General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTed Cruz Is 100% Ineligible To Run For The U.S. Presidency
Ted Cruz has never been (thoroughly) vetted when it comes to his own citizenship claims. He must produce all relevant documents, at least a few of the official papers our own President Obama was erroneously accused of lacking. We know for a fact that he was born in Calgary, so there's one minor anomaly worth investigating. Legal Scholars like Lawrence Tribe at Harvard Law School & Mary B. McManamon of the University of Delaware's Widener School of Law agree that Senator Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for the U.S. Presidency. Remember though, voters in the GOP will ignore certain shortcomings that could never be overlooked in a 'Blah' President.
They have been basing those opinions mostly on their interpretations in the U.S. Constitution's Article Two clause of "natural-born" citizen.
Given that Ted Cruz was born in Canada and similar to the US Constitution, any child born in Canada after 1947 was granted full citizenship.. We must look to Canadian Law first.
I have been researching Canadian Immigration Law between 1947-1977 and agree with (experts) them based on the following:
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/03/ted-cruz-100-ineligible-run-us-presidency
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)
UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)You can not get any more definite than that. His birth certificate says canadian citizenship. He falls under Canadian law at that time.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)the only way that happens is if she was a canadian too. There's a pulitzer in it for any ass hat reporter who figures it out.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)to think. Early on in the conversation, a number of people said she was an American citizen and that automatically gave Cruz American citizenship, even if he was born in Canada. I believe that is true. My brother worked overseas for about 20 years, and two of his children were born in the UK. I asked about the citizenship question, and he said they would carry both until they were 18, at which time they had to choose.
Meanwhile back at the earlier discussion ranch, a small report submitted here said Cruz' mother had to renounce her American citizenship. I thought from what Cruz said himself just before the campaign he renounced his Canadian citizenship. That is what he said, he filled out the form and turned it in.
So I thought at that time if the report were true that Cruz' mother renounced her American citizenship while living in Canada (she was on the voting list) that would have left Cruz with only the option of being Canadian. But if she did renounce say right after he was born, how would that impact the situation? If he renounced that Canadian citizenship to run, doesn't that make him a man without a country, someone who is not even eligible to be a Senator?
So somehow the reporting on this whole subject, including dates and times of changes (a timeline so to speak) and authenticity of documents (or lack thereof) needs to be put together and the question of Cruz' citizenship should be determined yesterday.
I am going to end this post with this: I have no idea what citizenship if any Cruz holds.
Sam
You first example over the age of 18 to chose, ok, but Cruz was much older and just a few years ago did he decide to renounce Canada.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 14, 2016, 01:56 AM - Edit history (1)
Was Cruz' mother an American citizen who moved to Canada and got married, became a voter and who renounced her American citizenship. It is the latter part I have seen reported (tho not widely) and I am not sure if she did renounce, if it would have been before Cruz was born or after. If she was an American citizen at the time he was born, yes he has American citizenship. If she renounced because she could not have both, and then Cruz was born, he would not have American citizenship, right? I am not pretending to take a side here; I just want to know the truth and it is unclear to me how to find it!
Sam
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)But if only Cruz's mother knows what she did with regards to renouncing, we can assume that she shall deny that she renounced any American citizenship.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)If the answer is yes, perhaps YOU could convince Donald Trump to use his influence to find out.
Sam
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)Cruz is not a natural born citizen. Given how much concern the GOP expressed on that topic in the last two elections, turnabout is as fair a play as it gets.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... with no resolution. The OP has his (Trump's) opinion, but it's just an opinion.
Cordy
(82 posts)A court of law can make that decision.
Another opinion is that Rubio is not eligible either, both parents were foreigners when he was born.
tritsofme
(17,376 posts)There is no legitimate question that Rubio, born on American soil, is not a natural born citizen. The Trumpism that you are flirting with has no place in the Democratic Party.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... natural born U.S. citizen idiot.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... In the face of uncounted legal precedents.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)exactly how and when Mrs. Cruz (Ted's mother) 'relinquished' her U.S. citizenship. You cannot lose your citizenship by default - to do this she would have had to take affirmative steps with the State Department, so there should be a record of it.
struggle4progress
(118,278 posts)
It doesn't matter what Canada or any other foreign country has to say. All that matters on what the US will permit is US law.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)fucking irrelevant.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)Now, if the US law somehow refers to some behavior that taking citizenship in another country forfeits US citizenship or something like that, then the CDN law might factor in - but only if the US law kind of says it does (which seems pretty darn unlikely).
No way I've seen enough to conclude for sure one way or the other. Innocent until proven otherwise.
A bunch seems conjecture without absolute proof (unless someone adds something definitive lower in this thread I haven't seen yet).
Nay
(12,051 posts)to renounce his Canadian citizenship. IF the Canadian officials had determined that Cruz was NOT an American citizen, nor did he have any citizenship other than Canadian, his request for renunciation would have been denied. Canadian law does not allow a renunciation if that renunciation resulted in a stateless individual.
