Posted on 04/17/2016 5:57:25 PM PDT by writer33
“Every state that has looked at Ted Cruz’s eligibility has declared him to be eligible.”
False statement again. Almost all of the courts dismissed the cases on the basis of the plaintiff not having standing and/or the court not having jurisdiction over the complaint/s. The few that did make a decision did so without discovery, without a jury trial, and without any meaningful opportunity to introduce evidence before an independent trier of fact. Furthermore none of the court proceedings have the authority to overrule the prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions in which it was stated such persons either did not acquire any U.S. citizenship or could acquire only naturalized citizenship. These inferior courts do not have the authority to rewrite the Constitution at their pleasure nor the natural law from which natural born citizenship arises.
“Just because there are some people who don’t agree with those court rulings doesn’t alter the fact that no jurisdiction has declared him to be ineligible.”
Many of the same things can be said about Obamacare and a great many other unconstitutional rulings coming out of today’s corrupt judiciary and legislatures. That in no way changes the fact the courts have the lawful authority to allow a foreign born citizen to be on a ballot for election as President or to actually become inaugurated as President in the fashion of Barack Hussein Obama, who is another unlawful actor in this destruction of the Constitution and its rule of law.
“Neither of Ted Cruz’s primary election opponents, Kaisch or Trump has challenged Cruz’s eligibility in court or before a state elections board.”
Of course they did not, because they know full well the Republican party is stonewalling the eligibility issue and has been since 1880 or earlier.
“Roger Calero is a naturalzed U.S. citizen.”
Since when? “Calero has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States (holding a green card) since 1990 (Wikipedia).”
CORRECTION
That in no way changes the fact the courts [do not] have the lawful authority to allow a foreign born citizen to be on a ballot for election as President or to actually become inaugurated as President in the fashion of Barack Hussein Obama, who is another unlawful actor in this destruction of the Constitution and its rule of law.
“Paternal counts for nothing, unless you’ve got a lab far beyond the ken of the 18th century!”
Natural born citizenship in Western cultures have always required a citizen father within the jurisdiction of the sovereign for status as a natural born citizen since the days of the Roman Republic and the Greek city states. Descent of citizenship was rare, but it did exist for subjects of the Roman sovereignty. Acquisition of citizenship by descent from a citizen mother has never existed in English, British, or U.S. jurisdictions except by naturalization, and in the United States this naturalization has only been available since the 1934 change in the naturalization law.
That was long before Watson and Crick discovered DNA in 1953 (with insufficiently acknowledged help from XX Rosalind Franklin (died at 37 from ovarian cancer)).
Facts trump law, although you may need an election or two to force it (XXs outnumber XYs).
If he has NOT been naturalized, then there are only two possibilities - 1. He is considered, by law, a natural-born citizen or 2. He is an illegal alien.
With Cruz, it’s an OPTICS issue. It’s an issue of documentation. If you are born outside of the USA, there are conditions under which you are an American citizen on paper within hours of your birth. You need to file your documentation. Cruz’s mother did not. So he was, on paper, Canadian (natural born, too) until he was 16. Only thereafter did he have Americsn documentation. It’s awkward to have a President who wasn’t officially American until he was an older teen.
“That was long before Watson and Crick discovered DNA in 1953”
Yes, patriarchal descent of natural born citizenship by law has been around for thousands of years, and it is enshrined in U.S. law since the United States came into existence effective 4 July 1776. If you don’t like it just dig up the Founding Fathers and lecture them to your heart’s content.
Election boards are not qualified to rule on a candidates eligibility or ineligibility, and additionally fall under the same argument I made earlier - no election board chair is going to risk widespread opprobrium by disqualifying a leading candidate, regardless of the merits. Political decision. Won't happen.
You've really presented nothing here at all that actually speaks against what I said above.
We know Ted is naturalised from birth because that what the applicable law *said*. A plain reading by reasonably intelligent people can tell them that. Further, Cruz can't be eligible because of the principle of jus soli, someone must be born on US soil to be a natural born US citizen, which is right in line with pretty much all of English common law as well as all of our own early American jurists.
The Natural Born Citizen Clause as Originally Understood
We should note, also, that this article pretty much destroys the Gordon paper that the courts in PA and NJ tried to rely upon to find Cruz eligible. Gordon's paper from back in the 1960s was fraught with inaccuracies in both fact and reasoning. That these courts were relying on it shows how superficial and laughable their judgments on Cruz's eligibility really are.
Oh, I was certain that you had seen it. I’m also convinced that you reject anything that might question your point of view.
“Oh, I was certain that you had seen it. I’m also convinced that you reject anything that might question your point of view.”
Of course you would say that, because you are projecting your own point of view and behavior onto me. Unfortunately for your argument, that is quite the opposite of reality. I have learned a lot about this subject and continue to learn from the debates that bring new information and new insights into how it all fits together. It took a long time to fully appreciate why Blackstone’s commentaries about natural born subjects seemed at first to be contradictory, until the differences between natural born subjects and actual citizens became clear and demonstrated how the legal terms describe very different conditions.
