Posted on 03/31/2016 12:18:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
WASHINGTON – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed Sen. Ted Cruz’s slot on the state presidential ballot Thursday, siding with a lower-court ruling that declared the senator is a natural-born citizen.
The court turned away an appeal from Pittsburgh resident Carmon Elliott, who had sued to boot Cruz from the state’s April 26 primary. Elliott had claimed that Cruz’s birth in Canada excluded him from natural-born citizenship — a constitutional requirement for the presidency.
Cruz, who has faced multiple lawsuits on his citizenship status, was born in Canada to an American mother in 1970. He and his lawyers have argued that his mother’s citizenship made him natural born, regardless of the location of his birth.
A Commonwealth Court judge first ruled against Elliott’s lawsuit March 10, declaring that a natural-born citizen “includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.”
Elliott then appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, which issued an order Thursday denying his appeal.
At least six other lawsuits against Cruz have been dismissed, though federal cases are pending in Texas and Alabama. Most of the cases that have been tossed so far have been dismissed on procedural grounds, excepting Elliott’s original lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
Parent is a citizen
no | yes
--------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
N/A citizenship
granted
Reality:
Parent is a citizen
no | yes
--------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
N/A Parent Meets Requirements of Statute
|
no | yes
--------------------------------------------------
| |
citizenship citizenship
not granted granted
Parent meets requirement of statute MEANS Parent is Citizen, therefore Citizenship is granted means the child is born a citizen by virtue of Meeting requirements of statute AND Parent being citizen.
Therefore, The Parent being a citizen is still the BASE determinative factor of the child’s being a citizen AT BIRTH.
That sentence is unintelligible. Please clarify.
> Parent meets requirement of statute MEANS Parent is Citizen,
>
> therefore Citizenship is granted means the child is born a citizen by virtue of Meeting requirements of statute AND Parent being citizen.
RE: Parent meets requirement of statute MEANS Parent is Citizen, therefore Citizenship is granted means the child is born a citizen by virtue of Meeting requirements of statute AND Parent being citizen.
How is it incoherent?
Suppose a country X has a law that states that if you are a US citizen and leave to live in another country for several years without returning, you must return at least twice within the 10 years you are resident of another country in order to RETAIN your citizenship in country X.
Obviously:
1) You are a citizen of X.
2) However, you are in danger of losing your citizenship if you do not meet the requirement of coming back at least twice within 10 years.
Suppose further country X has a law that states that your child takes your citizenship (whatever it is ) at the time of his birth.
#1 is your condition by birth
#2 is your condition by statute.
If you fulfill #2, #1 is RETAINED.
if you have do not fulfill #2, #1 is revoked.
You fulfilled #2. Therefore, what follows? #1 is retained.
Therefore the child takes your citizenship which was originally #1 at birth.
#1 is still the BASE DETERMINATIVE factor for the child’s citizenship. #2 is a factor I will concede, but it is not the MAIN one.
But assuming that as you argue #2 is the determinative factor, where in the framer’s writings and intent tells us that it says that the factor “by statute” therefore means the child is not natural born?
The sentence makes no sense. It’s gobbledegook.
RE: The sentence makes no sense. It’s gobbledegook.
Can you elaborate?
No I can’t. The sentence is unintelligible. It’s your sentence, only you can clarify your intent.
RE: No I can’t.
What is unintelligible?
Exactly right. My respect for Cruz started to drop with his claim that this is settled law. Before that I was an ardent admirer and a lukewarm Trumpster.
I would have had no problem if he had acknowledged that this is a subject of controversy, and debate with no direct legal determination having been arrived at.
My opinion (and it is pulled right out of my butt being a non-lawyer) is that the FF meant a person born within the nation of two citizen parents (with the male being the determinate factor). The exception was to parents assigned abroad for governmental purposes i.e. attaches, diplomats, military personnel, etc. Hence McCain (spit) was eligible since his father was based in Panama.
Contrary to the contemptuous dismissal of those who realize this is an issue, it is a critical question.
Because IF they go after the Canadian Anchor Baby, they would then have to go after the White Hut also, and the Knee-Pad media would NEVER go there. So the Cuban Sandwich knew they were safe and with GOP’s blessing we were all screwed!
Just go back to January 14th, 2009 (before the W.H. was stolen)!!
SCOTUS had a “visit” from the Chicago-Godfather-Thugs- alike (where cut off horse heads lands in your beds) John Roberts and Co. got the message and the whole country went “Castrated” that date about Barry’s NBC issue and more!!!
Because IF they go after the Canadian Anchor Baby, they would then have to go after the White Hut also, and the Knee-Pad media would NOT go there. So the Cuban Sandwich knew they were safe and with GOP’s blessing we were all screwed!
Just go back to January 14th, 2009 (before the W.H. was stolen)!!
SCOTUS had a “visit” from the Chicago-Godfather-Thugs-alike (where horse heads lands in your beds) John Roberts and Co. got the message and the whole country went “Castrated” that date about Barry’s NBC issue and more!!!
It’s from Public Records, what more proof is needed ???
I’ve answered that several times. Apparently you read as poorly as you write.
Isn't that where Filthydelphia is?
RE: I’ve answered that several times
I don’t think you have. I would have to say that you have not given me any good reason for changing my mind.
The “sentence” is unintelligible because it’s not even a sentence.
I have told you it is unintelligible several times (143 147)
And I responded to 143 by 144.
Yeah, without clarifying your unintelligible non-sentence.
See 141
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.