From this, at least, we can glean that Canada has had some way of determining that Cruz actually had another citizenship besides his Canadian one.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)If he gets formal notarized copies of his US ID like his passport, that he's a US Senator (have to be a US citizen), record of employment, phone bill in his name, etc. and he fills in the application form to renounce, I think he's all done. I'm not sure it tells the American officials much of anything under US law - other than maybe he had dual citizenship.
The key in this is his mother:
- did she become a citizen of Canada? (if not, game over unless folks want to argue about natural born on foreign soil)
- what would the US laws say about Cruz's citizenship if his mother did become a citzen of Canada
For example, maybe she became a citizen of Canada but didn't renounce her US citizenship legally. Stuff like that.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)She hadn't been in Canada long enough.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)Apparently, they married before they came to Canada.
I've also seen that Ted's father became a Canadian citizen in 1970.
Ted was born December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Canada. By that late December date, if his father became a Canadian citizen in 1970, there's a good chance it was before Dec 22nd. (not that that was all that important to confer Canadian citizenship on Ted - at issue is his US citizenship)
A less likely possibility:
Canada has tended to not like people without a country/citizenship. Ted's father had not become a US citizen. So he could have become a Canadian citizen faster as a refugee from Cuba (I've seen where it can be as short as a year when they do not have citizenship elsewhere but haven't confirmed a year for 1970). From that, they may have had the ability to accept the refugee's wife as a Canadian as well.
This seems more likely:
I've also seen where the wait time was 3 out of 4 years at that time for citizenship
http://citizenshipcounts.ca/citizenship-act-changes
(but five years for Canada in other places). If they arrived in Canada in 1966, then they could have both become citizens in 1970 or sooner because four years had passed and they'd been living there for more than three years (if the wait period really was 3-4 years at that time).
I'm not saying that is what actually happened. I don't know what actually happened. And I have not looked exhaustively to confirm Canadian laws in 1970. But those are two fairly plausible possibilities for Cruz's mother being able to become a Canadian citizen by 1970. Add in voter registration for elections in Canada as extra proof and the biggie: some document showing his mother renouncing her US citizenship and Ted might have a problem.
The thing is, folks knew what dual citizenship meant back them. It was a great thing for your kid because they could pick to live and/or work in Canada or the US. I do not understand why Cruz's mother would feel compelled to give up her US citizenship.
Here's why the above seems unlikely:
1. This came up some time ago. It would be quite unlikely that the lawyers would not have gone over it in great depth - including those for Cruz and the GOP. McCain's, Clinton's and the DNC's lawyers checked out Obama's birth stuff. They're spending tens of millions. The White House is at stake. I doubt anything is likely to come of this because they've already gone over it.
2. A logical killer for me was how easily they seemed to return to the US and his father be able to work in the US. That wouldn't be as easy if his mother had given up her US citizenship but would be a piece of cake if she hadn't given up her US citizenship. Ted's father did not become as US citizen until 2005.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)for Canadian citizenship in 1970 was five years. Having arrived in 1966, she wasn't in Canada long enough to receive her citizenship.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)Jarqui
(10,123 posts)I do not see any loop hole for refugees or anything else
While I was looking into it, a few articles like this one:
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/ted-cruz-made-in-canada/
claim Cruz's father did not become a Canadian citizen until 1973 (not 1970 as some have claimed) ... which would explain how he got on the 1974 voters list but no one has produced his name on the 1972 Canadian Federal election voters list.
Therefore, it's approaching factual verification that his mother was a US citizen when Cruz was born (not absolute proof but getting close).
So the only way they can attack him now seems to be via old arguments some made against Obama - that he was really born in Kenya he wasn't "natural born" or that because his father wasn't American, he couldn't be "natural born" or because he had dual citizenship, his allegiance wasn't pure enough to be an American president. - stuff lie that.
Nay
(12,051 posts)from Canada, so Canadian officials have already determined that, for their purposes, he is a US citizen. Note that if his US passport was fraudulently issued (I'm not claiming this!), Canada would not know this.
In another post here, I also said his mother is the key. If she got Canadian citizenship AND renounced her US citizenship before Ted was born, then Ted is not a US citizen under any US law. But nothing has surfaced to even suggest that she did this.
Bestuserever
(95 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)The child of a US citizen is a US citizen at birth, and thus "natural born", regardless of where in the world they may happen to be born, full stop. Cruz's mother was born in the US. The question of dual citizenship was settled before Cruz was born (see Afroyim v Rusk), in which it was determined that posession of non-US citizenship, and voting in a non-US election, were not sufficient acts to extinguish US citizenship. It doesn't actually matter if Cruz was a Canadian citizen at birth, because he was ALSO a US citizen.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)No better than the Obama "birthers".
Kingofalldems
(38,451 posts)Obama birthers made up lies about him. No one is making up anything about Cruz.
The facts of his birth are crystal clear.
Good try though.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Anyone who claims that Cruz is constitutionally ineligible to be president is a moron.
I hope that clarifies it.
Cordy
(82 posts)Nice you have an opinion,..........no need to keep it to yourself. From what I read and from Cruz himself when he argued against Obama, he is ineligible. 
I think Rubio is as well.
I would like to an election commission set up to approve people for offices. More clarity on eligibility by the Supreme Court.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)he is Canadian. His birth is governed by Canadian laws.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)You may not agree, but calling them morons is pretty moronic.
http://www.sandiego.edu/law/school/news/detail.php?_focus=53911
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/11/through-ted-cruz-constitutional-looking-glass/zvKE6qpF31q2RsvPO9nGoK/story.html
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-be-president-20160110-story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)A moron.... Or a troll.
This issue is dead. Very smart legal scholars have looked at it (and I don't mean Tribe, or Widener, who may be smart but aren't specialists in this particular issue) as have courts and the court of public opinion.
Cruz is eligible to run. To argue he isn't is to waste time on stupidity. Even if in some abstract theoretical legal universe it might possibly be argued as ambiguous, that has zero relevance.
He has millions of supporters. As with our current president, those who stir this pot of shit are more likely to engender positive backlash FOR the candidate they are furiously and stupidly attacking.
Birfers enjoy spitting into the Internet wind. If I didn't know better I would bet they were more intwrestsd in trolling for chaos than in truth or the law.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Good to get some payback after all the birfer nonsense thrown at Obama.
Or as LBJ put it, "I don't care if it's true or not. I just want to hear the bastard deny it!"
Cordy
(82 posts)I am still waiting on some Impeachment pay back, and email pay back. Most likely, I will be waiting a long time.
earthside
(6,960 posts)The relevant part of the U.S. Constitution regarding qualifications for President ... has not been adjudicated by the Supreme Court and there is reasonable, credible, substantial and historical opinion (it is all opinion at this point) that Rafael Edward Cruz is not "natural born" according to Article 2; Section 1; Clause 5.
It is not like Obama birtherism at all.
Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Cruz was born in Canada on foreign soil.
I tend to believe that in the case of Article 2; Section 1; Clause 5, the drafters of the Constitution meant born within the territory of the United States of America.
underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)or anyone else was born on the flipping Moon... If they are the child of a US citizen, then they are a US citizen.
So yeah, you're exactly right.
Really people, it's not that fucking difficult. No offense.
Nay
(12,051 posts)The American citizen parent at the time Cruz was born had to meet some requirements if a child is born outside the US:
The person's parents were married at the time of birth
One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born
The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth;
A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.
So, obviously, it was not without restriction. However, Cruz's parents seem to have met the requirements so Cruz, unfortunately, is eligible. Now, if Obama had actually been born abroad instead of in Hawaii, he would NOT have been a US citizen because his mother was 18 at his birth, and would have had only 4 of the 5 years needed.
treestar
(82,383 posts)His birth certificate, his mother's birth certificate, and proof his mother resided in the US the required number of years.
This should be the case for every candidate. Produce the birth certificate. President Obama was hounded until he did it. Now they should all have to do it. Anything less is plain racism.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)before Ted was born in order to vote in Canadian elections. From what I understand, Canada at the time Cruz was born did not accept (or acknowledge) joint citizenship.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)because Cruz's mother had not lived in Canada long enough to've acquired Canadian citizenship when he was born (Cruz was born in 1970, his parents moved to Canada in 1966, Canadian citizenship law then in force required five years' residency for naturalisation).
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)renounced her U.S. citizenship in preparing to obtain Canadian citizenship, prior to Ted's birth.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)renunciation of US citizenship would have to be done before a consular official, there would be a record of it, and said consular official would not accept renunciation of citizenship if it would result in statelessness.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)be a record of Ted Cruz's mom renouncing her U.S. citizenship to thereby become a Canadian citizen, and vote in Canadian elections. We shall see if this record turns up.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)because Cruz's mother hadn't lived in Canada long enough to be a Canadian citizen when he was born. The US Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v Rusk (1967) found specifically that a US citizen could not be deprived of US citizenship for voting in a foreign election (the plaintiff, one Beys Afroyim, was a naturalised US citizen who voted in an Israeli election (which is again irrelevant, in any case, as Cruz's parents appear on a Canadian electoral register for 1974, some four years after his birth).
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Rafael Cruz (Ted's father) became a Canadian citizen in 1973, according to every source I can find.
Nay
(12,051 posts)render the person stateless. So she would not have been allowed to do that.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)I have heard that Cruz's father became a Canadian citizen, but don't know the date. If she renounced her US citizenship before Ted was born, then it's quite true that Ted would not be a US citizen at all.
But Ted somehow acquired a US passport at age 14, and so we must conclude that the US State Dept saw some sort of proof that Ted was a citizen. I have been asking for that document, whatever it was, but no one can find anything. I find that curious, to say the least.
Frankly, I suspect a paperwork mess that the Cruzes are desperately trying to keep out of the press, but who knows?
Kilgore
(1,733 posts)mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)
Oneironaut
(5,492 posts)This is bull crap. The author even basically says, "We don't know if Ted Cruz is a U.S. citizen because we haven't seen documents proving it. Therefore, he is not a U.S. Citizen. That's a silly argument.
