Bad news for Ted Cruz: his eligibility for president is going to court

a reply to: Xcathdra

Something about Hawaii becoming a state just prior to Obama's birth there, and accepting his birth certificate.


With Cruz, I had to track down one change in citizenship law after another to even determine if Cruz was legally a citizen.There have been a lot of changes since the founding of this country. He is technically a citizen, although he carried dual citizenship until last year, but the "natural born" clause in the constitution can be interpreted much different than citizen.

In the end, its for the courts to decide, but I don't want to see people with dual citizenship who were born outside of this country be able to be president, that really opens a can of worms. I have nothing against Cruz personally other than I don't favor him for presidency, he would be a candidate anyway, but I think allowing him because he is a good example, leaves it wide open for all the bad examples which could then follow.

I hope that makes sense.

Why aren't you getting Stars and Flags for this thread? Well anyway, I gave you some!

originally posted by: Xcathdra
I am curious what the difference is that allowed the courts to throw out Obama's eligibility challenges while accepting Cruz's.

Obama was born in the US.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: hellobruce

Name one.

Here's two.

www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...

I think the definition of "natural born citizen" should be settled by a federal court, so we can put this all behind us.
I think Ted Cruz IS eligible, but it all depends on the definition of natural-born.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It needs to be done, or else this issue will continue to come up in every election cycle. In my opinion and I know some constitutional scholars believe author's of our constitution of "natural born citizen" means being born on U.S. soil. I'm sure our founder's never contemplated the scenario in which Ted Cruz and John McCain found themselves in. Back then, the population didn't travel around the world as easy as they do today.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Xcathdra

If that idiot from Kenya was eligible I am sure Cruz will be just fine.

I'm pretty sure that Cruz will be fine too, but this is a terrible reason to say so. Obama was definitely born in the states, whether you want to believe it or not.

It doesn't matter if he was born on Wall street, only idiotic religious people like him. Trump will beat him so bad in S.C. tomorrow that Ted will wish he had stayed in Canada. Im talking double lead, watch and learn.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Xcathdra

It needs to be done, or else this issue will continue to come up in every election cycle. In my opinion and I know some constitutional scholars believe author's of our constitution of "natural born citizen" means being born on U.S. soil. I'm sure our founder's never contemplated the scenario in which Ted Cruz and John McCain found themselves in. Back then, the population didn't travel around the world as easy as they do today.

This.

I think it should happen also so that we have something finally clearly defined as to what "Natural Born Citizen" is.

Our Framers obviously assumed here something that is now debated. To them back then it was most likely a no brainer as to what they meant, but our world has changed so much now.

Back then, travel was very hard and slow from the US to other countries. More than likely, in my humble opinion, our Framers meant: Born here on US soil to parents who were US citizens already.

The key is the word "Natural", as it's quite obvious that "Born Citizen" means that they were born a US citizen and not a person who was a citizen of another nation before.

But that world "Natural" what did it mean to them back in 1789 ? I'm pretty sure there were no "test tube" babies back then.....
My own personal opinion is that they meant: A person who was naturally born here in the US.

Things are a LOT different now. A US couple could be on vacation say over in France, and the mother goes into labor and gives birth to their son/daughter there. A few days later they fly back to the US. So to us, it shouldn't really mater.

To the Framers back then, things were different. Travel was very hard and difficult, taking weeks and even months sometimes. They may have firmly thought that any US president needs to be someone actually born on US soil.

I mean, we're talking about a time period where they still thought blood letting was a good idea now, heh.

a reply to: Metallicus

No kidding, Canada is, afterall, on the same continent!

a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't get it? On what grounds is he bringing this lawsuit? What standing does he have? In other words, what particularized legal injury is this lawyer suffering due to Cruz's name appearing on the ballot? He can just vote for Carson if that's the candidate he supports.

It sounds like this is another natural-born citizen case intentionally set up to fail, to me. Just like the controlled opposition plants that brought so many of the failed Obama cases.

The only way to have a case heard on its merits is to demonstrate a particularized legal injury that hinges on whether or not the President is a natural-born citizen. Cruz is not president. No citizen is harmed by whether or not he is eligible to serve as President...not at this point anyway.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't know who's bringing the lawsuit, but if it's Trump, he DOES have standing as he's in a contest with Cruz that Cruz is not eligible to win.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't know who's bringing the lawsuit, but if it's Trump, he DOES have standing as he's in a contest with Cruz that Cruz is not eligible to win.

It's not Trump. It's some lawyer, "It was filed by Lawrence Joyce, an attorney who has told local media that he supports Dr. Ben Carson and has had no connection with the Trump campaign."

