Posted on 01/15/2016 2:03:15 PM PST by ml/nj
OK......But keep in mind that suits cannot be filed because you disagree.
To be a legally accepted plaintiff, you must make a case that the defendant damaged you, and you then have to quantify that damage.
Secondly, courts traditionally do not accept political suits as a rule. The only ones that prevail is where a statutory violation is proved and that the defendant is responsible for it and the damage that ensued to the plaintiff.
If you don’t have that, it can be considered a waste of court time and that is crime.
That's important to know from a legal perspective. The court respects integrity. Someone of high integrity, in my opinion, would not have made any of the 12 or 13 claims made against Ted Cruz's record and his status. Largely because they stem from political bias. Those that are not true at all and fiction as well as those that are manufactured stretches of the imagination by inference or association and half truths...
Rubio, in the debate last night, pretty much summed them all up, in addition to Trump.
This might be nice if it were true, but it isn't.
E.g. someone sues a restaurant owner because the restaurant's bathroom doesn't have a handicapped stall. Such suits pay off to the plaintiff (and his lawyers).
The whole notion of "standing" is absurd. If a citizen doesn't have the right to go to court to force compliance with the Constitution, it means that any part of the Constitution that the Congress doesn't like or has ignored is rendered moot because the Congress hasn't "granted" "standing." (As they have in the case of "handicapped" dump takers.)
ML/NJ
That example is a example of a statutory violation, in this case the disability act.
So yes, there is standing...due to damage quantified as failure to provide services mandated by law and thus damage was done, emotionally or physically or both.
These thing are mitigated by forcing the restaurant to modernize the facilities plus a monetary punishment for not doing it in the first place.
What we are discussing here is a constitutional interpretation issue. To take the case, they would by necessity have to interpret the term, natural born, because it has never been done.
To do that they need someone with standing that has been damaged by it.
All you need to do is look at the string of cases against Obama. All have been rejected due to standing and/or frivolity. A case against Cruz has already been rejected.
I will remind you again that federal courts also have a doctrine about political suits..
While that doctrine may not be a legal principle, they will find a reason to reject it that is.
Please!
This is nothing compared to the emotional damage I've suffered because some Kenyan, who HATES my country and Western Civilization, has been actively undermining both for seven years now.
Violating a statute, or violating the supposed "Supreme Law of the Land," which is worse?
ML/NJ
Now there is some ambiguity here. The definition of natural-born is given of plural children of plural parents. It is not entirely unreasonable to read this as a child of at least one citizen should be considered natural-born, though some who read it that way might also insist that the father is the one to confer this status. My own opinion is that both parents must have been citizens at the time of ones birth and that the place of birth is irrelevant regarding natural-born status. This should have eliminated Barack Obama, and because I believe he is ineligible, I really hope the Republicans do not nominate Ted Cruz, his political positions notwithstanding.
Under your interpretation, Donald trump would not qualify.
I would also ask if you can quantify that damage you claim, and are you qualified to bring a suit as a representative of the Constitution???
This is why the courts kick these things around and then out.
The power to remove a president from office resides in congress and not the court..
Obviously the latter, but you need legal standing to bring that complaint. And you don't have it.
The Congress does, however...
Eligibility is a question of law & fact. The facts regarding an individual are discoverable. For example, a persons age and residency are discoverable facts, as is their citizenship status.
The Judiciary has exclusive authority to determine questions of law.
Impeachment does not resolve questions of law, it is a political act.
This is not really a legal argument, it's a legal accusation done for political reasons.
Therefore it's a political argument. The courts are resistive to acting on these, and have always been so.
In addition to this, the plaintiff must have standing to bring suit. The average joe blow does not have standing.
This is why it's a matter for congress and they won't touch it either..
> This is not really a legal argument, it’s a legal accusation done for political reasons.
That is a supposition.
That may be so, about law, but this is the Constitution, not statutes. The case must get to the federal court of appeals. SCOTUS, depending on the ruling, will either pick it up or leave it. In this case I doubt it will get to the appellate court, and if it does they will pull out the "no standing" ruling..
While interesting, the natural born understanding was never decided or written about by the people that wrote it or voted for it.
