FYI to post an image use the HTML img tag.
Posted on 04/10/2016 8:21:55 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in New Jersey resulting from charges of ballot access fraud. A primary ballot disqualification hearing is scheduled by the Secretary of State for Monday, April 11 at 9:00 a.m. in Mercerville, New Jersey.
Washington D.C. Law Professor Victor Williams charges that Ted Cruz fraudulently certified his constitutional eligibility for office to gain ballot access. Williams demands that Cruz be disqualified from several late-primary ballots: "Cruz committed ballot access fraud in each state when he falsely swore that he was a 'natural born' American citizen." Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada and held his resulting Canadian citizenship until May 2014. Cruz is a naturalized (not natural born) American citizen.
Williams' fraud charges had quick effect in New Jersey. Rather than accepting Cruz's ballot petition when filed last week, the Secretary of State ( Kim Guadagno) scheduled the unusual Administrative Law hearing for April 11. The Canadian-born Cruz must prove that he did not falsely certify his eligibility for office.
Cruz's ballot eligibility is also being challenged in California, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at gloucestercitynews.net ...
“It’s not imagination that there is such a thing as denaturalization, I cited a denaturalization case to show that such exists.”
There is no such thing as a “denaturalization case” as some narrow category.
The law does not work that way.
The only thing that matters is what was the QUESTION that the court was answering.
You do not consider separately cases under different categories.
But you do have to read what was the QUESTION PRESENTED that the court was answering.... and what the answer is at the end.
All the discussion in between is NOT binding and is NOT precedent and is often MEANINGLESS.
It is quite common for the US Supreme COurt to decide A, during the discussion say “But we would never do B.”
Then the next case comes along and they do B, which they said in discussion they would never do.
Only the actual decision counts.
Absolutely not. You must be born on our beloved soil or you are not eligible. Sorry.
You cannot apply simple logic.
If a case says that person Y *IS* a natural born citizen under the following circumstances: ABC.
You are so illogical that you think that says other people are NOT natural born citizens.
The cases occasionally say someone IS a natural born citizen.
There are no cases saying who is NOT a natural born citizen.
You flunk simple logic.
Your false logic is like this:
Grandma Brown testified that it was raining at the time, so we conclude that it was raining.
Then you claim that ONLY Grandma Brown can say that it was raining. No one else can testify about whether it was raining.
Because a court relied on Grandma Brown’s testimony, you say that courts forever after can ONLY rely on Grandma Brown’s testimony.
A case saying someone IS a natural born citizen DOES NOT establish that someone else ISN’T.
Simple logic.
“Absolutely not. You must be born on our beloved soil or you are not eligible”
That’s only your opinion.
There is no connection between that opinion and the real world.
Well I don’t think Cruz is going to get that far but on the off chance he should be nominated the DNC can and will challenge his documents. Its a very different thing from an irate lawyer or individual because they have standing.
There is no distinction. A child who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. By definition. Any citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. Always.
Oh but there is the greatest distinction... I do not have a born in the US birth certificate... 'Natural born' US citizenship has three requirements: Two US citizen parents giving birth to their child on US soil... That is the 'natural' part that no Act of Congress or court can give or take... No one has the Constitutional authority, no not even Harvard Law schooled Cruz, to subvert the peoples Constitution. It is really pathetic to watch the so called right do the liberals work in stripping out the 'original intent' from the Constitution.
Mitch McConnell’s Attorney PAC ‘Stand For Truth’, Sending Money To Ted Cruz PAC ‘Keep The Promise III’…
The Constitution does not define the word "Is" either, it takes a group of scummy lawyers to even call the meaning of the word "is" into question.
FYI to post an image use the HTML img tag.
Off Topic question:
What’s new with the Dennis Montgomery lawsuit in Washington?
Any verification of his claims made to Arpaio and Zullo? They seem to be still waiting for him to come through.
And exactly how do you know he did that. Answer is, you don't.
The world was quite different when I was born. People in your community knew you from birth to death. Cram 11 or 12 million into a small space and evil can hide in plain site and does.
You know Citizenship is verified by your birth certificate which I do have and Cruz doesn't apparently.
Actually there is a difference. Congress cannot define citizenship. If Congress could define citizenship, they could enact a law that prevents a particular person or persons from being a citizen or NBC. They could decide who they want are NBCs and who aren’t. They could say only the political elites are NBCs and everyone else is not as they could enact a law and it would be constitutional according to your BS theory.
Apparently at the hearing today Mario Apuzzo will be representing someone I’ve never heard of.
A secret sworn affidavit held by “North American Law Center” is not a transcript. It’s birther innuendo and rumor repeated ad nauseam with no facts. The mysterious interviewer is supposedly a member of a Texas GOP state committee. I have little doubt that the mysterious interviewer is Sara Legvold, who is no longer a member of the Texas State Republican Executive Committee. Give her a google. We removed her from power for good cause.
April 3rd, TNALC issued a warning to Cruz that they would expose him in two weeks. Why 2 weeks? Why not right now? If they’ve got the goods, they should whip ‘em out and take Cruz to the woodshed.
I predict that TNALC has nothing. A sworn affidavit from a discredited Texas SREC member is of no value. Birthers took the bait hook, line, and sinker. TNALC is reelin’ ‘em in.
hoosiermama - None of the above is snark toward you. I know how much effort you’ve put into your research. Cruz’s eligibility is a valid question as was Obama’s. It’s not settled as many argue. (I believe he is eligible.) This particular accusation about something Cruz said is horsesh*t.
By birth records I mean in the form of documentation of U.S. citizenship....
................................
“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. All citizenship records for Ted Cruz are sealed unless and until Ted Cruz agrees to allow any such records to be released by either U.S. or Canadian agencies.
As a result, there remains no authentic evidence to support the claims that Ted Cruz is either a “natural born” or “naturalized” citizen of the United States.
Without any form of U.S. Citizenship documentation, and proof of Canadian citizenship at birth in 1970 and holding that legal status until May 2014 when he renounced his birth citizenship to Canada, there is no way for Ted Cruz to prove that he is either “natural born” and eligible for the Oval Office, or “naturalized” prior to 2012, when he sought and accepted a seat in the U.S. Senate as a legal citizen of Canada.
On the basis of all available evidence today, Ted Cruz is in fact holding a seat in the U.S. Senate illegally, with no documented proof of legal U.S. citizenship whatsoever, and proof of Canadian citizenship between the years of birth in 1970 and May 2014.
It is unfortunate that a person so many have placed their political faith in has proven willing to defraud his supporters for both votes and millions in campaign donations. But it is better we know now, than after he wins the GOP nomination only to be destroyed by Democrats later, using the same facts and evidence presented here.
What will the people do with this knowledge? Are they really motivated by restoration of Constitutional compliance, or mere political expediency?”
........................
You really shouldn’t run around calling people liars, it makes you look foolish.
You have asked us for a general survey of the laws governing loss of citizenship, a process known as "expatriation" (also known within the specific context of naturalized citizens as "denaturalization"). ...Under the Court's current jurisprudence, the Naturalization Clause empowers Congress to expatriate U.S. citizens without obtaining their consent, but only with respect to naturalized citizens who fall outside the protection of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Individuals not protected by the Citizenship Clause acquire U.S. citizenship, if at all, solely by an act of Congress enacted pursuant to the Naturalization Clause, and not pursuant to the Constitution itself. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 830 (1971) (Citizenship Clause does "'not touch[] the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization'") (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898))
"Asked to prove he was a US citizen, the candidate produced a birth certificate from Canada" - good Far Side material.
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.