And a poster on DailyKOS who used Wikipedia is an expert? Wtf?
If this were against a Democrat, people on that site would have been calling the claims and the person making them crazy. This is kooky nonsense.
Cordy
(82 posts)The question has been raised, Cruz is avoiding answering or producing the documents. "If he hasn't got anything to hide!" I don't think it is to much to ask when we are placing or nation at risk with a CIC who maybe a foreigner. Let him prove his case by our Constitutional laws.
It was against a democrat, Obama. There were legal cases filed and courts were churning in the laws of this nation. I expect no less from Cruz. Were you saying the Obama case was kooky nonsense? Don't lie to me.
It is a combination of all these laws that are needed to nail down what our Supreme Court refuses to do. So it is healthy legal practice, and if it ties Cruz up in court for a few years, that is a cheap price to pay for our liberty and freedoms.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Until he finally released his birth certificate.
Of course then they only claimed it was fraud.
Still, since he had to do it, they should all have to do it from now on.
UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)Ted Cruz cannot hide behind the fact President Obama can produce his. Ted Cruz must show his own proof of birth. Canada does not count.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)He's not going to have an American birth certificate, because he wasn't born in the United States. But because his mother was an American citizen, he was born an American citizen. It's really pretty simple.
UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President." The original structure of the Constitution does suggest that "natural born" was meant to contain a geographic component of birth in the United States. The "Inhabitant" requirements for senators and representatives in Article I of the Constitution clearly were intended to be geographic. Since the qualifications stated for president contain no other obvious parallel geographic reference, it would seem the framers meant the "natural born" citizenship requirement for president to refer to those born geographically in the United States.
The framers, however, contemplated later migration into the United States and authorized Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 to provide means of acquiring citizenship by naturalization for those who were not natural born citizens. Thus, as originally drafted, the Constitution recognized only two means of acquiring national citizenship – "natural born" citizens (birthright citizenship), and naturalization.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)That is what no one is talking about.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)There has never been anything written about naturalization papers. Do you have a link?
former9thward
(31,981 posts)WASHINGTON — A Pennsylvania judge affirmed Sen. Ted Cruz’s status as a natural born citizen Thursday and dismissed a lawsuit that sought to remove the candidate from the state’s Republican primary ballot, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported.
Carmon Elliott, a Pittsburgh resident, filed suit in Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court to keep Cruz off the state’s April 26 ballot. Elliott claimed natural born citizenship — a constitutional requirement for the presidency — requires being born in the country in question. Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother, has argued that his mother’s citizenship made him natural born, regardless of the location of his birth.
Judge Dan Pellegrini wrote that a natural born citizen “includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth,” and ordered the state’s secretary of the commonwealth to keep Cruz’s name on the ballot.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I know there is one in Houston filed by Newton Schwartz. Individually and as a class action on behalf of all potential eligible voters in Texas. This is a case of first impression. That means it has never been decided by the Supreme what the exact meaning of the words "natural born citizen" mean in the context of running for president. That is why I am licking my chops waiting for a decision. Because it is a question that I think needs to be resolved before the election.
former9thward
(31,981 posts)said Cruz is not eligible. But DU birthers keep on trying.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)This case has some typos (like misspelling Jeffrey Toobin's name) but it does state that this is a case of first impression and the Supremes have jurisdiction. Declaratory judgment is asked for by the plaintiff. Newton B. Schwartz, Sr. has been an attorney for about fifty-six years. When I was a court reporter, I took medical depositions for him for about a year. He is a duly licensed attorney.
I worked my entire working life in the legal field. My father was an attorney. My mother typed his pleadings for him. I grew up reading divorce petitions, wills, deeds, adoptions, applications for liquor licenses, and various other civil paperwork. I was a legal secretary for several years for my father, I was a court reporter for twenty years, and I also earned a Juris Doctor (law degree) in night school. I do not have a license to practice law, but I do have a law degree.
This looks like a perfectly good petition to me.
The Supremes need to decide the meaning of the words "natural-born citizen" as stated in the qualifications for President in the Constitution. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. They need to decide this question because this is a case of first impression. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. There is no question of that. The question that needs to be decided is whether or not his mother's U.S. Citizenship has any bearing on that citizenship, for purposes of running for President. Can he be born in Canada and be a "natural-born citizen" as defined in the Constitution?
The Secretary of State of Hawaii released President Obama's long form birth certificate to prove to the "birthers" that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961. This is very different from the people who thought President Obama was not a citizen when proof of his birth in a state of the United States after its admission to statehood was prima facie proof of his citizenship.
You can read the suit here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/natemcdermott/lawyer-says-he-filed-cruz-eligibility-lawsuit-because-nobody#.ql2deGdMM
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Cruz is eligible. He will not be stopped this way. I agree with the folks saying this is worse than stupid, it's bad tactics.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Looks like a valid Federal question of law to me. Case of first impression. And a valid petition.
If the Feds think it's not a valid question of law, and think it's a waste of time, they can grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, if he's filed one. That means that the judge agrees there is no question of law involved. So far that has not happened.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)The rest of us will move on.
Birferism is silly. Even if the matter is ambiguous (as I understand it there simply is no statutory basis for adjudicating) lawyers and Internet obsessives can argue about it all day. But it won't keep Cruz out of the White House and you would be better advised to use all that energy to defeat him at the actual ballot box.
So silly. The Houston case by the way is especially stupid and will be tossed eventually.
Judges aren't usually stupid
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)There is a statutory basis for adjudicating by the Supremes. The section of the Constitution that sets out the requirements for running for President. And the "cases and controversies" clause. The Supremes have subject matter jurisdiction. This is a question that has never been decided. It is a case of first impression. I've gone over all this, trying to explain simply and carefully for those who are slow on legal issues because they have never gone to law school, or even worked in the legal field, and you've ignored all of what I have stated about it.
I don't know where you got your Juris Doctor degree, nor how you can be so sure, with your lack of legal education, how you can be so certain that the "Houston case is especially stupid and will be tossed eventually." Where did you buy your crystal ball that helps you predict the future with certainty? I've never seen one.
BTW, the Supremes are the ONLY court in the United States that has BOTH original and appellate jurisdiction. This is one of those rare questions where they have original jurisdiction.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Are proof that this is a nuisance lawsuit filed by a nutball. Such tactics, when embraced by those in a supposedly reality based community, are guaranteed to backfire on their users.
Cruz is eligible. Get over it. Don't embarrass me as a democrat by acting like a tea party moron ... er I mean MORAN!
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Typos are proof that Newton Schwartz is a cheap bastard who refuses to pay for competent help. I had a similar fight with him over doctors' depositions and stopped working for him. But that does not affect the merits of the case.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)shouldn't be filing spurious nuisance lawsuits.
Prof. Tribe doesn't say Cruz is not eligible, either. He says the law is ambiguous and non-specific.
Which it is.
The argument is silly. No one will stop Cruz with such silliness.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)He is a rich plaintiff's lawyer. I used to take depositions for him. He's a cheap bastard when it comes to paying secretaries and court reporters, though.
I stopped working for him because he refused to pay me a dollar extra a page for depositions of doctors who were treating his clients. In another breath, he said I was the only court reporter in town (a town of 2.5 million people) who was educated enough to spell those medical terms properly. I have a BS in Biology and a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree. So I decided if he was too cheap to pay me another dollar a page, he could take his chances on a court reporter who couldn't spell spondylosis, spondylolysis, and spondylolisthesis, and also knew the difference between those conditions.
Professor Tribe says the law is unsettled. This is a case of first impression which is why it needs to be decided before the election.
Just why is this silly? You're bringing up false and irrelevant points. Mr. Schwartz IS a very well off attorney. He is not
"people who can't afford lawyers". This is not a "spurious nuisance lawsuit".
Read the "cases and controversies" clause of the Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 1.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)The lawsuit is illiterate and crazy. I don't care if he's rich or a lawyer. It's moronic. And it will be tossed.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)You want to bet on it? Real money?
This lawsuit has irrelevant issues and facts in it, but the gravamen of the suit is sound. You have any idea what the word "gravamen" means? Try Black's Law Dictionary online, for a start.
Laurence Tribe doesn't think the issue is moronic. I would trust his judgment because he's a Constitutional law scholar.
He teaches at Harvard Law school and has written one of the major textbooks used in Constitutional Law courses in law schools. Constitutional Law is a REQUIRED course. There are 30 semester hours of required courses in law school. Plus there is all the law that is particular to your state, that you need to learn for your state's portion of the bar exam. I'll take his word for it that the question posed by the lawsuit is unsettled law.
People who haven't gone to law school and studied this stuff don't understand the concepts and the logic. There are some concepts you learn in law school (Or other difficult subjects) that you don't understand until years later, after your brain has matured.
Where did you study law?
More information on the guy who says this question of what is a "natural-born citizen" for the purposes of running for President under the requirements stated in the Constitution is "unsettled law".:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Yeah sure. $1000 right here.
People who say that online are funny. Like I'd tell you my real identity!?
I'd win that bet though. You seem a trifle obsessed with absurdity.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm a tenured science professor at a major research university. We are smarter than lawyers, in my experience.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Some lawyers are extremely smart. The smartest ones tend to be well known trial lawyers or law professors.
I've seen some pretty stupid lawyers too. I've seen stupid judges that instantly went deaf when I told them they were wrong. Because I was a stupid female court reporter, and they didn't hear me. Amazingly enough, when one of the male lawyers told the judge the same thing, his hearing was somehow magically restored. He corrected his mistake.
I've also seen a professor working at a geriatric unit at a veteran's hospital. He was quite ill with a respiratory virus. The doctor told him to STAY HOME because he was contagious. Did he stay home? No. This idiot micromanaged and coughed on my husband and made him sick as a dog. Then I got sick. Then my child got sick. I wanted to strangle the guy because he made my whole family ill and he refused to listen to his physician. That guy gets a prize for stupidity.