The understanding reverts to pre constitutional law which states essentially that natural born status is not a place, but a status that is transferrable from parent to child no matter the place of birth (or what is separately called birthright)
Originally it required only the father to transfer his status to the son. Women were thought to have no legal status where they could give or accept a contract. This was the understanding...a short time later the Congress felt it necessary to put this in writing which they did in 1790. But in 1795 it was pointed out that Congress could not define natural born and could only deal with naturalization so in 1795 they took the natural born language out of the statute.
That leaves us with interpretations to be made, and that interpretation is based on the pre constitutional definition but it has been changed a bit by later amendments to the constitution that we sometimes call equal protection clauses that post date the original definition and add legal status to women as it was applied to men.
Therefore.......the 20th century interpretation is that Ted Cruz's mother, who was natural born, transferred that same status to he child at birth. The birth in Canada, nor the duel citizenship status, all being statutory, were superseded by the natural born constitutional applied status.
Thus Ted did not require naturalization, not was he ever a alien or asked for it. He was at birth a natural born US citizen.
The foreign-born children of citizens have always required naturalization.
Had I offered my reasoning for posting what I did the explanation would have added to that “wall of text”. No one wants to see it much less read it or take the time to consider what was written. Too many “drive-by” readers looking for bumper sticker responses.
“But he was a Frenchman and so cannot be considered as the arbiter of what some English language phrase meant to English speaking persons.” Agreed. Vattel, in his Law of Nations, offers concepts and they are at best his opinions on the matters addressed in his work. However once a concept is understood, regardless of the language used or the ethnicity of the writer of origin, it is the acceptance of the value(s) within the concept, the establishment of the concept, augmented by other factors or not, in a manner most appropriate for the intended result and that the language expressing the concept be understood by all. Your effort to offer definitions found in an English dictionary is laudable in this regard. Toward the issue at hand, the founders failed to provide legal definitions for the words and phrases used for whatever reason. Despite this I understand what they intended and will apply that understanding when required to do so. Vattel’s opinions having been considered. The post was intended to provoke thought on the matter of what they intended by presenting thoughts for a reader to consider what would be the most effective limitations to apply to lessen the chance of foreign influence in the thinking of the occupier of the highest office in this nation. As is often said, and I repeat here, “I have no dog in this hunt”.
[[That’s nice. But if you think the 14th Amendment had anything to do with Presidential eligibility, you are not playing with a full deck;]]
[[The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.]]
The law not only is granted for naturalization, but also NBC-
No they have not.
If that were the case, then every foreign born child to a American traveling abroad or for government business would be in effect a alien requiring naturalization. In effect a second class citizen.
This would be true in spite of the fact that a Mexican National can drop a kid 200 feet this side of the border, prove illicitly a American father and end up with full status of a natural born. A citizen of the first class.
Natural born is not a place. It’s a status. Birthright and citizenship are based on places.
We do not currently have three classes of citizen. We had naturalized aliens,and we have natural born. Anything to the contrary is either bad statute, bad interpretations, or bad opinion.
Ted Cruz was never a alien, nor was he naturalized...There was no need for it.
The reason this has never been challenged, is because it has been up to now, applied properly and the court leaves it alone. The Congress has the right to petition for new language for the amendment, but they have not and likely will never do so.
BTW ray there is more to it then just a American parent. There is also a understood residency requirement that the court has indeed used to limit the use of natural born status and this is in line with original intent of national security.
Prohibiting a American child but born abroad from inheriting natural born status has occurred. But ted’s mother did not fall into that category.
As I said, John Jay, the chairman of the congress that wrote the constitution was a parent of foreign born children as a result of being a diplomat. He would have been responsible for the insertion of the term natural born as a letter from him attests, as it was not in the original draft. His reasoning was short and sweet, and only had to do with national security.
To understand the why of it, you have to put yourself into the shoes of John jay. You also have to ignore all opinion since. That will give you original intent.
Then you can add back court opinion and dicta.
That has been done several times. Sometimes with differing results over time, like the father only limitation, but to my knowledge the old English, Swiss, and French definitions clearly said that being in the country at birth was not necessary to be considered natural born. thus it was a status and not the place that was the key to defining it.
The very first Congress naturalized the foreign-born children of citizens.
The foreign-born children of citizens have always required naturalization.
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.