Trump supporters file 'birther' lawsuit against Cruz in federal court

The Hill ^ | 02/12/2016 | Bradford Richardson

[Art in Idaho]

Okay, so we have the flip side. Then take it to court, Alabama says he's eligible, the dems say he isn't, they tie things up, goes to Surpreme Court, . . but there will be the inevitable delays past November. . and dems win.

Unless, SCOTUS expedites it and we get a once and for all determination. The law as written in The Code seems pretty clear.

Obama got a pass as we all know. . Still lots of questions. All that aside, he was never and never will be An American in the traditional 'grew up American in flyover country, Christian home, Boy Scouts, camp, hunting, fishing, etc.' Not an ounce of Americana in him. . All just radical Marxist ideology. . and people elected him President. . twice.

So, Obama and McCain got a pass but Cruz is ineligible. Just great. No bias there.

[Tenacious 1]

That statement is a non-sequitur. The evidence supplied does not establish the point asserted.

Did you cherry pick the part you could obfuscate or just quit reading? Continued...

Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President. As early as 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." 1 Stat. 104 (1790). The "natural born" terminology was dropped shortly thereafter. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c). But the question remains whether the term "natural born Citizen" used in Article II includes the parliamentary rule of jus sanguinis in addition to the common law principle of jus soli. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of "citizen" in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born–citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship though jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.

I do understand how legal language can be hard to follow for some. But several have bantered about how the courts would react to this from a constitutional standpoint. They have before, regardless of whether the plaintiff had standing.

[AuntB]

Interesting!

[fireman15]

Just scroll on thru as most will do. After a while it is
just repetitive space filler.

That is what I do mostly although he/she has had a few interesting items... It is just that shear volume is overwhelming.

[DiogenesLamp]

John Bingham, an American lawyer and politician, held to the belief that natural born should be interpreted as born in the United States. In 1862, in the House of Representatives he stated:

The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United States' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth "natural born citizens."[39]

He reiterated his statement in 1866:

This is annoying. It's like you can't ever get the facts out to a degree sufficient to stop misleading information.

A lot of people in history find it easier to just say "born here" than to explain further, "of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty."

"Born Here" is an inaccurate "short hand" term for what people generally mean. Nobody wants to go into more detailed explanations that they mean "except for the children of diplomats", or "only children born to parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty."

It's just less work to say "born here" and expect everyone else knows what you mean about the more specific details.

Well we have reached a time where people don't grasp the fact that there were always other qualifiers, and unless someone explains the details more explicitly, people think that "born here" is the sole requirement.

What started out as laziness in explaining what they mean has now become a defacto change in the meaning. But that's enough from me. Here is what John Bingham clarified his position to be several times.

Bingham in 1862.

(1862) All other persons born withing the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.

Bingham in 1866.

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.

Bingham in 1872.

That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

earliest?Chester A Arthur
Nearest: Barak H. Obama

[freedomjusticeruleoflaw]

And by the way, you’re annoying.

[EternalVigilance]

Thanks!

http://www.tomhoefling.com/endorsements.html

http://www.tomhoefling.com/platform.html

http://www.tomhoefling.com/biography.html

http://www.tomhoefling.com/family-photos.html

http://www.tomhoefling.com/

http://prolifeprofiles.com/tom-hoefling-americas-party

https://www.facebook.com/Tom-Hoefling-for-President-2016-123879220975254/

https://twitter.com/TomHoefling

http://www.selfgovernment.us/about.html

[stocksthatgoup]

Standing? According to the Judicial Branch no one has standing.

[truth_seeker]

Got nothing, dude.

Vermont, Hawaii

[RedWhiteBlue]

So he will sue if he can’t tell Ted what to do. That’s a reason to sue? Well, I guess it must be if you are DJT.

[entropy12]

Cruz is now a WELL KNOWN LIAR, based on what he tried to do to Dr Carson in Iowa voting.

[DiogenesLamp]

Doesn't the following put it to rest, or am I missing something?

:Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Only if you believe the constitution can be amended by a statute, rather than an amendment.

Call me old fashion, but I don't think you can change the meaning of constitutional requirements set in 1787 by laws enacted in 1952.

[CyberAnt]

No, I do not need a link .. I was taught about the Constitution when I was in school .. not in a DOJ office classroom.

I guess the schools don’t teach about that anymore .. they’d rather lie to people so they don’t really know what the laws are.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yo can post those to ALL if you want. I don’t read anything you write.

I don't either. It's like walking down a street in a big city where you are barraged by signs insisting you pay attention to them. You get to a point where you just tune it out and ignore it.

[Mac n Jac]

Cruzers are not going to like this ...

**************

Cruz supporters have been saying “BRING IT” since Donnie first made his feeble attempt at it. Let’s get it over with once and for all and have people voting on the candidates and issues instead of this feeble crap that doesn’t mean shinola.

[Duchess47]

Thank you :)

[DiogenesLamp]

Regarding the 1802 Naturalization Act the Report states:

"it further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States."

Aliens - whether born within or out of the United States.

Aliens born within the United States.

I hate to pick a nit because you make a very good point here, but the sentence you quote can be read in such a way as to say nothing of the citizenship status of the children of Aliens.

The term "Aliens" is applied to the parents. It is not specifically applied to the children. Taking the Devil's advocacy in this, I would assert the children could still be "citizens" though they remain the children of "aliens."

The status of the children as either citizens or aliens is not clarified.

Perhaps it is clarified in the larger context?

[Suz in AZ]

I was taught in school too: 2 parent citizens, born in the USA.

[DiogenesLamp]

Did you cherry pick the part you could obfuscate or just quit reading?

You find one fatal error in the facts or reason of an assertion, and there is really no need to go any further.