Judge: Ted Cruz eligible to be on N.J. primary ballot

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.northjersey.com/news/judge-ted-cruz-eligible-to-be-on-n-j-primary-ballot-1.1543279

A Pennsylvania judge reached the same conclusion recently as well. A couple other lawsuits were rejected for "technical reasons"- the plaintifs could not show how they had been harmed.

HAMILTON – Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas meets the criteria for a “natural born citizen” and can run in New Jersey’s Republican presidential primary on June 7, an administrative law judge ruled Tuesday.

Judge Jeff Masin’s decision now heads to the desk of Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, who in her capacity as secretary of state can choose to accept the opinion in full or in part, or reject it.

Victor Williams, one of the two challengers who questioned Cruz’s eligibility to run in the New Jersey primary, said he had “full confidence that Kim Guadagno will do the right thing and reject Mr. Cruz’s falsified ballot petition and certificate.” If she fails to do so, Williams said he would appeal.

Masin heard arguments Monday from Williams and attorney Mario Apuzzo, who represented three South Jersey residents. The two argued that since Cruz was born in Canada, he cannot be a natural born citizen, one of three constitutional requirements for the presidency.

Cruz, 45, was born in Calgary, Alberta. His mother was born in Delaware and was a United States citizen at the time of his birth. His father was born in Cuba. The GOP primary candidate has said that a child of a U.S. citizen is automatically granted citizenship at birth and is therefore “natural born.”

In his 26-page opinion, released shortly before 6 p.m. Tuesday, Masin called the question a “legitimate subject of legal and historical debate.” As the U.S. Constitution does not define what is meant by “natural born,” the meaning must be deduced by looking to English common law, Masin wrote.

In the 18th century, the British Parliament declared that all children born abroad to fathers who were natural born citizens, would themselves be natural born citizens.

“This then was the law of England, as it would have been known to the founding fathers,” Masin wrote.

He noted that mothers should be included in this definition now, as the equal protection clause of the Constitution would override any “common law based discrimination.”

Though he rejected their arguments regarding Cruz’s eligibility, Masin ruled the challengers did have standing to bring their cases and that the secretary of state has the legal authority to consider the matter. Shalom Stone, who represented Cruz on Monday, had argued that only the Electoral College and Congress could decide the issue.

The issue of Cruz’s citizenship has been raised by his main Republican opponent, Donald Trump, in this year’s highly contentious primary campaign. It has also been the subject of a number of legal challenges throughout the country. Judges have already rejected several because the challengers were deemed to lack standing. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month upheld a trial court decision that ruled in Cruz’s favor.

Guadagno, who must now decide the matter, was Governor Christie’s running mate in the 2009 and 2013 elections. Since ending his own presidential bid, Christie has endorsed Trump.

Williams said Monday that he supported Trump. At least one of three South Jersey challengers, Fernando Powers, also said he supported Trump.

 

[Cleaner44]

If people that aren't born on American soil are a “natural born citizen” then there really isn't any need to have the criteria. A person need only have one American parent and that is good enough. Why even spell out such a requirement if Canadians are natural born citizen's of the USA?

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

The judge is a treasonous Communist scumbag who may eligible for the federal death penalty under the Espionage Act.

 

[fedupinmo]

So Zippy... did you read the entire ruling? This "judge" relies on "scholars" and British statutes, and ignores all current case law regarding naturalized, foreign born children of citizens. Pocket, meet judge.
For those interest folk who read: http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/williams-v-cruz-decision/

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

That's great news.

Why? Because not dismissing it for lack of standing means it can be appealed... 1 down, 6 to go for this candidate. It wasn't likely
an administrative judge that reviews before the secretary of state is going to do anything new - but you never know.

I think we are very likely to see this wind up in real court for two reasons:

1. no one really likes Cruz, no one is protecting him - some people might be using him now.
2. The natural born clause needs ruling on. It comes up all the time. Cruz's case is a lot clearer
in certain aspects of it then others. Democrat lawyers *as lawyers* not democrats, love it.

