Posted on 03/31/2016 11:39:57 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
HARRISBURG, Pa. - Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has won a case in Pennsylvania's highest court that had challenged his eligibility to appear on the state's GOP primary ballot and serve as president.
The state Supreme Court order Thursday upheld a lower-court judge's decision to dismiss the case.
A Pittsburgh resident and registered Republican voter, Carmon Elliott, had argued that Cruz isn't eligible to run for president or to appear on Pennsylvania's April 26 primary ballot because he was born in Canada....
(Excerpt) Read more at wfmz.com ...
I knew when Cruz ran he couldn't be a natural born citizen (although I did think he was naturalized) and was leery of voting for him until I heard that.
Stupid me. I thought he actually meant it.
this fact of Cruz having to denounce his Canadian citizenship at all is troubling..
this means he DID indeed have citizenship other than American...
In 1970 when he was born I doubt if the USA or Canada allowed DUAL CITIZENSHIP which Cruz would have to hold if he wanted to claim he was an American from birth...
To be POTUS he had to be born an American citizen...
To have Canadian citizenship to unload he had to have obtained it at some time...
He was born in Canada and lived there to the age of 4... so the Canadian citizenship was not something he just picked up as an adult...in fact he claims he never knew about it at all..
few of us know what happened up to age 4 unless we are told about the event etc or we remember for ourselves...since citizenship would not be something a 4year old would remember or understand, was this something that was never discussed by his parents at a later time throughout his entire life ??? even by his globe trotting parents ???
What nationality is annotated on his school records when he started kindergarten in (Texas ???)
Would his parents not have let him know he was a Canadian so he could take advantage of foreign student bennies in college as Obama did ??? or was a American status supposed or real more beneficial ???
The fact he felt obliged to DENOUNCE a loyalty and legal birth connection to a foreign nation creates more questions than it answers...
Not only obliged but it was necessary...that’s not the situation for a NBC American..
That means the Constitutional expert thought he had a legal entanglement that voided his eligibility to be POTUS..
Woe-be-tide I as a lessor student of the Constitution would argue that Cruz did not HAVE to do so..
If a Certificate of Naturalization was ever issued to Senator Cruz, that fact could be easily uncovered via a Freedom of Information Act request.
North American Law Center
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that the parent or parents of Ted Cruz ever filed a CRBA form with the U.S. Government in or around 1970, which is why Ted Cruz released a copy of his Canadian citizenship records and not any U.S. citizenship records. At present, all FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests filed in search of any U.S. citizenship documents to confirm the true official U.S. citizenship status of Ted Cruz have been denied access.
And yet that has never happened, go figure,
It is silly to continually apply for the courts to intervene if you don’t believe in the objectivity and independence of the judiciary.
There is another branch of government who could act, the legislative. There has never been a single Congressional hearing or even a speech in either House of Congress or in a state legislature on the Constitutional meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen.
A legislative body could act to require that a candidate provde proof of their natural born citizenship.
black Loyalists ???
Yes there were many...
but how could Obama have any black Loyalists as ancestors ???
Obamas father was from Kenya Obama has no black ancestors in the US..
his Loyalist ancestor was in his WHITE mother’s line...
the same with his Patriot ancestors...his Mom’s line..
ALL WHITE both sides of the Rev War..
I’m familiar with the L&P I’m eligible to join that society..
The society is listed by google. Have no clue about Obama’s ancestors though his mom’s people were said to have some african ancestry.
I'd say that depends on the outcome you want, and on the issue. Homos got what they wanted, for example.
-- There has never been a single Congressional hearing or even a speech in either House of Congress or in a state legislature on the Constitutional meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen. --
That's false too. Congressional Hearing on H.J.Res. 88 - July 24, 2000
-- A legislative body could act to require that a candidate provde proof of their natural born citizenship. --
That doesn't resolve the definition. I think most states require the candidates to affirm they are eligible, with varying degrees of penalty for making a false affirmation. Just saying, there are vehicles to address the issue, besides outside challenges. What is missing is general public awareness that all persons born abroad are "naturalized" according to long-standing and frequently applied (but not in presidential contests) SCOTUS precedent.