I'm so glad you have a crystal ball and know that this Federal lawsuit will be thrown out. If you can see the future, and read the minds of the Supreme Court, then you have powers far beyond any mortal I've known.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)You're wasting your words.
Your crystal ball ain't better than mine so I guess we can agree to disagree.
If you were serious about that bet I'll check back when th lawsuit is tossed about where you can donate my $1000. You can do the same. Cruz is not going to be ruled ineligible. Democrats look silly for dreaming of that possibility.
I like blanket statements. They keep me warm. But your blanket statement ("Cruz is ineligible"
is threadbare nonsense.
Conspiracy theorists bore me. I'm done here.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)And he says this is "very unsettled law". He knows his stuff. Several other Constitutional Law professors have agreed with him.
He's written one of the major textbooks for Con Law for law students. Not the one that I personally used at my law school, but a Con Law textbook nonetheless.
Among his notable students: President Obama, Ted Cruz, Justice Elena Kagan, Chief Justice John Roberts.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Tribe's opinion, learned or not, has no relevance unless he is a judge or justice of SCOTUS. Or litigating the case. Other constitutional scholars of high standing disagree with him. He's not God. He's not even nearly the most respected scholar on issues like this. He's just a talking head on this question. And what he says is "the law is unclear," not "Cruz is ineligible."
Big whoop.
Damn birferist CT irrationality has grown like a cancer spreading out from the dark bigoted heart of the GOP to infect us all.
Step away from the Internet. Explore reality.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)That means that the SCOTUS needs to issue a decision. So I'm agreeing with you.
My reality is pretty fucking boring, thank you. And don't you DARE call me a "birferist". That is fucking insulting to me.
I'm so glad you as a Minor Deity know more than people with law degrees that are law professors. I did not know that being a professor at a medical school means you know more law than law professors.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)A SCOTUS decision is not needed. Cruz is eligible by precedent and we would want a dem with the same circumstances to be as well. The joke here is that "natural born citizen" is an obscure, anachronistic 18th century concept, not relevant to the modern world and rooted in racism.
Unless you have a tribal enrollment card, you too are the dexscendant of immigrants. Immigrants can be loyal citizens and should be eligible to be president too. That they aren't is racist bullshit. You are looking through the wrong end of the binoculars and it makes you think the world is still smaller than it is.
I hate Ted Cruz. But I think he is eligible and I think efforts to defeat anyone at all on the logic that they might have divided loyalty because OMG they have a non-American parent or were born on foreign soil or moved abroad as a small child (in which Ted Cruz Jr. has no agency at all as a baby, or did you pick where you were born?) is irrelevant to his ability or loyalty as a citizen. Since the law is ambiguous (as all the scholars including Tribe say) because it's meaning shifted over time and because it was a solution to a problem we DON'T HAVE (founding fathers born in a colonizing country against which we had just revolted) there's no reason at all to clarify it. It has no force beyond common sense categories. Cruz is obviously enough of a citizen to be elected to the senate.
Your obsession with this is what makes you a birfer. Productively busy minds do not have such obsessions.
So no we don't agree and you're a birferist and don't you dare tell me what I can dare to call you. Birfer.
You are spitting into the wind. And you think that's rain hitting your face.
Minor deity over and out.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Original jurisdiction resides with the Supreme Court, and someone with standing has to bring the case to that Court. In order for someone to have standing, that person must be "injured" in that they believe the president, already elected, is not eligible for the office. So, by the time the Supreme Court hears the case, it will have been a fait accompli.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)You are mixing up injury by the defendant to the plaintiff in a tort case. This is not a tort case. This is a case to clarify the Constitutional requirements to be president. This is a case asking for an interpretation of the Constitution, which is part of Federal law.
The petition says that. It states that time is of the essence. It also says that Defendant Cruz is sued in Federal Court in Houston, under personal jurisdiction, because of his residence being Houston, Harris County, in the Federal Southern District of Texas. The petition has Petitioned for a Writ of Certiorari be granted by the Supremes.
Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law professor, has said, "This question is completely unsettled."
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Much appreciated.
Cordy
(82 posts)I had read that the only people capable of showing injury would be another candidate. And because no injury can occur until the primary begins, candidates must wait to ensure he is the presidential candidate. Then the lawsuits can begin.
Of course, if you are right, no tort action is required.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)does not mean Cruz is obviously ineligible. It means the law is vague.
This whole topic is a stupid sideshow distraction. The SCOTUS is not going to rule a sitting senator competing strongly for the GOP nomination "ineligible" on an ambiguous point of 18th century law. Give the hell up already. Beat him at the ballot box. It will be easy.
Shit on a shingle, it's disconcerting to think there are democrats with the same obsessive myopia as Orly Taitz.
Cordy
(82 posts)It is interesting, Putin could come to America and have his child born here, and then within a few short years have that child run for US President.
Seems we legally screwed ourselves on the illegal immigrants crossing into America, so the courts now wants to make all the border babys eligible for president.