Victor Williams, one of the two challengers who questioned Cruz’s eligibility to run in the New Jersey primary, said he had “full confidence that Kim Guadagno will do the right thing and reject Mr. Cruz’s falsified ballot petition and certificate.” If she fails to do so, Williams said he would appeal.

And that starts the process where a real supreme court eventually rules on the case and finally gives a natural born ruling - it's been 8 years.

Oddly enough, no case and law has been more studied by non-lawyers over the last 8 years *ever* then this one. It's generated interest. It might generate interest in common law and jurisprudence again - something common law lawyers are encouraged in, and today's trial lawyers neglect. It might start up reading at law again!

 

[fedupinmo]

Today's SCOTUS can't be trusted with such an important decision, especially without Scalia. They will give him the go-ahead, just so Congress can get around the NBC clause legislatively. The Court is not usually apt to turn down the increase of power for the State.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

In his 26-page opinion, released shortly before 6 p.m. Tuesday, Masin called the question a “legitimate subject of legal and historical debate.” As the U.S. Constitution does not define what is meant by “natural born,” the meaning must be deduced by looking to English common law, Masin wrote.

In the 18th century, the British Parliament declared that all children born abroad to fathers who were natural born citizens, would themselves be natural born citizens.

“This then was the law of England, as it would have been known to the founding fathers,” Masin wrote.

He noted that mothers should be included in this definition now, as the equal protection clause of the Constitution would override any “common law based discrimination.”

I personally doubt the struck-out part could (can, should?) be stretched that way, as it has nothing to do with the natural born clause. But this is going exactly in the direction I said it should go - and guess where part of the appeal would lie?

It's like throwing an underhanded ball at a batter - they all know this needs to be ruled on higher up - and are helping get it there.

 

[Root]

It doesn't matter. NJ is a blue state and will vote hard for the blue team.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, Cruz can not be considered a natural born citizen, because he was born in Canada, and by the law as the founding fathers knew it themselves, only the father gave natural born citizenship, and Cruz's father was a citizen of Cuba - and then Canada.

Only the Supreme Court can really rule otherwise - it's never been established otherwise.

This is great stuff.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

One argument against extending the meaning to one citizen parent who are mothers is that it muddies the waters on who is passing on the citizenship.

Remember, common law didn't recognize dual citizenship - and rightfully so. If you start talking about citizenship of either the mother or father, you now have children who are citizens of either of two two countries, an ambiguity that is clearly against the common law purpose. If you take the historical view of the man as the head of the household, the problem never occurs - it's always whether he is a citizen or not.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Overall, I like this. It's a good read - and covers everything we discussed on the other thread.

As Chief Justice Taft, himself a former President of the United States, wrote

The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.

So study your common law to understand the Constitution better!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...amily-Canada-records-could-be-available/page5

 

[Bryan]

The judge is a treasonous Communist scumbag who may eligible for the federal death penalty under the Espionage Act.

A lot of people would think this is pretty extreme - could you explain in detail?

Thanks.

 

[Ender]

That's great news.

Why? Because not dismissing it for lack of standing means it can be appealed... 1 down, 6 to go for this candidate. It wasn't likely
an administrative judge that reviews before the secretary of state is going to do anything new - but you never know.

I think we are very likely to see this wind up in real court for two reasons:

1. no one really likes Cruz, no one is protecting him - some people might be using him now.
2. The natural born clause needs ruling on. It comes up all the time. Cruz's case is a lot clearer
in certain aspects of it then others. Democrat lawyers *as lawyers* not democrats, love it.

Victor Williams, one of the two challengers who questioned Cruz’s eligibility to run in the New Jersey primary, said he had “full confidence that Kim Guadagno will do the right thing and reject Mr. Cruz’s falsified ballot petition and certificate.” If she fails to do so, Williams said he would appeal.

And that starts the process where a real supreme court eventually rules on the case and finally gives a natural born ruling - it's been 8 years.

