Posted on 03/10/2016 9:12:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
HARRISBURG -- Carmon Elliott is not a lawyer. But he got to play one Thursday in state court when he tried to convince a judge that Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is really a Canadian who has no constitutional right to be a candidate for U.S. president.
Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini of Commonwealth Court was as impressed with Elliott's oral arguments as he was his Uncle Sam tie.
"By the way, I like your tie," said Pellegrini, who's known for his wit as well as his probing legal questions.
Some judges don't like hearing election petition cases argued by pro se litigants because they can be unprepared and disruptive to the political process, Pellegrini said. Not so in Elliott's case.
"I have to compliment you," Pellegrini said in court. "You represented yourself well today."
Elliott, a retiree who lives in Pittsburgh and is a Republican with a self-professed affinity for the U.S. Constitution, went up against Robert N. Feltoon, a lawyer from the Philadelphia firm Conrad O'Brien.
Feltoon argued that Elliott's petition should be dismissed. The U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on whether a person born outside the United States as Cruz was can run for president, he argued. It is a decision, Feltoon said, that should be made by Congress and the Electoral College, which ultimately elects the president.
Elliott's petition was one of several "birther" lawsuits filed against Cruz after GOP front-runner Donald Trump openly questioned whether the Texas senator can serve as president.
An Illinois judge tossed one lawsuit last week....
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
Whichever way it turns out, and it is not my case, although I have briefed in this area, it will not be based on the idea that Congress, in a statute, can determine and define the intent of the Framers in choosing language for the Constitution. Of that you can be assured.
“...history that shows that a “natural born citizen” includes any person who is a U.S. citizen from birth.”
He got it reversed....
All Natural Born Citizens are born Citizens, but not all born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. See Wong USSC.
Natural Born Citizenship is a quality of born citizenship that not all born citizens possess.
I evidently went to school way before your time. In 8th grade civics class we were taught that The eligibility requirement for President was birth in the US to Citizen parents.
Common Core has failed again on your case!
As you point out, the First Congress exercised its power over Naturalization in 1790. As you well know, the laws have been replaced, modified, and changes over the years. That’s not the point. The point is that the Congress believed in 1790 that their power to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization included their right to define all classes of citizenship. Has that authority of the Congress every been challenged for citizens at birth.
This could be argued from the point of view of the Framers, but all that I have heard to date has been arguments over the definition of the phrase “Natural Born Citizens” I haven’t heard any arguments about the concern about some liege of some foreign monarch using subterfuge or money to seize the office of Presidency. Of course, that discussion wouldn’t help their argument, so semantics are the only point left.
Interestingly, substitute “monarch” with “Super PAC” or “Big Banks” and the argument would directly apply to modern day politics. I’m guessing that no one would be interested in going that direction except possibly Bernie Sanders.
Perhaps you will get a chance to weigh in at some point. Good luck.
I went to the 8th grade in 1960. At that time, citizens at birth required one Citizen parent. Either mother or father. Citizen fathers passed on their citizenship to their children from Day 1. Perhaps you missed that part, I missed it as well, we were all arguing about if a Catholic could be President.
Sorry to have to tell you this, Forty-Niner, but somebody at post #72 using your handle used mongrel and other such words to refer to Ted Cruz. You might want to bring this matter up with the moderator so you aren’t made to look like some kind of slack jaw yokel that just fell off the back of a hay wagon.
No, I am not a son or daughter of the American Revolution. But, if you are of English descent, your ancestors were among the first to recombine the human DNA. Engiish only came into existence relatively recently. But, you would certainly know this, being a gentleman who finds throwing around words like mongrel to be bad form.
On my mother’s side, I’m of Italian ancestry and on my father’s German. When my uncles on both sides served during WWII, they did so because they put country above blood line. My father’s older brother served in the Army Air Force and helped to bomb the country of his ancestry. My mother’s two brothers served in the 82nd Airborne and with Patton’s Third Army. It was after the war that they learned one rescued the other at Bastogne. My father served during the Korean War. I during the Viet Nam War. My son serves today. But, as you say, we’re not 100 percent American.
As a boy, I found the line “land where my fathers died” curious. I had no fathers that died in this country. Today, with the passing of both my grandfathers and my father, I don’t find that lines curious any longer.
