No, they would not have.
If your candidate is so convinced that they’re ineligible, why doesn’t he go to court? Or does he know better, as he said in September?
“his video is laughable clownish posturing with an absolute lack of substance.”
So tell us why it’s laughable, clownish! and lacking in substance. Just because you say so doesn’t mean crap! It’s long past time when we ignored the Constitution because it is sometimes “inconvenient” when we want an ineligible person to run for president becaue we happen to “like them.” Personally, I found it to be very factual and substantive. Furthermore, it would be a disaster if the GOP were to nominate an ineligible candidate, so I’m thankful that we will have Donald Trump as our nominee who has no issues with eligibility.
I am something of an expert, but that's not the issue. The old saw you are quoting is one that says anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. True enough, if all you mean is that anyone can FILE a lawsuit against anyone at any time.
Getting a court to put the case on the docket is another matter entirely.
This particular case won't make it onto the docket of any Federal court, for the reasons I have given and more.
Not worth the time and effort. Sad to say, despite the fact that some are swayed. Can’t be helped; I blame the educational system for the poor reasoning powers of much of the citizenry. Schools ought to teach how to cut through crap; they used to, but nowadays, not so much.
Not so; Roe v. Wade was not decided on the basis of the Constitution. Don’t try to hang that on me; I’m an originalist. My views can change, but not the Constitution. It is a Constant.
I actually hope you are right because it could be very disruptive to our primary. I am more worried about what happens if something like this rears its ugly head in the general election.
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.