Delmette
(522 posts)They would have obtained the Counsular Record of Birth Abroad. Since they may not have done that then all bets are off. Ted needs to produce the CRBA.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)seanjoycek476
(54 posts)Maybe as a candidate for a dogcatcher, but nothing more than that.
Iggo
(47,549 posts)But other than that...
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)Cordy
(82 posts)I fail to see the nonsense. You want foreigners running your government? Maybe a Communist, ISIS member, etc.? Cruz laid out the Obama case and said he was ineligible, but Obama was able to show he was born in America. Cruz fails the same constitutional test, no nonsense about it.
So did Cruz lie to America, or has his own mouth confirmed he is ineligible??
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)A Canadian, but not Cruz, may be what we need. Trudeau for President!
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)I personally wouldn't care if our president was a foreign born potted fern as long as they didn't start a war gor profit and fun, did stuff that was good for the "little people" of this country as a matter of everyday operations and be open and honest, especially when they screw up. I'd like to see the legal wording clarified and codified but I'm not going to lose one second of sleep worrying about an ISIS, Communist (that's with a capital "c"!) or Canadian Mounty running my government. They'd all be better than Trump, a legal candidate.
Cordy
(82 posts)Just ask Cruz, a Constitutional lawyer.
[link:http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/188715-cruz-says-it-best/#entry1059405572|
B Calm
(28,762 posts)you had to be a Canadian citizen to be eligible to vote. Ted's parents were on the Canadian voter rolls. This is not birther nonsense and nothing like compaired to Obama's birth certificate BS!
Mariana
(14,854 posts)What makes you think Canadian law overrides US law, in the US, when it comes to citizenship?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)that Mrs. Cruz renounced her American citizenship. She cannot do so by default - there have to be affirmative actions on her part in order to do so. But up to now nobody has produced anything which purports to show that she did so.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)with a court. To the contrary, the idea that Mrs. Cruz was or was not a Canadian citizen is irrelevant to determining whether Ted is a 'natural born citizen'. In any event Canadian law has no bearing on whether she is an American citizen, as dual citizenship is permitted in the U.S. (e.g. many American citizens are also dual nationals with Israel). But to even try to pursue the idea that she somehow 'renounced' her U.S. citizenship without even the smallest amount of evidence is ludicrous. It's akin to asking someone "Have you stopped beating your wife?".
B Calm
(28,762 posts)don't get?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)that she renounced her US citizenship. Link(s) please.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)a total absence of any evidence? Or is it your contention that someone should 'force' Mrs. Cruz to prove a negative, i.e. that she did not renounce her US citizenship? That's not how our legal system works. The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. And so far I have had exactly ZERO responses to my request that someone provide some proof that she renounced her citizenship in the US. Probably because there IS no evidence of it.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)You must know that the way it works is not that you, or someone, throws out an accusation and then the subject has to disprove it. That's not how our courts work. You have to go in with some sort of proof.......you know........evidence........to back up your accusation or this "challenge" of yours gets thrown out without ever being heard.
So, where's the proof? Not just "she must have" or "Canadian law requires". We're not talking about Canadian law here, no matter how much some wish to. What matters is the US law, so there must be proof that he does not meet the legal definition of a "natural born citizen" by US legal standards and so far no one anywhere has put forth that kind of evidence. It's all been supposition and armchair legal eagles floating the theories that they wish to be true, and that's not going to be enough.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)over and over is going to change the facts. OK. Let's flesh out your 'challenge' idea. How about some actual concrete answers (no, "that's why it needs to be challenged" doesn't count) to the following:
1 - What is "IT" that you intend to 'challenge' - specifically?
2- What do you think the 'challenge' would prove?
3- Provide concrete pieces of evidence (along with cites or links) that you believe would be relevant to your 'challenge'.
4- Who is going to carry forward 'challenge' that you keep talking about in court? In our court system you can challenge things like Cruz's supposed cititzenship (or lack thereof) only if you have legal standing. To have legal standng the person suing must have him/herself suffered an injury by Cruz being a candidate. So far as I can tell, the only person with standing to challenge Cruz's citizenship is another pre-presidential candidate. I've seen no inclination whatsoever by any of them to mount such a challenge.
I'd love to hear some actual answers to these questions but I'm not optimistic. If you can't respond to these concretely then you're just blowing smoke.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Mrs. Cruz's name appears on an official 1974 voting eligibility document. Only Canadian citizens are allowed to vote and at the time Canada didn't recognize dual citizenship.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/294908081/Voters-List
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)That's four years after Cruz was born. She hadn't fulfilled the residency requirement by the time Cruz was born in 1970, so she couldn't have been a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)that she was a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth, because it isn't even possible.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)which could only be given to registered voters, and only Canadian citizens can be registered voters.
This may be the first evidence that Ted Cruz's mother held Canadian citizenship in 1974.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Because he was born in 1970. And she couldn't have been a Canadian citizen in 1970, because she hadn't lived in Canada long enough.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)registration lists were known to have errors. In addition, regardless of Canada's laws, the US has no prohibition against holding dual nationality.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)couldn't have been a Canadian citizen in 1970 - she hadn't lived there long enough based on the laws in place at the time.