I agree with what you say. A lot of what was codified had been previously in practice. Part of the oral tradition. As a democratic country, committed to equal rights for all, we can revisit the gender stereotypes. But, we do not raise up women by putting down the traditional roles of women.
The right to define classes of citizenship has nothing to do with the intent of the Framers in choosing the eligibility language in Article II. You persist in missing the point. Further, you refuse to address the concern of the time that led to the 1790 Act being changed. In fact the issue of dual allegiances as there was concern about it at the time, as Framers expressed, was, in part, because of their observations of such problems being caused by dynastic marriages between European nations, which had been going on for centuries leading up to the time of our Revolution. The House of Hanover is but one example. George III was, of course, a Hanoverian monarch.
Cbodt, by “aliens” you mean that they would not be U.S. Nationals?
At this time, we have only a few unincorporated territories that are populated whose population isn’t by Act of Congress citizens of the U.S. One of these - American Samoa - has a population that is U.S. Nationals but not U.S. citizens. They are not aliens in the following sense: they have a right to naturalize. Aliens don’t have such a right. Immigrating here is for us to decide.
The Marshall Islands is one of two sovereign countries in free association with the United States. (This means we provide them with foreign aid and assure their national defense, and in return, we can use their territory for our joint national defense.) The people there are not U.S. Nationals. They actually are aliens.
Is that what you’re talking about?
That is correct.
The US, and I assume some of its territories as well, includes people who are not citizens or nationals, but are legal residents.
Children of those legal residents, who are not US nationals or citizens, born in Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, are made citizens of the US at birth, by operation of Acts of Congress. They have exactly the same status that Ted Cruz had at his birth, also by operation of an Act of Congress. Congress already decided that those persons are citizens.
I was not referring to American Samoa or the Marshall Islands.
I see. Yes. We should revisit what is called birthright citizenship. Children of illegals and of people here on temporary visas, they should be parents of their parents’ country.
Some people hold that Congress has the power to define natural born citizen, and I have yet to find a person who can express a legal principle within US jurisprudence that limits the power that they assert Congress has.
If "citizen at birth" is synonymous with natural born citizen, then it is possible for two aliens to have a natural born citizen, simply by having the birth in Puerto Rico, Guam or the Virgin Islands, without passing any new laws. In fact, that has likely happened, and such persons likely exist.
Of course, it is a majority view that two aliens can give birth to a natural born citizen by having the birth occur in one of the 50 states.
My point of view is that it is impossible to be both born abroad and be a natural born citizen, see WKA, Rogers v. Bellei and Miller v. Albright.
It was reported that the judge in this case said in open court that "naturalized" and "natural born citizen" are NOT mutually exclusive. He does not say anything to that effect in the opinion, so there is no explanation of that in the opinion.
“That one was debunked many years ago”
So, were those cases misquoted?
“In 8th grade civics class we were taught that The eligibility requirement for President was birth in the US to Citizen parents.”
This is exactly what I was taught. And, I refuse to unlearn it.
The right to define classes of citizenship has nothing to do with the intent of the Framers in choosing the eligibility language in Article II. You persist in missing the point. Further, you refuse to address the concern of the time that led to the 1790 Act being changed. In fact the issue of dual allegiances as there was concern about it at the time, as Framers expressed, was, in part, because of their observations of such problems being caused by dynastic marriages between European nations, which had been going on for centuries leading up to the time of our Revolution. The House of Hanover is but one example. George III was, of course, a Hanoverian monarch.
I’ll try once again. First, I will respond to your points:
I cede your point, the choice of words for Article II, Section I, Clause had nothing to do with defining classes of citizenship.
The First Congress enacted the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Second Congress revised it.
Yes, the Framers were concerned about royal marriages resulting in new national boundaries, and George I, II, and III were as German as one can get.
My points and my position on Presidential eligibility is:
The Constitution did not define the meaning of the words “Natural Born Citizen” within Article II or elsewhere in the Constitution.
Article I, section 8 granted plenary power to the Congress to establish rule of a uniform system of naturalization.
The Congress exercised this power in 1790 and on many occasions since enacting laws governing the naturalization of citizens. They have also included definitions of citizens at birth. They believed that they had the power to do so and, as far as I know, they have never been challenged on that point. The current list of definitions can be found at USC 8, Section 1401.
