Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
Like Tree21Likes

Thread: U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Ted Cruz's 'birther' case

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    98,101

    U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Ted Cruz's 'birther' case

    U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear Ted Cruz's 'birther' case

    Published June 01, 2016
    Fox News Latino


    • Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, speaks during an election night watch party Tuesday, March 15, 2016, in Houston. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)



    The many court efforts to stop a Ted Cruz U.S. presidency suffered another blow, as the U.S. Supreme Court said no to addressing the matter.

    On Tuesday, the justices rejected a request that they hear a lawsuit challenging the former presidential candidate’s eligibility to run for the Oval Office because the Texas Republican was born in Canada, according to Roll Call.


    The plaintiff, retired Utah attorney Walter Wagner, argues that Cruz is not a “natural born citizen” and therefore is disqualified from occupying the Oval Office.


    But the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling earlier this year that determined that Wagner, one of just a few people nationwide who filed suits contending Cruz was not a qualified U.S. citizen, had no basis for his argument.


    In March, U.S. District Judge Jill Parrish, sitting in Utah, said that several other suits alleging that Cruz was not qualified to run for U.S. president because he was born in Canada were dismissed.


    Judges generally consistently have ruled that Cruz is eligible because his mother is a natural born U.S.-citizen.


    They cite common law precedent and statutory history that maintains that an eligible candidate includes any person born to an American citizen, regardless of where.


    Presumptive GOP presidential nominee raised questions about Cruz’s Canadian birth and his eligibility during the party primary.


    Cruz withdrew from the presidential race on May 3 after a bruising defeat by Trump in the Indiana primary.


    The Tea Party favorite says he is running for re-election to his Senate seat in 2018.

    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/pol...ty-to-run-for/

    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,664
    This issue is a Constitutional issue to be decided by voters. Most Americans know that to be a natural born citizen under the meaning and purpose of Article II of the US Constitution means:

    1) born in the USA
    2) two US citizen parents at the time of birth
    Beezer and Searcher932 like this.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    61
    Thanks for the information John Doe 2. I agree with Judy BUT I think it's a disgrace that the Supreme Court refuses to hear these cases. The damage to our country that the Kenyan has accomplished is huge. Cruz is a puppet of the new world order. There is a reason for " Natural Born Citizen" !
    Beezer and Searcher932 like this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    98,101
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    This issue is a Constitutional issue to be decided by voters. Most Americans know that to be a natural born citizen under the meaning and purpose of Article II of the US Constitution means:

    1) born in the USA
    2) two US citizen parents at the time of birth
    It's already been decided that Cruz meets all the requirements necessary to be declared a natural born citizen. I'm not surprised the the U.S. Supreme Court will not hear this case because it would be a waste of their time.

    Excerpt:

    While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3×3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). and enactments of the First Congress.4×4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.5×5. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655–72 (1898). These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposeswhatsoever.”6×6. 7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (1708); see also British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21. The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’sCommentaries,7×7. See 1 William Blackstone,Commentaries *354–63. a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 17908×8. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795). provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”9×9. Id. at 104 (emphasis omitted). The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.10. See Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36Gonz. L. Rev. 349, 371 (2000/01).Show MoreThe proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth.11×11. See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21. The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”
    http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/
    Last edited by imblest; 06-02-2016 at 03:35 PM. Reason: Fixed smilies back into proper dates

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    41
    I first became aware of this issue back in 2013. And I have to agree with Judy. If the case had come before the supreme court, I think Scalia before he died would have ruled in the way Judy described. This is the article I read which first made me aware of the issue with Cruz(but I previously knew about it with Obama) http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/se...ural-born.html
    Judy likes this.

  7. #7
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    98,101
    Newspaper articles and personal comments on the internet do not have the same legal standing as court rulings.
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe2 View Post
    Newspaper articles and personal comments on the internet do not have the same legal standing as court rulings.
    True, however, just because certain courts ruled certain ways, does not mean the judges who ruled were correct in their decisions. There is a problem with activist judges who rule in ways the founders of this country would not agree with.

  9. #9
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    98,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Searcher932 View Post
    True, however, just because certain courts ruled certain ways, does not mean the judges who ruled were correct in their decisions. There is a problem with activist judges who rule in ways the founders of this country would not agree with.
    If the U.S. Supreme Court had felt the lower court made the wrong ruling they would have heard the case. They didn't hear the case because they agreed with the lower court ruling.
    MW likes this.
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe2 View Post
    If the U.S. Supreme Court had felt the lower court made the wrong ruling they would have heard the case. They didn't hear the case because they agreed with the lower court ruling.
    Not necessarily...It was widely suspected that the reason the supreme court did not take up the case of Obama being a natural born citizen was because if it was ruled he was not, and Obama(the first black president) was removed from office, black people would riot like never before and they didn't want to that to happen. So it's very possible the supreme court does not always decline to take up cases because they believe the lower courts were right.
    Judy and JohnK like this.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-08-2016, 05:33 PM
  2. Illinois Court to Hear Birther Suit on Cruz Friday
    By Jean in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-19-2016, 11:32 PM
  3. Supreme Court declines to hear Nebraska immigration case
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-05-2014, 02:59 PM
  4. Supreme Court refuses to hear 'birther' argument again
    By JohnDoe2 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-11-2012, 10:56 PM
  5. Supreme Court declines to hear suit over illegal immigrant
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-26-2007, 06:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •