politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Ted Cruz is Not Eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 20, 2016
Author: Einer Elhauge
Post Date: 2016-04-06 15:24:09 by lana
Keywords: None
Views: 5428
Comments: 95
Ted Cruz is Not Eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution The closer you study the Constitution, the weaker Ted Cruz's case squares with the actual meaning of "natural-born" Einer Elhauge Topics: Ted Cruz, Elections 2016, Editor's Picks, Donald Trump, Natural-born citizen, Can Ted Cruz be president, Can Ted Cruz run for president, constitution, aol_on, Business News, Life News, News, Politics News (Credit: Reuters/Chris Keane) The argument that Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president initially looked strong, then probable but uncertain. But closer examination shows it is surprisingly weak. The constitutional text provides that a president, unlike other elected officials, must be a “natural born citizen.” This language could not mean anyone born a citizen or else the text would have simply stated “born citizen.” The word “natural” is a limiting qualifier that indicates only some persons who are born citizens qualify. Moreover, when the Constitution was enacted, the word “natural” meant something not created by statute, as with natural rights or natural law, which instead were part of the common law. At common law, “natural born” meant someone born within the sovereign territory with one narrow exception. The exception was for children of public officials serving abroad, which does not help Cruz because his parents were not serving the United States when he was born in Canada. The case of John McCain was entirely different because he was born in a U.S. territory (the Panama Canal Zone) and to U.S. parents who were serving the U.S. military. The argument for Cruz rests on some old statutes, namely English statutes enacted before the U.S. Constitution and U.S. statutes enacted just after. But neither turns out to be persuasive on closer examination. The English statutes extended natural-born status to persons born abroad whose father was any English subject, rather than only a public official. Some argue that the constitutional framers meant to refer to this statutory redefinition of the term “natural born.” But that position contradicts the ordinary meaning that the word “natural” indicates a non-statutory meaning. Moreover, Prof. Mary McManamon offers convincing evidence that the Framers meant the common law meaning. James Madison himself said in 1789 that the U.S. used the place of birth rather than parentage. In any event, Cruz’s father was not a U.S. citizen when he was born (again unlike McCain), so these English statutes do not help Cruz. The U.S. statute in 1790 provided that “children of citizens of the United States” that are born abroad “shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” This has been thought the strongest evidence for Cruz’s position since so many 1790 congressmen had participated in the Constitutional Convention. However, this statute did not say these children were natural-born citizens. It instead carefully said they “shall be considered as” natural-born citizens, suggesting that Congress thought they were not natural-born citizens but should be treated as such. Indeed, there would have been no need to pass the statute if they were already understood to be natural-born citizens. Further, when this Act was reconsidered in a few years, Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize aliens, not U.S. citizens, and reported a bill that amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.” This indicates that Madison’s view was that children born abroad of U.S. citizens were naturally aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be called “natural born.” Congress adopted this amendment in 1795.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: lana (#0)
Natural Born is in contradistinction to naturalized. Cruz is a natural born citizen. So is Rubio. Whether or not Obama is depends on a question of law that has never been answered. Logically he is not.
don't we're ebonics love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Of Canada.
Of both Canada and the USA.
Says who?
He's a citizen of both Canada and the USA, but a natural born citizen of only Canada.
WOW! Harvard Law! Isn't that were various Kennedy's and Bathhouse Barry got their law degrees? BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
He's a natural born citizen of the USA. His mother was a citizen, and under the law at the time of his birth, Cruz was, therefore, a citizen. The law wasn't that when Obama was born, so it's an interesting question. But the law WAS that when Cruz was born, so it's clear: he was born a citizen. That's what natural born means. The opposite of natural born in naturalized. You don't agree? Litigate it and win.
Logic.
Correct. Just not a natural born citizen since he wasn't born here.
Meaning you made it up.