Her name on a voter list in 1974 is completely irrelevant to her citizenship status four years earlier.
This isn't rocket science.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Something else to consider: Even if she renounced it to the Canadians, does that matter in the US? My husband renounced his foreign citizenship years ago to become a US citizen - but he only renounced it to the US authorities. His country of birth doesn't consider that valid and he remains a citizen of that country. His US born children are also citizens of that country. We never registered their births, either, yet neither had any trouble obtaining passports.
Does Cruz have a US passport? If he does, and he was never naturalized, then he was born a US citizen.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)And even if it did, Canadian law in 1970 didn't prohibit dual citizenship to children born in Canada to foreign parents.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Obama was born in the US, and conspiracy theories to the contrary were nothing short of delusional.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada which is a fact not even Cruz denies.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... And puts out a message that dems can't compete on messaging so they'll try to go for a technicality.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Not to mention "technicalities" was (and still is) the central reason why the federal court was established.
earthside
(6,960 posts)... is that the Constitution is considered a "technicality".
If that is the case, then why should we even care if the current Supreme Court vacancy is filled?
Maybe Democrats should just make it part of their party platform that the Constitution is to be considered just a "technical guideline" for governing.
Kingofalldems
(38,451 posts)on a Democratic site.
onenote
(42,694 posts)but, then again, there are posters here now that cite to sources like NewsMax and parrot Rovian arguments.
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)the birthers wanted Obama to prove he was born in the USA. Cruz wasn't and doesn't claim to have been born in the USA.
Kingofalldems
(38,451 posts)Cruz was born in Canada----Fact.
There is no comparison.
'our side'
TipTok
(2,474 posts)He could have been born in the Arctic... It doesn't change the facts...
What exactly is your point?
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 13, 2016, 09:43 AM - Edit history (1)
if you can remember history. Two of the world's worst homicidal dictators were born in countries other than that which they became dictators over: Hitler was from Austria and Napoleon was from Italy but both managed Germany and France right off the edge.
Had to laugh when Obama slapped the birthers down though.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Just ludicrous. Stunningly bizarre, in a legal sense.
Think about this for a moment. If the Soviet Union (back during the cold war, when it existed) had passed a law giving all American citizens Soviet citizenship at birth, would that have affected anything about our rules about who was eligible for the presidency? If it did, wouldn't that have been the easiest way for the Soviet Union to win the cold war?
Further, under British laws in the early 1800s, almost all "American" citizens were in fact birthright British citizens. That's why they pressganged them when they could get a hold of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment#Conflict_with_the_United_States
Anything that starts out with such a legally ridiculous proposition is not worth reading.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)constitutional scholars. If Cruz's parents were US citizens then is a natural born citizen. (I don't know anything about whether his parents were citizens. I am just saying that IF they were, then he is a natural born citizen.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)at the time his birth, which is all that's required.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)
Vinca
(50,261 posts)not the citizenship of the parent. He is a citizen based upon his mother's nationality, but he may not be a "natural born" citizen. He was automatically naturalized when his mother brought him into the country. I was born in Vermont and can produce a birth certificate stating so. My husband was born in Canada and can produce his naturalization papers to prove American citizenship. How does Ted prove his? He has no U.S. birth certificate and no naturalization papers.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Naturalization is a process which has to be deliberately undertaken.
Vinca
(50,261 posts)and he was immediately recognized as a citizen of the country. The issue is whether he is considered a "natural born" citizen. I know the Canadians viewed him as a citizen of Canada at the time. He was definitely a "natural born" Canadian citizen.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Because having been born to an American citizen mother, he was a natural born citizen.
Vinca
(50,261 posts)The original intent seems like it could be otherwise.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)to understand the difference between "natural born" and "native born". (And, how does Ted Cruz prove his US citizenship? Helpful hint: his birth certificate has his mother's birthplace on it.)
Vinca
(50,261 posts)Who might have guessed a person calling himself Spider Jerusalem would turn up just when you need him? As George Costanza might say, "Is anyone here a Constitutional scholar?"
DhhD
(4,695 posts)18 months of birth. Ted and parents were never issued the citizenship documents from the American Immigration Service because they do not exist. His elementary school records may provide information that he entered elementary school, in the United States, using a Canadian birth certificate.
By public law, Social Security numbers were issued to American children about 1986. Ted got one when he became naturalized. He had no documents to get a SS number any other way.
CRBA-Consular Record of Birth Abroad
onenote
(42,694 posts)Whether one has a CRBA or not, one who was born in 1970 acquires citizenship automatically at birth if:
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-child-born-abroad.html
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)DU is in full-blown birther mode, facts be damned.
different equation
(69 posts)
DrDan
(20,411 posts)briv1016
(1,570 posts)Trump's lawyers will file there lawsuit Wednesday morning.
Orrex
(63,203 posts)Since that would eliminate pretty much all of the GOP, it might be worth considering.
