Friday, January 15, 2016

BREAKING Lawsuit Filed Over Whether Ted Cruz is a ‘Natural Born Citizen’



Houston attorney Newton Schwartz, who said he isn’t connected to any campaign, filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Texas. The court is being asked to settle whether Ted Cruz meets the “natural born citizen” requirement in the Constitution.


He was born in Canada, although his mother is American


Schwartz told Bloomberg News he has nothing against Cruz, and personally “probably” supports Bernie Sanders.


Donald Trump has been raising the issue of whether Cruz would face questions as to whether he is a lawful candidate.


-RW


UPDATE

“This 229 year question has never been pled, presented to or finally decided by or resolved by the U. S. Supreme Court,” wrote attorney Newton Schwartz in his lawsuit that he filed Thursday. “Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now.”

He writes: “It is undisputed, by all legal scholars, there is no U.S. Supreme Court decision or precedent: determinative of the following agreed facts of this case and controversy. ‘Natural born citizen’ has never been defined.”

Schwartz asked the court to rule that Cruz is not eligible to run for President.

UPDATE 2

A full copy of the lawsuit is here.


10 comments:

  1. One part of this story that hasn't got much traction is that this issue came up with the military brat John McCain in 2008, so the Senate declared him a citizen. Ironically, McCain recently questioned Cruz's eligibility and when Mitch McConnell was asked if he would push a vote to declare Cruz a natural born citizen, he said no. Gee, I wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." -- Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, clause 5
    Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for President of the United States. He was born in Canada, of parents who were Canadian citizens at the time of his birth. Cruz's mother claims to have been born in Delaware. The State of Delaware claims not to have any records of her. (The authenticity of the Birth Certificate provided by the Cruz campaign is now in dispute.) But even if genuine, it makes Cruz a US citizen, but not "Natural Born."

    Ted Cruz's supporters try to get around "Natural Born" by claiming it simply means any US citizen, an opinion even echoed at Wikipedia!

    But if any US citizen could be President, then the qualifier "Natural Born" would not be needed (and is not present in the Constitutional citizenship requirements for Representatives and Senators). Clearly, to the Founding Fathers, "Natural Born" had a specific and obvious meaning, applied exclusively to the Presidency!

    The Founding Fathers did not need to define what "Natural Born" meant inside the Constitution as it had been defined in existing legal theory in works such as "The Law of Nations" by Emerich de Vattel, published in 1758 and relied on heavily by the framers of the Constitution. "Natural Born" was already legally defined when the Constitution was written as "born inside the nation."

    The inclusion of the "Natural Born" requirement for the Presidency was proposed at the Constitutional Convention by Chief Justice John Kay, who wrote, "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen..."


    The intention is clear that the Presidency not be open to anyone not born within the United States.

    In addition, there are no less than four United States Supreme Court Decisions that reaffirm that "Natural Born" means "Born inside the nation."

    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

    Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

    Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

    There has never been a United States Supreme Court Decision that ruled "Natural Born" as having any other meaning than "born inside the country."

    All of Cruz's supporters, including the corporate media, are demonstrating either an ignorance of the US Constitution, or an utter disregard for it. This tells us that were Cruz to become President, he would continue the long and tragic tradition of recent Presidents to ignore the Constitution to the detriment of the people.

    The Constitution is the original contract with America. It is the rules by which We The People allow the government to act as caretaker of our National Sovereignty. If a politician does not wish to work within the restrictions and rules of the Constitution, the honorable thing to do is resign and find useful employment. If Ted Cruz's supporters wish to live in a nation not protected by the Constitution they are free to move elsewhere.

    But under the rules this nation operates on, Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hope it works. It's not the best writing ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Surely it all depends on whether his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth. Did her grant of Canadian citizenship automatically cancel her US citizenship? If not, then MY interpretation of "natural born" is one who is not adopted, but nurtured in the womb by his US mother until she produced him, bloody and squalling, at the end of the pregnancy. What could be more "natural born" than that? (I'll pass on the question of a Caesarian birth!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, god, we're not talking Macduff 'ripped untimely'. What would be more naturally born would be if he were born in America.

      Delete
  5. Why do the federal courts and Supreme Court have to decide everything? We can't live without the federal courts on this question?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Natural Born" and "dual national" go together nicely. Nothing to see here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ya... that doesnt work Canadian law in 1970 did not allow any dual citizenship in Canada where Ted was born, all parent of dual citizenship had to decide whether their child would be Canadian or any other, Teds chose Canadian and he remained on until 2014.

      Delete
  7. Tom Woods, on his podcast today (1/15/2016) cited the writing of William Blackstone in his "Commentaries Of The Laws Of England" (1765) as his guide as to the meaning of 'natural born'.

    Blackstone wrote: "The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it."

    Using Blackstone's definition, Mr. Cruz is an alien.

    ReplyDelete
  8. but it has been decided by the supreme court, on no less than 4 occasions over the years.

    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

    The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…"

    Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
    "...for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country."

    Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
    "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
    "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Vattel's "Law of the Nations".
    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

    “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

    ReplyDelete