Natural born is not defined anywhere as being born here. Truth: this has never been litigated. Therefore, there is no answer that is certain. There is a logical answer, I've given it. Two kinds of citizens : Natural born versus naturalized. And there's the political answer - the answer most likely to be given by the federal courts, and I've given it: Cruz is natural born - OBama is natural born if born in Hawaii, but perhaps naturalized if born in Kenya. And then there are all of the speculative answers. The TRUE answer will be whatever the Supreme Court decides once it has been litigated. If it's never litigated, then the answer is the facts on the ground. If Cruz is elected and takes office, he's natural born until somebody wins a Supreme Court case that says otherwise, or the Constition is amendeed.
As have you - everything you've said. There is no controlling legal authority - none. It's never been litigated. There is a logic to the law, and I'm better placed than most to know that logic, given that I've studied law, graduated with honors, practiced for a long time, been admitted in two states and before two federal courts. There is no final answer until the Supremes rule, and there's no case before them. So anybody can say whatever he'd like. I think that if it went before the federal courts, they would rule that born a citsen = natural born. No other decision would fit the logic of the law. For all of the energy put into arguing originalism, originalism is not the law of the land, never has been, and unless Trump is elected and puts originalists on the court, probably never ever will be. So, what Vattel said in 1768 is completely irrelevant.
Never happen - he loves Kelo. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Three kinds of citizens: Natural born, naturalized, and born abroad to citizen parents. Cruz is the third kind. "Therefore, there is no answer that is certain." Correct. And given the uncertainty, who will vote for someone who may be disqualified?
Even 30 Rock got it right:
All of the Cruz supporters. Republicans whose heads are screwed on with bolts. Nobody else. Cruz will never be President. There's no point spending any time speculating about it. He is eminently detestable, and detested by everybody who has had to work with him. Hillary, or Sanders, will beat him like a drum.
He has said that he likes justices like Scalia. He will appoint conservative justices. Scalia opposed Kelo.
He will appoint conservative justices. Scalia opposed Kelo. I'm not sure Trump knows that Scalia opposed Kelo. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
He was natural born in Canada and the USA? That's a first. Looking forward to the bumper sticker: Cruz, Natural Born Twice!
Cite?
www.breitbart.com/video/2...-eminent-domain-even-for-private- projects-is-wonderful-thing-youre-not-taking-property/ : Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump argued that eminent domain, including for private projects that “employ thousands of people” is “a wonderful thing” in an interview broadcast on Tuesday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel. Trump stated, “I think eminent domain is wonderful, if you’re building a highway, and you need to build, as an example, a highway, and you’re going to be blocked by a hold-out, or, in some cases, it’s a hold-out, just so you understand, nobody knows this better than I do, because I built a lot of buildings in Manhattan, and you’ll have 12 sites and you’ll get 11 and you’ll have the one hold-out and you end up building around them and everything else, okay? So, I know it better than anybody. I think eminent domain for massive projects, for instance, you’re going to create thousands of jobs, and you have somebody that’s in the way, and you pay that person far more — don’t forget, eminent domain, they get a lot of money, and you need a house in a certain location, because you’re going to build this massive development that’s going to employ thousands of people, or you’re going to build a factory, that without this little house, you can’t build the factory. I think eminent domain is fine.” Trump was then asked for his past support for the Supreme Court’s ruling on eminent domain in Kelo v. New London, he stated, “Eminent domain — number one, a person has a house, and they end up getting much more than the house is ever worth. You know, eminent domain is not like you — they take your house.” He added, “if you have a road or highway, you gotta do it. If you have a factory where you have thousands of jobs, and you need eminent domain, it’s called economic development.” A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Thanks. Another reason to vote for Trump. He's more of an originalist than Scalia was.
Canadian, Cuban, and American. Throw a dart at a map of north america, and the odds are that Teddy is a "natural born citizen" there. If you don't have a clue what Natural Born Citizen means. If he's a natural born citizen of the US because of his American mother, he's also a natural born citizen of Cuba because of his Cuban father? He can run for el presidente of Cuba too! Good point. Cruz, Natural Born Thrice!