Here are the arguments:
The definition of “Natural Born Citizens” can be found in the writings of the Founders, in Vattel, Blackstones, or in English Common Law or buried at Goat Island with Blackbeards Treasure. Everyone can choose their favorite.
Acknowledging the inconvenient language in Section 1401 defining Citizen by Birth, the explanation is that Citizen by Birth is not Natural Born Citizen, but is a form of Naturalization. I don’t think that this is correct.
I believe that the definitions contained in Section 1401 are the elusive Natural Born Citizen definition language and have been codifed by Congress within their plenary power laid out in Article I, Section 8. I also believe that this is what the framers of the Constitution intended.
Since, I don’t think that the Courts are ever going to agree to argue the meaning of Natural Born Citizen for a number of reasons, the only route for a resolution is appeals of the decision by Judge Pellegrini. He ruled that the term “Natural Born Citizen” is the same as the term “Citizen by Birth”. On appeal, the validity of USC 8 Section 1401 can be challenged. If that prevails, then the Congress never had the power to define NBC. If it fails, then Congress does have the power and USC 8 Section 1401 applies for both NBC and eligibility of Presidents. I’m predicting the latter.
BTW, the reason that I think that Minor v. Happersett is ludicrous is because it’s a case of women’s suffrage that decided that women had no right to vote, and because this paragraph:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. “
This paragraph comes in the rationale, not in the judgment, but it points out that they only considered it in a cursory manner, examining only the circumstance applying to Minor while determining the facts. This case has nothing else to do with Natural Born Citizens or on Presidential eligibility. Case after case in the birther repertoire have similar flaws.
“Sorry to have to tell you this, Forty-Niner, but somebody at post #72 using your handle used mongrel....”
That was me......from post #141...”My use (Of mongrel in post #72) in the analogy concerned CITIZENSHIP...” Were I you I’d be working on my reading and reading comprehension skills.
So you are a Natural Born Citizen! Most of us are..... most except Cruz. He’s a Canadian born Cuban. Not of our breed. Not of any breed....a mongrel...Take heart, it’s not that bad..... he is a Canine!
Military heritage? Most recently my uncle was a plank owner of the USS Missouri and served on it until after WWII. My father designed/built WWII fighter planes.
A cousin served the Marine Corps for over 30 years, most of it assigned to the White House. I watched him on TV numerous times at White House events. I have a rare Italian surname with Less than 1200 listed in the US, but if you Goggled it and USMC you’ll get multiple hits. My Italian side, and I, favor the Corps, while my mother’s English/Scottish side favor the Navy, both US and British. (A great grandfather was an British Admiral who spent his last years of service under Churchill.)
I grew up less than 2 miles from where Patton grew up. The Patton home no longer exists. It is now a development with a short cul de sac and 5 homes on it.... “Patton Way” off of Mission Ave in San Marino Calif. If you continue west on Mission Ave you’ll come to the Southwest Military Academy founded by Patton’s paternal Grandfather(an un-reconstructed Confederate Col.). Growing up I had a daily view of MT Wilson, named after Patton’s maternal grandfather, from my parent’s kitchen window.
Pedigrees aside, Cruz hasn’t any.....A Canadian born Cuban with an American mother......in other words.....a Mutt, and ineligible for the 100% American Citizen paternal/maternal pedigree only, Office of the President. As an NBC yourself you should be as protective of that office as I am. Shame on ya!
When you say Cruz is not “our” bred, you don’t speak for me. But I thank your cousin for his service.
Mostly misunderstood rather than misquoted. See my post #175 for an example on Minor v. Happersett.
Poor Ann Shanks and her children were deprived of her inheritance under the very particular circumstances of the treaty ending the Revolution. the NBC relevation in this case was that the court found she was citizen of South Carolina at birth and thereby became a citizen of the United States, applying the principle that the father’s citizenship descends to his children. Made moot by the 14th Amendment.
I like Venus, but for what it has to say about Admiralty Law in time of war rather than on citizenship. It certainly doesn’t make the birther case.
These three plus Wong Kim Ark are proclaimed to be irrefutable evidence of the definition of Natural Born Citizen. The 4 pillars of birther dogma are made of sugar frosting.
Rafael E,. Cruz. Divorce
Rafael B. Cruz - Wells Fargo foreclosure
What’s the score for these nonsense legal cases? I think its around:
Senator Cruz: 4
Birther Fever Swamp: 0
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.