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

You ever think that one reason SCOTUS has not definitively ruled on every "new" angle birthers dream up is because there is no need?

"Natural born" has been defined, in statute and in practice, as "citizen at birth". It's merely a way to distinguish such citizens from naturalized citizens.

No challenge to that basic definition and usage has merited Supreme Court review. Which is another way of saying it's fine.

I was born in Canada to American parents. I, too, am a "natural born" citizen, and could run for president if I wanted.

Birthers are morons.

 

What a 'natural born citizen' is has not been defined by SCOTUS and is up for interpretation. Thus the continued confusion.

 

There is no confusion. It has been consistently defined by statute and practice for centuries. There has been no need for SCOTUS to issue a ruling on it, because there has been no actual confusion.

SCOTUS only takes up cases where there is a question that needs answering. The definition of "natural born" is not one of those questions.

 

Again, statute is not the same as defined by SCOTUS and the only legal definition implies only those born 'within' the confines of the United States.

 

It doesn't have to be settled by SCOTUS. Born in the US was settled by SCOTUS. Born abroad is settled by statute.

There is no confusion.

 

I believe I said as much. But SCOTUS only takes cases that have questions that need settling. SCOTUS failing to rule on something doesn't mean there is confusion; it usually means that the question did not need settling. Which is why rulings that are not accepted for review by SCOTUS remain valid and binding within their jurisdiction, and are referred to if similar cases come up in other jurisdictions.

IOW, a statute is valid unless SCOTUS specifically overturns it. SCOTUS has declined to do that with the citizenship statutes for more than two centuries. Thus, the statutes are valid, and as close to "settled" as anything in our legal system can be, short of a specific SCOTUS ruling.

Incorrect. The statute is controlling, absent a SCOTUS overturning of it.

SCOTUS ignoring a question for more than two centuries -- especially a question so central to who is allowed to govern our country -- is strong evidence that it's not really a question.

 

Demonstrably false. SCOTUS does not define law. The statutes define born abroad. Statutes are law.

 

I agree with your first point but your second is wrong as the only definition of 'natural born' that has been settle by SCOTUS is those born within the confines of the US. As you point out though, it will never be settled unless a narrowly defined case come before the court.

What that means in the long run is that Cruz, by precedent, is eligible to run for President.

- - - Updated - - -

Law, defined by Congress, can be unconstitutional and only rectified by SCOTUS so yes, SCOTUS defines law as it pertains to the Constitution.

 

How is my second point wrong? SCOTUS has ignored the question for two centuries. Hence, it's not really a question.

Yep. God help us.

 

You would have to define 'ignored' by showing the cases brought up that were ignored.

 

If the question is so non-controversial that it doesn't even reach SCOTUS, it's even LESS of a question.

 

Nope. SCOTUS only determines if if laws are constitutional. They don't define existing law.

 

Oh, I agree, but this is not something that would come up very often but it came up under Obama and if there is the possibility of Cruz running, you can bet it will come up a again.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't that what I said. If a law is unconstitutional and it comes before the Court, the court will negate the law. The only time that does not apply is when the court acts as the lawmaker using judicial activism.

 

But by the constitution, congress can define nothing but uniform rules for Naturalization.

 

The statutes define very specifically who is a natural born US citizen.. Did Cruz mother renounce her US citizenship before he was born?

 

You would be right, Cruz is a citizen by virtue of his mother and his acceptance of citizenship at the age of consent.

 

Yet, like Obama, you can bet it will be challenged on the unlikely chance he is the nominee.

 

No, Cruz correctly identified himself, a citizen. His father was a Cuban living in Canada. His mother was a US citizen living in Canada.

 

No matter how many times you post it, it still will not become true.

 

Exactly, the first congress fully understood the intentions of the founding documents and Washington as president fully understood them. When one looks at the act, the question would be the constitutionality of the act as they have gone beyond Naturalization but in reality did they? Not really as all they have down was to clarify just who needed naturalization and why.

This is exactly as the text of the "Law of Nations" by Vattel which at this point I believe Washington still had not returned to the New York library.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you know the difference between statutes and acts?

 

I would advise you read the acts and stop screwing around with statutes as the acts are positive law. Any conflict and the act dominates unless it is unconstitutional and then neither are worth the paper they are printed on.

So I would say based on your post, you either have a Harvard Law degree or not a clue, really hard to tell. I mean one only need to look at the antics of Odumbo to understand the value of Harvard law and the constitution.

 

Only the Ivy League schools, some of the small schools actually have professors that understand law and not billing.

 

No, that's not all they did. The 1790 act also declared certain people natural born citizens, which Congress had no authority to do under the Constitution.

 

Jack Maskell's treatise, whether the 2009 version or the 2011 version are seriously flawed pieces of work written around a foregone conclusion looking to find justification, a favorite tactic of those illustrious bar members. First, his main assumption was that British common law should be the determining factor which is to ignore any and all other sources that would have a tendency to made the case weak. However, he inadvertently did it anyway, but it was a quick gloss over. There was a very quick reference on page 2, to wit:

"See Blackstone, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND , Volume I, “Of the Rights of Persons,” 354-358, 361 (1765): “ ... by several more modern statutes ... all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural born subjects, are now natural born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”

Wonder where Blackstone came up with this reference, Vattel? Of course!! During that period, the diplomatic language was French, not English. Our founders spoke and read French fluently. Thomas Jefferson, our French Ambassador at the time had his personal copies as did Franklin (he ordered three) and Washington (checked out of the New York library). Madison probably did also as Jefferson sent him a whole crate of law books to aid in his writing of the constitution, but at the very least he had access to the copies owned by Franklin.

So failure of the courts and Jack Maskell to even consider Vatell is to but ignore the facts. The failure of the courts and Jack Maskell to even mention Vatell as a source of English law is to but ignore the facts. Vatell was very well read at the time and was considered the prime source on law. However the appeals court of Indiana did mention Vatell but only as a quick dismissal due to it's flawed application by the Pro Se litigants, one of the causes for the failure to state a cause for which there is a remedy. The failure of the courts and Jack to mention the Naturalization Act of 1790 is a major flaw as the first congress had an understanding of natural born like no other.

However, now let's face reality. The possibility of this or the Fed Reserve act ever making it to the supreme court is nil. There is no way either would face the scrutiny of such a challenge.

 

It is not settled by a long shot and you are definitely not qualified to even think of trying to deem it so. You try to use case law like it was gospel little understanding that they are just opinions of actors in little black robes. There opinions can be reversed at any time and usually are by the next batch of actors in little black robes that see matters differently.

As to your choice of case law, both are flawed in support of your claim. I would love to have you as an opponent in a court of competent jurisdiction as your lack of understanding in the operation of law would cost you dearly.