Ted Cruz Drops Bombshell: Admits He's Not Constitutionally Eligible To Be President

I'm not surprised that you didn't actually read the decision.

 

I am not surprised you still have not read the decision or understand that the cited precedent only had to do with those born within the confines of the United States, as was Obama.

 

If you would just read the ruling, you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.

Read the ENTIRE wong Kim ark ruling. Not just the summary

 

I did, but again it appears you haven't. First, the citizenship of Odumbo has never been questioned and can't be questioned as his mother was a US citizen and therefore he was of dual citizenship based on his father. It was his right to claim citizenship in either domain at the age of consent. Seems he has chosen the US, unfortunately for us and to the relief of the Queen.

The right of citizenship in and of itself is all that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (189, determined. The actual question before the court was:

"It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him."

By the more than ample circumstances of the case, he was a US citizen being born in San Francisco by parents that had claimed domicile in the United States. Even though the parents had returned to China, neither had renounced their US citizenship and Wong remained a domicile.

But as to Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 NE 2d 678, 2009, this was a decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals, not even the Supreme Court of Indiana. It carries no weight whatsoever, in fact the decision even says so:

"OPINION

BROWN, Judge."

But what the hey, let's go there anyway as it makes some astounding claims that a bright first year or ordinary second year law student would have dismissed very hastily.

First, it was argued by a pair of Pro Se litigants that make claims that had no remedy in law which is a common way of getting rid of non-lawyers out of the legal system before they accidentally expose the truth. No facts were ever tried, albiet:

"On January 30, 2009, the Governor filed a motion to dismiss alleging in part that "the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Appellee's Appendix at 1. The Governor also filed a memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss. On February 17, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Governor's motion to dismiss. On March 16, 2009, the trial court granted the Governor's motion to dismiss after a hearing. On April 13, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal.

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it."

Thus, while we do not test the sufficiency of the facts alleged with regards to their adequacy to provide recovery, we do test their sufficiency with regards to whether or not they have stated some factual scenario in which a legally actionable injury has occurred."

So as to the first action, the court replied:

"Thus, we conclude that Plaintiffs' argument that the Governor has allowed President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain to be appointed "Elector in Chief" in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2's prohibition against sitting Senators being appointed Elector for any State fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

But in the second part;

"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens."[15]

The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs' arguments fall under the category of "conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions" that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

[15] We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status."

First, Wong Kim Ark did not state any such thing as only citizenship under the 14th Amendment was determined by the Supreme Court. Second and foremost, a state appellate court has no authority to determine constitutional law, that is the domain of the Supreme Court under which they have original jurisdiction under Article III of the constitution.

Now if you have $20, LexisNexis will share some outstanding legal research along the lines of:

"Whatever its merits, the birther movement's persistent advocacy against Obama's eligibility in the face of hard facts 9 may have actually helped to downplay and discredit a distinct, more legally credible challenge to the candidate's status as a natural born citizen. Leo Donofrio, 10 then an attorney in New Jersey, researched the historic understanding of "natural born citizen" as a term of art and found that it had a set, broadly-understood meaning at the drafting of the Constitution 11 which was very different from the meaning it has taken in modern times. 12 Employing an original-meaning textual framework, Donofrio contended that under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, both Obama and Republican candidate John McCain were ineligible ..."

And while actually quoting a real case, you again irrelevantly dismiss the true meaning of the case. Wong makes no such determination and your actual strong case just relieves the governor from any liability in how he certified the electoral votes of Indiana in 2008.

 

LOL, you really are a peach. You really have no clue.

 

I see you didn't actually read the case.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously, it would put an end to you looking foolish. Give it a read

 

Duh, from what you posted.

Please quit proving you have no clue, it is getting tiring.

 

Statutes, are these somehow law? Perhaps I should refer you to Marbury v Madison 5 US 137.

 

It is not settled law just like the Federal Reserve is not settled law. It is but a matter that keeps getting swept under the carpet because otherwise it could be decided. And that is not how you interpret it.

 

Fathers, why Vatell's Law of Nations of course. The same one the founders used in writing the constitution. Ben Franklin ordered 3 copies from France. Jefferson had many copies himself and Washington check one out of the New York Library and forgot to return it for quite some time and had a huge fine. But then:

Statutes have no meaning in law, they are but administrative except when in conflict with law, the constitution.

Marbury v Madison:

"Anything that is in conflict with the constitution is null and void of law. Clearly Chief Justice Marshall said that for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was illogical for certainly the supreme law would prevail over all other law and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis of all law. And for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it never existed for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from a date so branded in an open court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or as a fiction of law."

And this was to Madison, the author of the constitution. This law has stood for 212 years, never overturned but much cited.

 

Statutes, statutes, statutes, I could care less. Anything applying to citizenship are null and void by Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. The only power assigned to congress by the constitution is:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,"

They have no other powers so therefore any statutes are nullities at law. They are meaningless, have no value.

 

What does Palin have to do with this? She is a 100% American citizen and she ran as a VP . Sooooooo ????

 

Yes... the statutes are law... Read them.. You don't seem to have sufficient training to read case law.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=5&invol=137

The questions:

Did Marbury have a right to the commission?
Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy?

 

You still think it is settled when it obviously isn't. Not that it makes much difference as Cruz is eligible as born a citizen according to precedent but not finally determined by SCOTUS.

 

Why in Hell are you trying to pass this off as a quote from Marbury?

From whom?

You do know the original Constitution probably had at least a dozen authors, right?

 

Who do you think was "naturalized"?

There are only two kinds of citizenship.... natural born and naturalized.

 

The definition of 'natural born' is what is not settle law.

 

Its defined very clearly and specifically in the statutes.... After six years you haven't bothered to READ them? Is that your approach to every subject here on PF?

 

Sorry, but you really have no clue. Statutes have little to do with settled law.

 

I think we are having a disconnect here. Are we discussing obama or Cruz? If Cruz then I apologize, I thought you were arguing obama was not a NBC

 

Really, from The Law of Nations, Book 1. This is from the 1883 printing of the 1852 edition of Joseph Chitty.

"The text of the present translation of Vattel has been carefully compared with that of the original work, in the first edition which appeared, (Londres, 1758, 2 vol. in quarto,) published at Neufchatel; in that of Amsterdam, (Van Harrevelt, 1775, 2 vol. in quarto,) the best known till recently; and in that of M. de Hoffmans, (Paris, 1839, 2 vol. in octavo,) the last and best edition."

So dance, scream, shout or cry, I don't care. Unless you can produce documentation that refutes what was entered according to an act Congress in 1852, then this acceptance is the official version. And, it should be noted that this section has no annotations as to any new cites from 1797

"§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

These have already been addressed in a prior rebuttal.

 

Nope it's settled law. which is why obama was unanimously confirmed by congress, twice, sworn in by the chief Justice, twice, and birthers have lost every single legal challenge to date.

 

Battles law of nations is entirely irrelevant to US law. And it didn't containthe words natural born citizen until it was inserted into a translation 10 years after the constitution was ratified.


And Marbury v Madison has no relevance at all to the issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, the entire judiciary disagrees

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it is

 

Thanks for participating in another thread proving you have no clue. You should do some reading before proving your lack of knowledge.

 

Law of nations has no relevance to US law. Natural born was nowhere found until AFTER the constitution was ratified.

And you lost that one.

- - - Updated - - -

There were 2 discussions going on. I mistakenly thought we were discussing obama, and I admitted that.