Any child born outside the limits of the U.S. derives their US citizenship through “derivative naturalization”.
Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen.
Ted Cruz relies on 8USC1401(g) for US citizenship to run for US President, but 8USC1452(a) says that makes him a derived naturalized citizen, and thus he is Article 2 ineligible for the US Presidency. Arguments relying on statute lose, because only amendments change the US Constitution.
SCOTUS opinion in Rogers vs Bellei 1971 overruled District Court and will deny Cruz the Presidency, while Luria vs US 1913 will guarantee him all 14A rights, privileges and immunities, except serving in the Presidency.
The consequences of it certainly did. Lincoln redefined the relationships between the states and individuals, and the Central Government. His actions ushered in a series of ideas and legislation from which we are still dealing with the fallout.
The 14th amendment, though well intentioned, has now been used to justify everything from banning prayer in public schools to Abortion and "gay" marriage.
Lincoln laid the groundwork for later day "Progressives" such as Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and yes, FDR.
Lincoln’s misdeeds, though sometimes serious, simply do not compare to FDR’s.
Without Lincoln, FDR would never have been able to do such serious things in the first place. Again, FDR built on the legacy of Federal control which was left by Lincoln and others.
Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen.
You don't have to convince me. I figured this out years ago.
My rule of thumb is this: If you wouldn't be considered a "natural born citizen" by the laws in effect in 1787, then you are not one now.
If it requires a subsequent law to make you a citizen, you are not a "natural" citizen.
Court rulings claiming that Homosexuals can marry each other? Same thing.
Conclusion? The courts have lost their f***ing minds, and they now cannot be accepted as legitimately knowing what they h3ll they are talking about.
The author of the 14th amendment specifically exempted people who's parents did not become naturalized citizens.
You should not repeat your assertion. It is completely contradicted by statements from the Author of the 14th amendment. (John Bingham)
So now you're using Roger Calero? All this time I thought you didn't like seeing an example of someone being kicked off the ballot for failure to be eligible.
As I have pointed out to you many times in the past, Apparently state election officials do have, and can use this power, if they wish.
The court cases you trumpet about simply assert the public can't force them to do their D@mn jobs! (Which is utter nonsense, and about par for the course with our modern idiotic judiciary.)
So do you support state officials kicking ineligible candidates off the ballot or not? You can't be in favor of both sides of the issue at the same time. It must be either one way or the other.
So how about you decide which side of this issue you are on, and let us know?
Yeah, well they used to say "Separate but Equal." Was that true because courts said so?
You may be surprised to discover there are those of us out here who can think for ourselves, and are not dependent upon the courts to make up our minds for us.
Courts have a long history of getting things exactly wrong.
The rule of English law was that all children of a marriage were legally considered to be the children of the Husband, regardless of who was the actual father.
There are bits and pieces of that legal doctrine still embedded in US law.
A video on this subject which you might find very interesting.
No, you have totally misinterpreted what I am saying. I am saying that when people choose to use the Judicial branch as their preferred avenue for petitionng the government for redress of grievances, they leave the outcome in the hands of attorneys and judges.
There is another branch of government that could address these issues, the legislative.
If people didn’t file lawsuits, I wouldn’t be posting the outcomes of those lawsuits.
I think that it is rather harsh and unfair to characterize those who have taken the tme, expense and trouble to challenge the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama and Ted Cruz in the courts as “unable to think for themselves.”
It was another person who used Roger Calero as an example. I attempted to clarify the circumstances of Calero’s candidacy. He always knew that he was ineligible to be president and he didn’t even try to get on the ballot in some states.
His candidacy was purely symbolic.
You are correct, five states did not allow Calero on the ballot and there was a substitute candidate for the Socialist Workers Party in those states.
I have no trouble at all with the Chief Elections Officer of a state (usually that is the Secretary of State) ruling that someone is ineligible for the ballot.
I applauded the extra step taken by Arizona’s and Kansas’ Secretaries of State in getting official confirmation of Barack Obama’s birthplace before agreeing to clear him for the Arizona and Kansas ballots.
In many states, the state election laws would need to be revised in order to give the Chief Election Officer the power and authority to remove candidates from the ballot.
Each state has its own system. In quite a few states there is a Governor appointed Election Board or Commission that handles challenges to credentials. For example, in Kansas there is a state Objections Board composed of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Lieutenant Governor who handle objections to a candidate’s eligibility. In New Hampshire there is a Ballot Law Commission. In states like Georgia and New Jersey there is a multi-step process: an Administrative Law Judge conducts a trial and makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State can accept, reject or accept in part the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling; the plaintiff then has the option of appealing the Secretary of State’s decision to a state appellate court, the state Supreme Court and then the federal courts.
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.