Posted on 02/19/2016 6:36:53 AM PST by Enlightened1
Here is what the Constitution says about who can be president:
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.
The problem is the Constitution doesn't define "natural born Citizen." Neither does any current law. And no one has ever brought a court case to decisively settle the question as a matter of US law.
There are three ways someone can be a US citizen. He can be born in the US (regardless of who his parents are). He can be born outside the US to at least one US citizen parent, as long as certain criteria are met (those criteria are set by federal law and have been changed over time). Or he can immigrate here and then successfully apply for citizenship, a process called naturalization.
Everyone agrees that the first category of people are natural-born citizens. Everyone agrees that the third category of people are not natural-born citizens (regardless of how unfair it might be that immigrants can't be president). But Ted Cruz is in the middle category, and this is where the meaning of "natural born" starts to get fuzzy.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
A win for Cruz on this would be to hand them a birth certificate made on a computer with his birth in a US State. Make it look identical in form to Obama’s BC.
Then argue that what was good enough for Obama must be good enough for Cruz.... No???
So John McCain was illegal. I don’t know why we are even talking about all this. The Obama and Dems have determined we have no Constitution anymore. The law and rules are what Dems decide and the Repubs don’t care.
I expect the worst coming from Chicago, run by Obamites. They will get rid of Cruz first and later Rubio for the Dems. And the Constitution will have nothing to do with any of it.
Obama is not leaving office for some Repub to undo what he has divided and conquered.
The she has implicitly ruled against Obama.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Would you please re-state it?
No it did not. That is the point of reference to Vattel. The English common law at that time had been changed because the King wanted explorers in the colonies and he wanted them to remain his servants. He passed a series of laws to allow the children of those explorers to remain English Natural Born Citizens. Those laws were very specific to that situation and were written precisely because the meaning of the term NBC at the time was born in the country to a citizen father, since the mother’s citizenship followed the father’s.
It will be nice to have a frugal man in the White House for a change.
I agree with you 100 percent. Remember the Cruz supporters complaining about Trump being cheep in New Hampshire because he said no to further spending by his staff. I was stunned that conservatives were against this. I guess Cruz supporters are cool with spending money freely.
Well, there’s a least one place that’s home for all those unwanted apostrophes, er, diacritical marks.
Wait, doesn’t the US government recognize Hawaii without the diacritic? The state seal also lacks the diacritic?
Gentle Ben back to stabbing. Little bit of VP politicking? Maybe a wee bit of “Hey Ben, I’ll help out on the campaign debt. You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”.
I am sure Cruz has no problem with anyone filing such suit. He is probably twice as legal smart as super leftist Larry Tribe.
This Lawrence Joyce, an attorney who has told local media that he supports Dr. Ben Carson and has had no connection with the Trump campaign, filed the suit in Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago.
What is the likelihood this will get to court or meet Standing threshold, or that a County Court has any jurisdiction, or even it gets beyond all those tall steps the SCOTUS is not full seated and will not hear such a Constitutionally monumental case with one seat unfilled?
The first thing that jumps off the page is the filing lawyers unnecessary disclaimer that Trump had nothing to do with this. Maybe Bill Shakespeare’s “thou doth protest too loudly” is of interest.
Second, a Chicago Cook County Judge, Mmmmmm what could possibly make a thinking person wonder about any of this?
Third, what the heck happened to Trumps stealth suit in Alabam? Kind of vanished.
Forth, Standing.... Up until today no NBC suits have moved beyond “filing” due to Standing. With legal precedent and Law clearly setting Standing to only parties that are able to show a harm HAS BEEN DONE (meaning there is no standing for potential future harm, real or imagined).
Clearly this filing, in of all places Chicago, is no more than someone (maybe of orange tint) throwing out something in a desperate hope it clouds a few SC voters minds.
Unless the filer meets Standing and then wins in COUNTY COURT, which is appealed to a Federal Court Judge and Fed Judge rules for the filer, it next gets through Federal Appeals Court and then sits waiting until sometime in 2018 for the new Justice to be seated, unless all that happens, this is a No Show.
In any event with several States already ruling OK for the ballot, where does this prevent Cruz from being nominated or elected and sworn in as POTUS?
I predict that following this weekend, just like the Alabam “case”, we will never hear anything more on this particular suit.
Because of the last minute desperation, it is obvious that Trump’s internal polling is not good for him for Saturday.
This is irrelevant to anything that occurs before December 19, 2016 and perhaps before January 3, 2017.
There are no Constitutional barriers to ANYONE “running for President”, “being nominated”, or “appearing on the ballot” (except that individual State Legislatures may make rules about the latter).
“No candidate for president should have to revoke his citizenship to his native country as Cruz did in 2014.
It’s ridiculous to say he didn’t know for 40 years.”
He was distracted while attaining Constitutional Apotheosis. He can lift whole X-wing fighters from a swamp with a single footnote. While attaining that level of mastery, it is perfectly understandable to forget what country you came from, especially when you left it as a four year old infant.
Cruz "character":
1. Phony summonses mailed out, scaring people to vote for Cruz.
2. Claiming Carson quit, presinc captans told "vote for Cruz"
3. Campaigning in the 800 churches, showing video "vote for me" with his preacher/father stomping for him.
4. "Brilliant" lawyer, did not know he was Canadian citizen and that he is not Natural Born Citizen, not eligible for office of P or VP.
Just enough to beat Trump in IA, apologize, rinse and repeat in SC?
ping for later
But the framers understood its meaning as defined in Vattel’s The Law of Nations.
Just as with any text the Constitution must be read with the understanding of what the meaning of the words were at the time of its writing.
Changing the meaning of the words is changing the constitution. If you want to change the constitution do it the right way; by amendment.
What did they say?
True.
I say the facts of the matter because Cruz's mother had lived in England during her first marriage to a British citizen and there is a lack of clarity about her citizenship at the time of his birth. The Consulate/State Department would have required documentation before proceeding.
And Obama is not a citizen let alone a Natural Born Citizen.
How does that change the status of Rubio or Cruz?
This is definitely bogus. If Cruz was in last place in all the polls, no one would even care where he is from. Trump wants him out and he thinks because he is a billionaire he can snap his fingers and poof -off you go. He is Obama in white skin, I’m asking Heaven for mercy for this country,
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.