Posted on 03/31/2016 11:39:57 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Elliott had acknowledged that Cruz’s mother was born in the United States and has been a U.S. citizen her whole life.
____________________________________
except for that period she was a Canadian citizen including the day her son Rafael Edward Cruz was born...
Well at least you finally have a court’s opinion on the merits of eligibility. It’s a state court and not a federal court. But it’s a start.
I’ll wait for analysis of the opinion to see if the judge actually backed up his claim “that common law precedent and statutory history maintain that an eligible candidate includes any person born to an American citizen, regardless of where.”
Boom!
Here is the complete Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling ...
[J-56-2016]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
CARMON ELLIOTT, : No. 29 MAP 2016
:
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
TED CRUZ, :
:
Appellee :
ORDER
PER CURIAM DECIDED: March 31, 2016
AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2016, the Order of the Commonwealth Court
is hereby AFFIRMED. Victor Williams's pro se Notice to Intervene as Appellant is
DENIED. Appellant's Application for Oral Argument is DENIED.Link to PA Supreme Court pdf of the Order
On Judge Pellegrini's Opinion that Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen
Only those who believe the PA Supreme Court has any credibility give their rulings any credence. As a life-long PA resident I don’t.
Eligible in PA? Yes. Electable in PA? No.
First last I checked PA was still part of America, meaning that for a candidate to be on the PA ballot they have to be eligible to run for the office in the first place. Secondly, Trump supporters have wanted a court ruling on this issue. Well there was one, and not only that but it was upheld by a higher court. Now of course there could be an appeal to the US Supreme Court, but does anyone really think that they are going to take such a time sensitive case with as much political ramifications as this on.... not likely.
lol
Did the state Supreme Court define natural born citizen?
_______________________________________________
Just goes to show there is no profession immune to ‘stupid.’ This opinion says a statutorily declared (naturalized) citizen qualifies you to be president, natural born citizen be damned,
And really statutory history doesn’t have a say in defining terms in the constitution. By that standard the multitude of gun laws that have been passed would indicate that the 2nd amendment must not exist.
This now sets the groundwork for the North American Union. All that has to happen is a citizen of Mexico is born of an American parent naturalized or natural born and anyone can become president. We already know the precedent has been set for Canadian citizens.
As a matter of fact anyone on this planet can easily become president.
Funny how conservatives make the constitution whatever they want when it serves them.
In other words, this wasn’t decided on the basis of plaintiff not having “standing”. It was a ruling that defined (or redefined if you will for anyone insisting on trying to read 18th century minds in favor of their hero) natural born citizen as someone whose parent is an American citizen at the time of their birth. Location of that birth is not relevant. Not a huge surprise for me since two out of my three kids were born overseas and the local U.S. Embassy had no problem issuing birth certificates and passports for their first trip back home. This decision can be appealed. There are higher courts. But the chances a court would overturn it are very slim.
The original definition of Natural Born Citizen was a person born to two American Citizens. We shall see how this new definition plays out going forward. Probably will go to the Supreme Court eventually to make a final determination.
“except for that period she was a Canadian citizen including the day her son Rafael Edward Cruz was born...”
I’d certainly like to see her Canadian records, the paperwork.
If he wins, some Democrat will judge-shop and find a forum in which he will found to NOT be natural-born. Mark my words.
Yeah right, so was Obama. I wish people were sick and tired of usurpers as much as I am.
Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini relied on articles rather than law and precedent.
I don't think SCOTUS will take it, but not because of any "time sensitive" concerns. They took Bush v. Gore exactly ,b>because of time-sensitive concerns, and handled the case quickly, by judicial measure of "quick."
On the political ramifications, SCOTUS will, I think, evade the question forever.
A good number of people have come around to understand the constitution is dead anyway, what with homo marriage and abortion being the 14th amendment, the 2nd amendment being relegated to the status of privilege, not a right, and assorted other contortions.
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.