Like Trump said, if you were in favor of the Keystone Pipeline you were in favor of eminent domain.
As the Founders and Framers intended.
Cite? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)
That depends entirely on Cuban law. If his mother was an American citizen and the law of the USA at the time he was born said that he was an American citizen, then he was natural born. Being born on a given piece of dirt is irrelevant - unless it's THIS dirt, THEN, because of the 14th Amendment, he'd be natural born even if BOTH of his parents were foreign citizens (unless they had diplomatic immunity and were not, as a result, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States").
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) excluded the children of invaders from automatic citizenship. Of course, the Rats and the GOPe will never treat the invaders as invaders,
That was before the Fourteenth Amendment; since then, see 166 U.S. 226, 233, 236-37 (1897).
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
The 14th Amend. says nothing about eminent domain. Or incorporation. In Kelo, the Court effectively chose to protect original intent.
BTW, you didn't bother to actually read the decision, did you? The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company lost big time, with the Court holding, "The requirement that compensation be made for private property taken for public use imposes no restriction upon the inherent power of the State by reasonable regulations to protect the lives and secure the safety of the people."
Yes. It is also just the Americanized version of of the English natural born subject. Also, in the early use of the term by John Jay, it was written "natural born citizen," giving clear emphasis to the word born.
Illegal aliens are not invaders. They're illegal immigrants. You don't employ invaders in businesses and homes. But look, it's easy to get the answers to all of these things: litigate them, and send them up to the Supreme Court. Who wins the election will determine who controls the court, and how the court answers. So, it's Hillary or Trump who will decide. You pretty much know how Hillary will decide most things, and Trump.
The fight will be endless until it's settled by litigation...or by it not mattering. By the "Immaculate Conception" theory of natural birth, both parents have to be born on US soil of US-soil-born parents for a child to be natural born. Trump's mother comes from Scotland, so according to some cranks he's not natural born either. And even if the Supreme Court rules that he is, some cranks will take the position that this was not "the original intent" (as if they know what the founders "intended") and still won't accept somebody who wasn't "immaculately conceived" as natural brn
2. it's easy to get the answers to all of these things: litigate them, and send them up to the Supreme Court. 1. Criminals do. It's illegal to employ them in businesses and homes. 2. Nope. It's a political question. Congress could and should declare them invaders.
It's a political question. Congress could and should declare them invaders. There are insufficient votes in Congress to do anything like that. Congress is moving in the opposite direction.
Yep. Too many cucks.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 was decided in 1898. I'm curious. When did you think the 14th amendment was ratified?
Its "interpretation" mutates from moment to moment.
Ratified in 1868, it took the U.S. Supreme Court 100 years to come to the conclusion that, hey, the 14th amendment means the BOR applies to the states.
My citing that case had nothing to do with the specific plaintiff ... nor is there any evidence on the table tha any of Trump's uses of eminent domain have done anything "to protect the lives and secure the safety of the people." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Relevance? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Or the issue being discussed.
I'll take the Court's reasoning over your say-so: "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due proces of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
The 14th Amend. says nothing about eminent domain. Or incorporation. And the Court's reasoning in Kelo laughed at your position.
You said that case was decided before the 14th amendment. What's relevant is that you were wrong.
He's trying to argue that the 14th Amendment retroactively and posthumously changed the minds of the Founders and Framers. It's just flat bizarre.
That may be one of its effects - a broader effect, as stated in the dissent which Scalia (and Thomas) joined, is that 'To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.' And this is so for its application to federal action as well, since nothing in the ruling excludes that. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Did I? In which post and with exactly what words? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
I'll take the Court's reasoning over your say-so: "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation." Wrong as usual - Kelo in no way contradicts that compensation is required when a state exercises eminent domain, but broadens the meaning of "public use" that is a requirement for a state to exercise eminent domain. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Your blatant and clumsy lies are just flat bizarre. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
The Court ruled in 1897, "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation." - CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. v. CITY OF CHICAGO A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
In what post and with exactly what words did I disagree that 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) expressed the intent of the Founders and Framers?
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
That ruling does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states. It applies the 14th Amendment's EXPLICIT due process requirement on the states to the states. Are you really that dim?
Did you already forget your lame non sequitur, "That was before the Fourteenth Amendment..."?
OK, so it was a non sequitur. (It was, by the by, relevant to your earlier claim, "He's [Trump] more of an originalist than Scalia was." Originalists support enforcing even those amendments not authored by the Framers and Founders.) A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
The Fifth Amendment applied to the federal government, not the states. O’Connor's argument (odd that you left her name off) was premised on a position contrary to fact. BTW, Scalia didn't write a dissent. Beyond that, it was a policy argument. Legislative bodies set policy.
Enforce the Fifth Amendment to your heart's content. It wasn't a restriction on the states, and neither was it the source of the state's inherent eminent domain and police powers. You keep trying to assume your false premise.
The Court ruled in 1897, "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation." That ruling does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states. It applies the 14th Amendment's EXPLICIT due process requirement on the states to the states. And in so applying also applies the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
The Court rejected your penumbral emanation.
The Fourteenth applied to the states. Which part of "joined" did you not undestand? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
The Court ruled in 1897, "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation." That ruling does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states. It applies the 14th Amendment's EXPLICIT due process requirement on the states to the states. And in so applying also applies the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The Court rejected your penumbral emanation. Clearly you're wrong. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
The part that stuck Scalia's name on a dissent by O'Connor without naming her. Was that deliberate?
And also the Fourteenth? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Which part of "joined" did you not undestand? The part that stuck Scalia's name on a dissent That he joined. Look into a remedial reading course. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
That ruling does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states. It applies the 14th Amendment's EXPLICIT due process requirement on the states to the states. And in so applying also applies the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. "And in so applying also applies the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause" appears nowhere in the 1897 decision. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
You didn't name O'Connor, just Scalia. Transparent dishonesty.
Have you already forgotten what is actually says?
Transparent dishonesty. Transparent nonsense - O'Connor, unlike Scalia, had not previously been mentioned on this thread and is of no clear relevance. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
The author of the dissent. For shame.
Incorporation has often been traced back to Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago - but on further examination the case for that looks weak to me. However, the "it took the U.S. Supreme Court 100 years" claim (not yours) is still wrong - from Gitlow v. New York (1925): "For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press - which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress - are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Which is relevant to the current exchange how? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
A horrific bit of judicial legislation. Now the First Amendment means that federal judges may ban prayer in local schools, may crowbar the Ten Commandments off of state courthouse walls, may seize Nativity Scenes in the town square, that pro- life activists may be arrested for praying near abortuaries, etc.
How is Scalia's joining a dissent by [the name you refuse to state] relevant to the current exchange?
Those abominations required not only incorporation but also the inversion/perversion of "freedom of religion" into "freedom from religion" - and it's clear to me which is the more intrinsically objectionable. Gitlow, while not as far as I can see making a positive argument for incorporation, does note that Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907) raised the question and left it undecided. So at least that early, the door was left open for incorporation. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Scalia was cited by you as a standard of measurement for originalism: "He's more of an originalist than Scalia was."
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
A low standard.
Ah, so "He's [Trump] more of an originalist than" was the proverbial faint praise.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
No. Just a statement of fact.
There are no less than four SCOTUS rulings defining Natural Born Citizen.
Eli, Eli, nai erchomai Kurios Iesous.