The Founding Fathers were only eligible because they included “or Citizens at the time of Adoption”. The term NBC was only added to the Constitution after it was brought up that the Commander in Chief of the US Army (President) should not be someone that had foreign allegiance. US Citizens at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution had previously had allegiance to England and were naturalized citizens. Thus the reason for the “or Citizens at the time of Adoption”.
Ted Cruz had citizenship and thus allegiance to Canada. He can’t be considered an NBC based on original intent.
Hmmmmmmmmm
interesting...
Obama’s Mom could have had black ancestors ???
Well the Mormons didn’t find that our or they lied on that document that Dallin Oakes and Harry Reid brought to Obama in 2009..
They had all white ancestors for Stan Ann Dunham...
the Dunhams were from Kansas and I think some were from MASS before that ...His white ancestors go back almost to the Mayflower...(but he’s not proud of them)
Its possible one of the allied family spouses was very light skinned black and the parents etc weren’t known or were ignored by the Mormons..
anything is possible ...
only genuine DNA from the Dunham family line would prove it...
Genuine as in not processed by Ancestry .com or any other program etc owned by the Mormons..
So the framers defined natural born citizen to be a person born to one American citizen and not on American soil? Read your history you have it all wrong!
I think we call those NBCs traitors?
Like this
“President Obama is the 11th great-grandson of John Punch, who was the first documented African to be enslaved for life in the American colonies,” says Joseph Shumway, a genealogist at Ancestry.com.
Big whoop...
Got any other proof ???
You keep saying original like it means something.
You DO realize most of the men who repealed the natural born clause in 1795 were the same ones who put it in there in 1790, right?
No, the judges give greater credence to the first and ignore the second because it gives them an excuse to blur the lines of national sovereignties.
---
There is no court ruling that natural law takes precedence over positive law.
Of course there isn't. Why should their be when they are polar opposites? Just because the courts haven't determined it doesn't mean it's not there. The definitions themselves prove that.
Natural Law
n. 1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical ten commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles. Natural law assumes that all people believe in the same Judeo-Christian God and thus share an understanding of natural law premises.
2) the body of laws derived from nature and reason, embodied in the Declaration of Independence assertion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
3) the opposite of "positive law," which is created by mankind through the state.
positive law
n. statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law," which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles, "God's law," and/or derived from nature and reason. The term "positive law" was first used by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651).
-----
The second definition of Natural law once again 2) the body of laws derived from nature and reason, embodied in the Declaration of Independence
The Declaration is the Natural law contract, the Constitution is the positive law one. The only power in the positive law contract is that of NATURALIZATION, only one's Natural allegiance can make one a natural born citizen.
Oh - and the definitions are also what makes Cruz's claim to be a 'statutory natural born citizen' so ridiculous - the very concept is a legal oxymoron.
Exactly. The problem is administrative law courts no longer think they should follow the law, they think they should MAKE it.
I read real history, not Birther diatribes. Tell me all about the Birther successes over the past eight years, I’m all ears.
The new flag could be the American flag with holes in the place of where the stars used to be!
Especially since Obama does not have two citizen parents and would not be a natural born citizen under that definition. This would cause a Constitutional crisis since every decision signed by Obama would be null and void.
The Legislature would never act on the NBC issue because of Obama. If he does not qualify with their definition all of his Presidential actions that required his signature would be null and void and this would send us into a Constitutional crisis.
I read a section the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946 that was in effect at the time. It said that any child born in Canada was a natural born Canadian citizen unless the child was born to diplomats or other foreign government officials. As far as I know his parents were not government officials or diplomats. I have read that Canada did not recognize dual citizenship until they updated their Citizenship Act in 1977 or so. I do not think he is qualified, but that is just me.
Words means things. The framers distinguished between a citizen and a natural born citizen for a reason and that was to guaranteed that the commander and chief of the united States owed his allegiance to only one country, the U.S.A.. Your answers are too simplistic. If you agree that the courts can ram any definition down the throats of the American people then say so but dont make pretend that the framers did not distinguish between a citizen and a natural born citizens.
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.