U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-12-2016, 06:48 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,527,925 times
Reputation: 5606

Advertisements

While this is an interesting academic discussion, the issue relating to Cruz is moot, as he will never be elected president and not likely to be nominated by his party.

The matter of whether Mr. Cruz is or isn't a natural born citizen is far from clear either way. While we know from SCOTUS decisions that those born on U.S. soil are Natural Born Citizens, we don't clearly know the opposite -- whether someone born outside the confines of U.S. territory to American parent's is also an N.B.C. That matter would have to be addressed by the SCOTUS should it become a case in controversy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2016, 07:08 AM
 
66,242 posts, read 30,173,805 times
Reputation: 8607
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
While this is an interesting academic discussion, the issue relating to Cruz is moot, as he will never be elected president and not likely to be nominated by his party.
I agree.

Quote:
The matter of whether Mr. Cruz is or isn't a natural born citizen is far from clear either way. While we know from SCOTUS decisions that those born on U.S. soil are Natural Born Citizens
No, we do not. There has never been a SCOTUS ruling declaring such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,715 posts, read 11,527,925 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post

No, we do not. There has never been a SCOTUS ruling declaring such.
I would suggest there has been such a case:

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


Quote:
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
...
The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 07:46 AM
 
66,242 posts, read 30,173,805 times
Reputation: 8607
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
I would suggest there has been such a case:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Gray limited the effect of the ruling:

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

The single question, and nothing more, was determined in the ruling.

What Gray has done by stating exactly such is to specifically limit the effect of the ruling to the "the facts agreed by the parties" and "the single question stated at the beginning of the opinion," which specificlly stipulates that WKA was a citizen at birth. He was not ruled a natural born citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2016, 10:08 AM
 
20,315 posts, read 9,830,271 times
Reputation: 4381
another challenge has been filed in TX.

We Have Our First Lawsuit Over Ted Cruz's Eligibility -- And It's A Doozy

( altho the article mistakenly lists it as the first challenge )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2016, 10:12 AM
Status: "Trump: Comrade!" (set 8 days ago)
 
10,480 posts, read 6,178,291 times
Reputation: 7221
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
another challenge has been filed in TX.

We Have Our First Lawsuit Over Ted Cruz's Eligibility -- And It's A Doozy

( altho the article mistakenly lists it as the first challenge )
In my professional opinion: the plaintiff has no standing. All that the attorney for Edward Rafael Cruz, born in Canada, has to do (and will) is file a motion to dismiss on that basis, and it will be.


However, said attorney got his name in the news, didn't he?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2016, 10:16 AM
 
20,315 posts, read 9,830,271 times
Reputation: 4381
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
In my professional opinion: the plaintiff has no standing.
agreed.

Quote:
However, said attorney got his name in the news, didn't he?
yep... and, unfortunately, his son's name.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2016, 12:08 PM
 
Location: New York Area
15,655 posts, read 6,176,207 times
Reputation: 12207
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
another challenge has been filed in TX.

We Have Our First Lawsuit Over Ted Cruz's Eligibility -- And It's A Doozy

( altho the article mistakenly lists it as the first challenge )
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
In my professional opinion: the plaintiff has no standing. All that the attorney for Edward Rafael Cruz, born in Canada, has to do (and will) is file a motion to dismiss on that basis, and it will be.


However, said attorney got his name in the news, didn't he?
I read the lawsuit. It is improperly drafted. Also the Court will predictably avoid adjudication on the grounds of either:
  1. Standing;
  2. Ripeness;
  3. Hypothetical question;
  4. Advisory opinion; or
  5. Political question
Those are typically grounds which courts use (along with, where applicable, mootness) to avoid adjudicating a matter for which courts are poorly equipped to handle or the ruling on the merits would be improvident.

I have personally lost a much-better grounded lawsuit (for a client) on the issue of ripeness, in a publicly reported decision. On a selective basis, i.e. with posters whom I have had satisfactory prior correspondence I will forward the decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2016, 12:55 PM
 
11,758 posts, read 5,526,705 times
Reputation: 7964
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
In my professional opinion: the plaintiff has no standing. All that the attorney for Edward Rafael Cruz, born in Canada, has to do (and will) is file a motion to dismiss on that basis, and it will be.


However, said attorney got his name in the news, didn't he?
Absolutely correct. IIRC, all 15 or so lawsuits filed by birthers against Obama were dismissed for lack of legal standing. Just being a voter or citizen is not enough.

But that's not the point. It's all about innuendos and planting a seed of doubt in voters' minds as to what could happen if Democrats were to challenge Cruz based on the NBC requirement. I mean, you saw Mr. Trump last night. It's never his idea, "Lawyers and Prof. Laurence Tribe (i.e., not me) think that Ted cannot be POTUS" . . . . "There might be only 1 or 2% chance, but if Democrats are successful, that would be a total disaster, we can't let that happen. (well, that part has a merit)."

Mick
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2016, 01:05 PM
 
5,382 posts, read 2,187,080 times
Reputation: 1468
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrecking ball View Post
another challenge has been filed in TX.

We Have Our First Lawsuit Over Ted Cruz's Eligibility -- And It's A Doozy

( altho the article mistakenly lists it as the first challenge )

The complaint wrongly states that, "it is undisputed...[that] "Natural born citizen" has never been defined.


That is clearly false, since the term "Natural born citizen" was clearly defined in the 1790 Naturalization Act, and while the Act was repealed and replaced by a later Act, the definition of NBC was not the focus of the superseding Act and the definition provided in the 1790 Act has never been shown not to be a valid definition by the Founders when NBC was determined.

Otherwise, dude has no standing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top