Checked the claims about the first case - the author is wrong already: "In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:" That quotation was from Marshall's dissent and was in the context of inquiring "how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside" - nothing to do with natural born citizens. I don't have furhter time to waste on such poorly researched material. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Birthers swing... Birthers miss again... and again... http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-yorkers-seek-court-order-ted-cruz-ballot-article-1.2536639 BY Barbara Ross Two New York based retirees have beaten Donald Trump to the punch by filing a lawsuit to get Ted Cruz off the ballot because of his Canadian roots. The pair filed papers in Manhattan Supreme Court on Thursday asking the court to order Cruz off the ballot in the state's Republican presidential primary on April 19. Cruz has insisted that he is qualified to be president because any child born abroad to an American citizen gets American citizenship automatically. When Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, his mother was an American citizen. She was born in Wilmington, Del. His father was a native of Cuba who became a citizen of Canada after Cruz was born. In court papers, Barry Korman, 81, of Manhattan and William Gallo, 85, of Manhasset say Cruz "has publicly admitted that he was born in Canada" and state election law says "a person shall not be designated or nominated for a public office or party position who is ... ineligible to be elected or ... meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications." They point out that Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution says, "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." Therefore, they contend, Cruz is "constitutionally ineligible" to become President. Roger J. Bernstein, the lawyer for the Korman and Gallo, said Cruz is right in saying he is a citizen but he is a “naturalized” citizen because he was born abroad. "The key words here are 'natural born.' It comes from an old English concept that you have to be born in the realm of the king," he said, adding that's not the case with Cruz. Bernstein said his clients — who also have filed a separate challenge to Cruz' candidacy at the state Board of Elections in Albany — filed the lawsuit because "they want to get this settled and resolved so people don't waste their vote." [...] BY Glenn Blain ALBANY — A state judge expects to decide by Monday whether to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to toss Ted Cruz off New York primary ballots because he was born in Canada. State Supreme Court Judge David Weinstein told attorneys for both sides Thursday he will likely need the weekend to decide whether to grant Cruz’s motion to dismiss the case brought by two New York-based retirees. Cruz’s attorney Grant Lally argued Thursday the two plaintiffs — Barry Korman, 81, of Manhattan and William Gallo, 85, of Manhasset — waited too long bring their case. Under state law, they had three days from the time Cruz submitted paperwork to be on the ballot to file objections with the state Board of Elections. The pair waited 19 days. “They didn’t just blow it, they blew it by a mile,” Lally told Weinstein. Lally, who insisted Cruz met the constitutional requirements to run for President, also argued such matters should be argued in federal court. Attorney Roger Bernstein, who represents Korman and Gallo, said his clients were late because the Board of Elections took several days to post Cruz’s paperwork on its website. Bernstein also argued it shouldn’t matter when they filed the case because the Board of Elections routinely defers to courts in such matters. “It’s an empty exercise to file objections,” Bernstein said. In their lawsuit, Korman and Gallo argue Cruz was born in Canada and does not meet the “constitutional or statutory qualifications" to run for President [...] By Staff Writer On Monday, a state judge rejected a challenge to Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz's status as a natural-born citizen. The judge ruled that the case was filed too late to have merit. State Supreme Court Justice David Weinstein's ruling allows Ted Cruz's name to remain on the New York ballot for its April 19 presidential primary. According to USA Today, state residents William Gallo of Nassau County and Barry Korman of New York City filed a lawsuit against the Texas senator and the state Board of Elections. Both Gallo and Korman argued that Ted Cruz isn't a natural-born citizen of America and that he was born in Canada, thus, should be removed from the New York Ballot. However, the state of Board of Elections argued that the challenge was submitted after the deadline to raise objections. Judge Weinstein agreed and declined to review the constitutional issue whether Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen. Judge Weinstein wrote that despite the many arguments proffered by petitioners, none can get them around the 'immovable object' standing in the way of such petition, and that is the fact that they have 'failed to file objections within the statutory deadline'. Democrat and Chronicle published Judge Weinstein's decision in the case. In January, attorney Lawrence Joyce, who supports Cruz's rival Ben Carson, also filed a complaint with the elections board, as reported by Reuters. The board rejected the plaintiff's complaint and Joyce filed a lawsuit which aims to seek judicial review in Cook County. The law in New York requires preliminary objections to be filed and submitted against a candidate's ballot status three days after they file petitions. In April, Cruz's name will be included along with the six Republicans on the New York primary ballot like front-runner Donald Trump, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Sen. Marco Rubio. Meanwhile, two other candidates will also appear on the ballot despite already having dropped out, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Jeb Bush. Aamer Madhani CHICAGO — An Illinois judge on Tuesday dismissed a legal challenge brought by a voter who contends that Sen. Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for president because he was born in Canada. Judge Maureen Ward Kirby of the Cook County Circuit Court dismissed the complaint brought by Lawrence Joyce, because he failed to properly serve Cruz and members of the Illinois State Board of Elections as required by law. Joyce, a pharmacist and attorney from Poplar Grove, Ill., filed his suit last month after the elections board dismissed Joyce's complaint that Cruz, who was born in Calgary to a U.S. citizen, did not meet the "natural born" eligibility requirement to seek the nation's highest office. The board ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the eligibility of the candidate in a federal race. But Kirby said she was required to dismiss the case, because state law stipulates the candidate be served with the complaint. Joyce, who says he supports GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson, failed to serve Cruz or any members of the board. Voters in Alabama, Texas and New York also have filed legal challenges on whether Cruz meets the citizenship qualifications. The Indiana Board of Election last month rejected challenges to whether Cruz and fellow GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio meet the "natural-born" requirement. Rubio, whose parents immigrated from Cuba, was born in Florida. A similar complaint brought against Cruz and Rubio was also dismissed on Monday by a federal judge in Arkansas. The issue of whether Cruz is a "natural-born" citizen has also been raised by rival GOP presidential contender Donald Trump, who has threatened to file a lawsuit on the issue. Cruz maintains he meets the criteria because his mother is American-born. Joyce has the right to appeal the decision, but says he will wait to see Super Tuesday results before making his decision.Even with the loss, Joyce said he believes that the legal challenges brought by him and others has done some damage to Cruz's standing with Republican voters. "Did these challenges nationwide damage him to a point where he didn't win a single county (in South Carolina)?," Joyce said. "He lost Dillon County, S.C. by 60 votes. Did these challenges cost Ted Cruz 60 votes in Dillon County. I wouldn't surprised if we weren't responsible for some of those votes." Cruz has dismissed the efforts as "political mischief." "This lawsuit was merely a misguided attempt to distract the voters away from the candidate who is the most qualified candidate we have for president," Cruz attorney Sharee Langenstein said after Tuesday's hearing. "I'm just glad we're able to move on from it. I think it's a distraction from what's actually most important in this particular race." The Illinois primary will be held on March 15. Two recent polls of Illinois voters show Trump with a sizable lead in the state over Cruz, Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
How's this: Cruz epitomizes the worst in both Clinton and Obama, he is a sex deviant and a illegal alien. Demand Cruz unseal his records and produce a CRBA with his name on it, issued by the USA when he was born in Canada. Those that oppose the birther talk never present US Supreme Court cases, we who oppose Cruz based on his ineligibility, do. Folks, the US Constitution, like the bible is not about picking and choosing which parts you like, it is take it 1005 or you will have none of it. Article Two, Section Two, subsection Five is clear, one must be a Natural Born Citizen to be President of these Untied States. Cruz does not qualify. www.mainetv.net/col_lawre nce_sellin_001.htm Eli, Eli, nai erchomai Kurios Iesous.
The sex allegation is an allegation. You or I don't know if it is true. He isn't an illegal alien. That doesn't mean he is a natural born citizen though. In my view he isn't. I have to say that to be consistent because I said the same of Obama.
And, as I showed, you get them wrong. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
No you didn't show that. You talked about laws. If a law had to be passed that is not natural born.
I did? In which post(s)? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
dont know or care. He isn't natural born.
Really? If he had no CRBA, “The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. He had no passport, so how did he get from Canada to the USA? If no CRBA and no Passport, what is he? Let me help you, he is an illegal alien. `eth yalad `eth muwth.
You did no such thing, what you did was give em some garbage about a decision from an inferior court, a ruling worth less than the paper is written on. `eth yalad `eth muwth.
