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 ...
Actually I was referring to Pennsylvania.
We are referring to the same state. The Supreme Court is located in their state capital — Harrisburg.
RE: Yeah, without clarifying your unintelligible non-sentence.
Well, we’re back to my original question — what is unintelligible?
RE: See 141
See 142
What you wrote makes no sense.
Whatever it is you’re trying to communicate your writing failed to do.
I can’t tell you how to fix it because I don’t know your intent.
Your unintelligible non-sentence?
RE: Whatever it is you’re trying to communicate your writing failed to do.
Well, I guess it cuts both ways. I can’t tell you how you can explain to me what you’re trying to drive at.
RE: Your unintelligible non-sentence?
No, your non-answer to my question.
Try writing complete sentences. A simple sentence has a subject and a verb. Don’t forget punctuation either.
My non-answer to your question? Ha! How can I answer what is indecipherable? You have refused my several requests for clarification. The ball is in your court, pal.
RE: Try writing complete sentences. A simple sentence has a subject and a verb. Don’t forget punctuation either.
I believe I did. My sentences have all the components you mentioned. And you yeah, I include punctuations when necessary. But try answering my question please.
RE: My non-answer to your question? Ha! How can I answer what is indecipherable? You have refused my several requests for clarification. The ball is in your court, pal.
My last long response to you was Post 142.
You called in unintelligible. I asked you why? Your response was to repeat what you essentially said. THAT Is what is indecipherable.
OK.
Therefore MEANS granted AT BIRTH means by virtue of Meeting requirements of Parent being citizen AND statute.
That’s my answer.
When a person asks “Please clarify” the other party usually does. You refuse to do so.
Yes, but “Filthydelphia” is located in Pennsylvania.
RE: Therefore MEANS granted AT BIRTH means by virtue of Meeting requirements of Parent being citizen AND statute.
The statute part for me, is conditional. It is like telling a Muslim-American citizen that you won’t lose your citizenship IF you don’t go about supporting, aiding and abetting terrorists.
So, suppose we have a law ( as Ted Cruz would want ) that says, any American who supports, aid, abets, joins terrorists, he or she LOSES American citizenship.
Now Suppose two different America-Muslim women, one named Fatima and the other Aisha became pregnant after the law was passed.
Fatima became like the San Bernardino terrorist bride and was discovered to be aiding and abetting ISIS. She loses her citizenship while visiting Pakistan. The child is born in Pakistan. What is the citizenship of the child?
Aisha also goes to Pakistan and gives birth to her child but is a law abiding American Citizen. After his birth, she comes back to the USA, What is the citizenship of her child?.
It looks like deciding on the citizenship of Aisha’s child is simple. He is American like his mother.
But what is the determinative factor of his citizenship? statute or His mother’s citizenship?
And is the child considered natural born?
The controlling law is the Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. No. 82-414 § 301(a)(7), 66 Stat. 163, 236 (1952).
The foreign-born child is not a citizen if the citizen parent does not meet the requirements of this statute. The foreign-born child is not a citizen by birth, the foreign-born child is a citizen by statute. A citizen by statute is a naturalized citizen.
RE: A citizen by statute is a naturalized citizen.
In the United States, can one be a naturalized citizen without going through the naturalization process? (i.e. applying to be naturalized<— requiring a conscious effort on the part of the individual? )
Read the law.
That’s right. Read the law. Read precedent.
Apply your brain.
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.