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 ...
” Citizen by Birth is not Natural Born Citizen, but is a form of Naturalization. I don’t think that this is correct.”
I think it is correct.
This is one of the birther central beliefs, so that opinion has been circulating since 2008. The question is, does it reflect in law and has the courts affirmed it? The answer is not so at best it’s an undecided issue. Judge Pellegrini has formed a ruling, so an appeal on his decision could be resolved even though his action was in a state court.
“The question is, does it reflect in law and has the courts affirmed it?”
The courts decide things 5-4. The decisions like that are done on ideological lines not Constitutional lines. I don’t buy any 5 to 4 decision. It’s political. Period. It can be revisited at any point.
If the Court agrees to hear a case, something I believe is unlikely, this one will likely end 7-2. Even Scalia commented that he would be reluctant to challenge the power of Congress to deal with this issue, and very few on the Court cares much about the whole debate.
“Even Scalia commented that he would be reluctant to challenge the power of Congress to deal with this issue, “
The he admitted that he would not have followed the Constitution. That is what I was saying. The courts are completely political.
I see, you are a superior Constitutional scholar than was Justice Scalia. I am truly impressed. Have you written any books on the Constitution? Are you a judge, or just a Constitutional lawyer? FreeRepublic is fortunate to have your in our ranks. We have a lot to learn from you.
” We have a lot to learn from you.”
Yes, you do. If you believe cases should be decided on how a jurist feels about what congress thinks, then, yes, you have a lot to learn. The only question should be if it is Constitutional. But since they are all political, their decisions are just that.... political whims.
I surrender to your brilliance. I’ve never encountered someone superior to Justice Scalia on issues of Constitutional Law. I stand in awe. I will be watching your future posts, they will be enlightening.
“Scalia commented that he would be reluctant to challenge the power of Congress”
I rest my case.
No need, I’ve already conceded that you are clearly superior to Justice Scalia. Genius among us.
“I’ve already conceded that you are clearly superior to Justice Scalia.”
You’re right. I don’t pretend to be apolitical. The justices do, but they are not. Or, there would be no 5/4 decisions. And, it wouldn’t matter who nominates them. They are not constitutional in their decisions. What the hell is a liberal justice and a conservative justice??
I don’t care how long you hold down your S key, it isn’t ever going to make you right.
You need to actuallly READ the US Code. Then you would be less inclined to post errant nonsense.
You see, the US Code (i.e. the Law) actually defines naturalization, and guess what? It’s not what you believe.
Bellei is not on point. Bellei did not comply with the law, Cruz has in every specific. The devil is as always in the details. Too bad for you; wrong yet again.
He (Cruz) is a US citizen. He is also a US citizen by birth, and that makes him a natural born citizen.
Ebd of story. Case closed.
The Supreme Court would be unanimous in Cruz’ favor. Even the liberals couldn’t ignore the Constitution to the degree that Cruz would not prevail. His Constitutional right to run is as clear as day.
When Cruz wins the lawsuit, it’ll give him an air of invincibility that will only propel his campaign forward.
The law in question has more than one part. On the part of being naturalized a citizen, at birth, Bellei and Cruz are identical. Both were citizens at birth, both were citizens only because an act of Congress made them so. Absent an Act of Congress, both Bellei and Cruz would be aliens.
Where their life experiences diverge is that Bellei did not satisfy conditions subsequent to birth, particularly, he did not obtain 5 years of US residence by the time he was 21 years of age. He lost his US citizenship.
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.