And I honestly don't see what standing Trump would have either. Maybe you have something in mind?

I agree that Cruz is not eligible and I would love to see a federal court opinion on the merits of a natural born citizen case. But until someone can show a particularized legal injury due to Cruz running, there is no case.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Bad news for Ted Cruz: his eligibility for president is going to court

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

It clearly say "fourteen years as a resident within the United States"........so this clearly presupposes birth outside the country whatever age, 35 and older at the current, just so the person is a citizen of 14 years.

If its not presupposing this then it is making it clear that if you were born outside the country to a citizen then you are eligible with the stipulation that you live in country for 14 years.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't know who's bringing the lawsuit, but if it's Trump, he DOES have standing as he's in a contest with Cruz that Cruz is not eligible to win.

Thinking about it further, I can maybe see one way to get it in front of a federal court. A person could volunteer to work for- and donate to the Cruz campaign based on Cruz's claim that he is an eligible natural-born citizen. Then they could perhaps file a suit claiming they were defrauded upon learning he is not eligible.

That could potentially be a case with standing.

originally posted by: Medicator
It doesn't matter if he was born on Wall street, only idiotic religious people like him. Trump will beat him so bad in S.C. tomorrow that Ted will wish he had stayed in Canada. Im talking double lead, watch and learn.

watch and learn what?

How to insult people, throw a fit like a child who lost their pacifier, change your story and your tune every 3 min, ramble on mealy mouthed about politics and foreign policies you have no idea about, scrunch your face like you ate a crap flavored lemon, threaten to sue people, try to sick your security attack dogs on protesters? Call your voter base lemmings?

Watch and learn how to try and seduce women and then try to destroy their careers when youre turned down?

Exactly what are we suppose to be learning from Trump?

Besides the fact that his supporters have lost all touch with reality

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Bad news for Ted Cruz: his eligibility for president is going to court

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

It clearly say "fourteen years as a resident within the United States"........so this clearly presupposes birth outside the country whatever age, 35 and older at the current, just so the person is a citizen of 14 years.

If its not presupposing this then it is making it clear that if you were born outside the country to a citizen then you are eligible with the stipulation that you live in country for 14 years.

No, it just presupposes that some people may live in another country at some point after their birth in the U.S.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Exactly my point. There are things written in the constitution that didn't take into consideration future technology and how it could affect American citizens. The second amendment is also a prime example. If you want to take the right to bare arms exactly the way it is written in our constitution, than "natural born citizen" should also be taken as it is written, born on U.S. soil.

In some ways, our constitution has become outdated. Who would have foreseen back then, cell phones, television, mass media, the internet and social media, assault rifles, WMD's, mass transportation, computers etc.... It's a whole different world now when compared to the 17th century.

Some of the laws we're creating now probably won't apply in the next 200 years because of the speed of technology. Cars and other transportation may become non-existent. We may be able to step into a transport booth and transport ourselves anywhere in the world. Star Trek science fiction is quickly becoming a reality.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm pretty sure that natural born means you don't have to take any steps to be a citizen. In other words you don't have to take any oaths or go through a naturalization process. He's a citizen by virtue of his American mother. Just like Pres. Obama. Who also had the added benefit of actually being born on American soil.

originally posted by: Medicator
It doesn't matter if he was born on Wall street, only idiotic religious people like him. Trump will beat him so bad in S.C. tomorrow that Ted will wish he had stayed in Canada. Im talking double lead, watch and learn.

The latest polls show Trump only has a five point lead.

I am actually going to predict Trump loses to Cruz.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm pretty sure that natural born means you don't have to take any steps to be a citizen. In other words you don't have to take any oaths or go through a naturalization process. He's a citizen by virtue of his American mother. Just like Pres. Obama.

I would say it means you are born a citizen instead of acquiring citizenship at- or after birth.

Since there are no written laws stating a child born to two U.S. citizen parents on undisputed U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, then that's the definition I would call 'natural law.' No written law is necessary to declare such a child a U.S. citizen.

Anything else is found in written/positive law so citizenship is acquired at- or after birth.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The courts don't agree with your interpretation. Just look at Perkins v. Elg for an example.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The courts don't agree with your interpretation. Just look at Perkins v. Elg for an example.

I don't think any court has the jurisdiction to decide what natural law is. On this one issue, the drafters deferred to 'natural law.'

As soon as a court or legislative body tries(d) to give the term a legal definition, it's no longer 'natural law' and becomes positive law.

Just my take on it.