You've confused me with someone else - one of the many things you're confused about. I showed that YOUR link got SEVERAL facts wrong about the FIRST Supreme Court case it cited. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#2. To: lana (#0)
(Edited)
you
know
a
democracy
is
the
official
language
law
now
boris
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Cruz is a natural born citizen.
#4. To: Roscoe (#3)
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
"Natural Born is in contradistinction to naturalized."
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
"Of both Canada and the USA."
#7. To: lana (#0)
#8. To: misterwhite (#6)
#9. To: misterwhite (#5)
Says who?
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
"His mother was a citizen, and under the law at the time of his birth, Cruz was, therefore, a citizen."
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
Says who?
Logic.
#12. To: misterwhite (#10)
#13. To: misterwhite (#11)
(Edited)
Meaning you made it up.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
unless Trump is elected and puts originalists on the court
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
"Two kinds of citizens : Natural born versus naturalized."
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
#17. To: misterwhite (#15)
who will vote for someone who may be disqualified?
#18. To: ConservingFreedom (#14)
Never happen - he loves Kelo.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
He has said that he likes justices like Scalia.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Of both Canada and the USA.
#21. To: ConservingFreedom (#14)
he loves Kelo.
#22. To: Roscoe (#21)
#23. To: ConservingFreedom (#22)
#24. To: lana, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#0)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#25. To: hondo68 (#24)
If he's a natural born citizen of the US because of his American mother, he's also a natural born citizen of Cuba because of his Cuban father?
#26. To: Roscoe (#23)
#27. To: misterwhite (#26)
#28. To: Roscoe (#27)
As the Founders and Framers intended.
#29. To: ConservingFreedom (#28)
#30. To: hondo68 (#24)
f he's a natural born citizen of the US because of his American mother, he's also a natural born citizen of Cuba because of his Cuban father?
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
because of the 14th Amendment, he'd be natural born even if BOTH of his parents were foreign citizens
#32. To: Roscoe (#29)
#33. To: ConservingFreedom (#32)
That was before the Fourteenth Amendment
#34. To: ConservingFreedom (#32)
166 U.S. 226, 233, 236-37 (1897).
#35. To: Vicomte13, lana (#1)
Natural Born is in contradistinction to naturalized.
#36. To: Roscoe (#31)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) excluded the children of invaders from automatic citizenship. Of course, the Rats and the GOPe will never treat the invaders as invaders,
#37. To: nolu chan (#35)
Yes. It is also just the Americanized version of of the English natural born subject. Also, in the early use of the term by John Jay, it was written "natural born citizen," giving clear emphasis to the word born.
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
1. You don't employ invaders in businesses and homes.
#39. To: Roscoe (#38)
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#39)
There are insufficient votes in Congress to do anything like that.
#41. To: ConservingFreedom (#32)
(Edited)
"That was before the Fourteenth Amendment"
#42. To: misterwhite (#41)
When did you think the 14th amendment was ratified?
#43. To: Roscoe (#42)
"Its "interpretation" mutates from moment to moment."
#44. To: Roscoe (#34)
The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company lost big time, with the Court holding, "The requirement that compensation be made for private property taken for public use imposes no restriction upon the inherent power of the State by reasonable regulations to protect the lives and secure the safety of the people."
#45. To: misterwhite (#41)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 was decided in 1898.
#46. To: ConservingFreedom (#44)
My citing that case had nothing to do with the specific plaintiff
#47. To: Roscoe (#33)
The 14th Amend. says nothing about eminent domain. Or incorporation.
#48. To: ConservingFreedom (#47)
I'll take the Court's reasoning
#49. To: ConservingFreedom (#45)
Relevance?
#50. To: misterwhite (#49)
#51. To: Roscoe (#33)
In Kelo, the Court effectively chose to protect original intent.
#52. To: misterwhite (#49)
You said that case was decided before the 14th amendment.
#53. To: Roscoe (#48)
The 14th Amend. says nothing about eminent domain. Or incorporation.
And the Court's reasoning in Kelo laughed at your position.
