Posted on 04/17/2016 5:57:25 PM PDT by writer33
One wonders if Conservative Review has anyone connected with it who has any knowledge whatsoever of constitutional legal research or any other legal research? It does not appear so. This article is blissfully ignorant of any knowledge of the law whatsoever.
“The best discussion of this issue with an excellent argument”
You can peddle that garbage all you want, but it cannot change the simple fact that naturalized citizens are not natural born citizens, and no child born abroad can possibly be a natural born citizen without the protection of diplomatic immunity, as observed by the U.S. Supreme court.
“I guess I have to tell you I am SHOCKED that with his billions of dollars that Donald Trump has not had Cruz removed from the ballot in any state. If this is such an obvious slam-dunk, why is he still on the ballot in all the states?”
For the same reasons a self proclaimed Communist and alien resident from a Central American nation was not removed from the ballots in earlier presidential elections; i.e. government incompetence and corruption.
Court rulings on Ted Cruz’s eligibility as a natural born citizen:
Arkansas (Librace v Cruz) complaint dismissed
Florida (Voeltz v Cruz) dismissed
Illinois Election Board, ruled eligible
Indiana Election Commission (Cruz), ruled eligible.
New Hampshire Ballot Commission, ruled eligible
New Jersey (Williams v Cruz), ruled eligible
New York (Korman & Gallo v Cruz) dismissed
Pennsylvania (Elliott v Cruz) Cruz ruled eligible
Texas (Schwartz v Cruz) dismissed
Utah (Wagner v Cruz) dismissed, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Court rulings finding that Ted Cruz was naturalized at birth: 0
True for the French diplomat, but false for the Honduran ilegales.
The ambassador doesn't have to pay his parking tickets. He is not "subject to the jurisdiction". He has diplomatic immunity. Not so with the Hondurans. Lacking immunity, they are subject to the jurisdiction and are required to obey parking and other American law.
Result: the ambassador's kid is not a US citizen, despite being born in NYC. But, because the Hondurans are "subject to the jurisdiction", their kid is an anchor baby, under the terms of the 14th.
oops
Mark Levin is ignorant of the law.
really?
I love how you are bringing it to this fight.
He has never illustrated that he has done any in depth research on the intent behind the use of the phrase at issue in Article II of the Constitution. Can you point to any?
“If such a resolution is ever needed for Senator Cruz, a bi-partisan group of senators will co-sponsor it.”
1. The resolution was deliberately made nonbinding and not a law.
2. The resolution was factually incorrect insofar as it falsely implied the U.S. Canal Zone was within the jurisdiction of an incorporated territory and Article III courts required for natural born citizenship, when in fact the U.S. Canal Zone was an unincorporated territory of the U.S., outside the jurisdiction of the Article III courts required for natural born citizenship, and within the jurisdiction of the territorial courts sufficient only for automatic naturalized citizenship at birth.
3. The resolution may or may not have incorrectly stated the place of birth as having occurred within the U.S. Canal Zone. John McCain III has refused to disclose his true birth certificate to the public, and the only copy of his birth certificate available to the public is a copy filed in a lawsuit without authentication of its provenance, which states John McCain was born in the Colon Hospital, Colon, Republic of Panama and not at the Coco Solo Navy Hospital, Coco Solo Naval Station, Canal Zone.
4. No child born outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution’s Article III courts can acquire U.S. citizenship by any means other than naturalization, except when under the protection of diplomatic immunity.
Roger Calero could not be on the ballot in several states and the Socialist Worker Party had to use a substitute candidate (James Harris) in states that would not allow Calero on the ballot.
“In 2004, Róger Calero was the SWP candidate for President of the United States and received 3,689 votes with Arrin Hawkins running for Vice President. Because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States, Calero is ineligible to become U.S. president under the United States Constitution, meaning that even had he won the election, he would not have been permitted to serve, and so James Harris, the Socialist Workers’ Party presidential candidate from 2000, stood in on the ticket in nine states where Calero could not be listed, receiving 7,102 additional votes.
Róger Calero again ran for President of the United States representing the SWP in the 2008 presidential election, together with Alyson Kennedy for vice-president. Again, James Harris stood in for Calero in several states. In the 2008 presidential election, Calero was on the ballot in five states, where he received 7,209 votes. Coupled with the 2,424 votes received in the five states where Harris was on the ballot.”—Wikipedia
“Court rulings on Ted Cruz’s eligibility as a natural born citizen:”
That is a fake and false claim. Dismissals do not allow discovery or a trial of the evidence. Furthermore, such cases have no power to overrule prior Supreme court decisions to the contrary, the Constitution without an Amendment to the Constitution, nor natural law.
Whatever.
Nobody ever said they need to be, just US citizens.
Mitch McConnell has aready said they would not pass a resolution for Cruz
Different times, different customs. Whatever the case, legal definitions do not change with the customs... at least, that's how we used to think.
Here some real garbage that you can peddle around. It will be more to your liking.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Here is a Breitbart interview where Levin discusses Article II and other clear reasons Cruz is a natural born citizen:
I also think this article utilizing Court reasoning in Heller is quite important and clear:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/11/ted-cruz-eligible-second-amendment/
All of which changes nothing. The question was asked why Cruz was still on the ballot if he was an illegal candidate. Roger Calero was on some of the ballots despite being a foreign Communist, which demonstrates the U.S. elections allowed an ineligible candidate to be on at lest some state ballots despite his strikingly obvious ineligibility. Just because the same kind of government malfeasance has allowed Ted Cruz to remain on all of the ballots so far does not indicate he is a lawful candidate, especially in these days of such widespread contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution by the Democrat and Republican political parties and their supporters in all walks of life.
3. He could be "considered as a natural-born citizen. (meaning he's not one)
4. He could be a legal foreign national.
Millar Fillmore? Yo, Steve, before publishing something, it might help if you’d do a wee little bit of research. Guess you missed the part that grandfathers in the early presidents.
Obama and Hillary both signed their names to the original Senate Resolution 511 stating NBC means born on US soil to two US citizen parents. Neither the Kenyan nor the Canadian are eligible. But just like illegals are now “essentially citizens”, the rule book has been thrown out the window by both parties.
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.