#54. To: Roscoe (#50)
He's trying to argue that the 14th Amendment retroactively and posthumously changed the minds of the Founders and Framers. It's just flat bizarre.
#55. To: misterwhite (#43)
Ratified in 1868, it took the U.S. Supreme Court 100 years to come to the conclusion that, hey, the 14th amendment means the BOR applies to the states.
#56. To: ConservingFreedom (#54)
#57. To: Roscoe (#56)
#58. To: ConservingFreedom (#55)
The Court ruled in 1897, "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation."
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
#59. To: ConservingFreedom (#57)
#60. To: Roscoe (#59)
non sequitur, "That was before the Fourteenth Amendment..."?
#61. To: ConservingFreedom (#51)
Scalia (and Thomas) joined, is that 'To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.'
#62. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
Originalists support enforcing even those amendments not authored by the Framers and Founders.)
#63. To: Roscoe (#58)
#64. To: ConservingFreedom (#63)
And in so applying also applies the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.
#65. To: Roscoe (#61)
The Fifth Amendment applied to the federal government, not the states.
BTW, Scalia didn't write a dissent.
#66. To: Roscoe (#64)
#67. To: ConservingFreedom (#65)
#68. To: Roscoe (#62)
Enforce the Fifth Amendment to your heart's content.
#69. To: Roscoe (#67)
#70. To: ConservingFreedom (#66)
The Court ruled in 1897, "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation."
#71. To: ConservingFreedom (#69)
That he joined.
#72. To: ConservingFreedom (#68)
And also the Fourteenth?
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Nothing about eminent domain there.
#73. To: Roscoe (#71)
You didn't name O'Connor, just Scalia.
#74. To: ConservingFreedom (#73)
no clear relevance
#75. To: Roscoe (#70)
#76. To: Roscoe (#74)
The author of the dissent.
#77. To: ConservingFreedom (#75)
Gitlow v. New York
#78. To: ConservingFreedom (#76)
Which is relevant to the current exchange how?
#79. To: Roscoe (#77)
Now the First Amendment means that federal judges may ban prayer in local schools, may crowbar the Ten Commandments off of state courthouse walls, may seize Nativity Scenes in the town square, that pro- life activists may be arrested for praying near abortuaries, etc.
#80. To: Roscoe (#78)
#81. To: ConservingFreedom (#80)
Scalia was cited by you as a standard of measurement for originalism
#82. To: Roscoe (#81)
#83. To: ConservingFreedom (#82)
#84. To: lana (#0)
#85. To: BobCeleste (#84)
#86. To: lana (#0)
New Yorkers seek court order to keep Ted Cruz off the ballot in state Republican presidential primaries because he was born in Canada
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Thursday, February 18, 2016, 4:41 PM Judge to decide on lawsuit that seeks to toss Ted Cruz from New York primary ballot
DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU
Thursday, March 3, 2016, 6:02 PM NY Supreme Court judge dismisses challenge to Ted Cruz's ballot status
Mar 08, 2016 12:02 AM EST Judge tosses Ted Cruz citizenship challenge in Illinois
USA TODAY 5:42 p.m. EST
March 1, 2016
#87. To: ConservingFreedom (#85)
#88. To: BobCeleste (#87)
ruz epitomizes the worst in both Clinton and Obama, he is a sex deviant and a illegal alien.
#89. To: BobCeleste (#87)
Those that oppose the birther talk never present US Supreme Court cases, we who oppose Cruz based on his ineligibility, do.
#90. To: ConservingFreedom (#89)
And, as I showed, you get them wrong.
#91. To: A K A Stone (#90)
You talked about laws.
#92. To: ConservingFreedom (#91)
#93. To: A K A Stone (#88)
He isn't an illegal alien. That doesn't mean he is a natural born citizen though.
#94. To: ConservingFreedom (#89)
And, as I showed, you get them wrong.
#95. To: BobCeleste (#94)
what you did was give em some garbage about a decision from an inferior court
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]