Oddly enough, no case and law has been more studied by non-lawyers over the last 8 years *ever* then this one. It's generated interest. It might generate interest in common law and jurisprudence again - something common law lawyers are encouraged in, and today's trial lawyers neglect. It might start up reading at law again!

The issue is that there is precedence for Cruz's case. Chester A Arthur was probably not an American born citizen- and he parentage was much like Cruz's- an American mother and a father who was not. There were a lot of lies surrounding Arthur, including his date and place of birth.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

A lot of people would think this is pretty extreme - could you explain in detail?

Thanks.

It is kind of funny because, these courts are a product of the constitution.. I'd say you can either endorse both or neither.

 

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

The issue is that there is precedence for Cruz's case. Chester A Arthur was probably not an American born citizen- and he parentage was much like Cruz's- an American mother and a father who was not. There were a lot of lies surrounding Arthur, including his date and place of birth.

If you could find any reference to the mother ever being how citizenship passed on outside the country, I'd appreciate it. I posted blackstone in the other thread. Vattel said the same thing. Citizenship goes through the father, not mother:

"The Law of Nations" by Emerich de Vattel in 1758.
book one chapter 19,

§ 212. Of the 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.”

Note: Again there is sticky pc-ness in how this quoted, because when it is usually quoted, it is quoted as "both parents have to be citizens", but when we actually read it, it says that it comes through the father.

The constitution can not be amended by just perceived recent political correctness. It can not be amendment by law. Indeed, in the most normal course, it requires passage by two thirds in both houses and three fourths of the states. It is high mischief for it to be altered just through political correctness. If the issue were vital, it would be altered by amendment. How could a vital amendment not be immediately passed? But if it is simply alteration for pettiness as it appears here, it would not, it is hoped, be passed.

How could such a thing be changed without discussion? Wouldn't anyone disagree? Don't they have a right to disagree when it's their constitution, and they have to consent to it?

The man has always been the head of the household as far back as memory stretches. Many things, such as family names and inheritances, still rely on it. How can such a wholesale change in law and order be made, without pointing to any discussion, law, or consent where it was made? Indeed, it stretches back to biblical times and the nature of mankind itself, and the Bible has also been part of the common law ever since King Alfred the Great placed it before the common laws of England. Before we start ruling on something in the courts, shouldn't we ask whether it's even constitutional?

 

[jmdrake]

If people that aren't born on American soil are a “natural born citizen” then there really isn't any need to have the criteria. A person need only have one American parent and that is good enough. Why even spell out such a requirement if Canadians are natural born citizen's of the USA?

People who aren't born on American soil and don't have at least one parent who was born on American soil aren't natural born citizens. Of course this means Obama is a natural born citizen even if he wasn't born in Hawaii.

 

[jmdrake]

If you could find any reference to the mother ever being how citizenship passed on outside the country, I'd appreciate it. I posted blackstone in the other thread. Vattel said the same thing. Citizenship goes through the father, not mother:

"The Law of Nations" by Emerich de Vattel in 1758.
book one chapter 19,


Note: Again there is sticky pc-ness in how this quoted, because when it is usually quoted, it is quoted as "both parents have to be citizens", but when we actually read it, it says that it comes through the father.

The constitution can not be amended by just perceived recent political correctness. It can not be amendment by law. Indeed, in the most normal course, it requires passage by two thirds in both houses and three fourths of the states. It is high mischief for it to be altered just through political correctness. If the issue were vital, it would be altered by amendment. How could a vital amendment not be immediately passed? But if it is simply alteration for pettiness as it appears here, it would not, it is hoped, be passed.

How could such a thing be changed without discussion? Wouldn't anyone disagree? Don't they have a right to disagree when it's their constitution, and they have to consent to it?

The man has always been the head of the household as far back as memory stretches. Many things, such as family names and inheritances, still rely on it. How can such a wholesale change in law and order be made, without pointing to any discussion, law, or consent where it was made? Indeed, it stretches back to biblical times and the nature of mankind itself, and the Bible has also been part of the common law ever since King Alfred the Great placed it before the common laws of England. Before we start ruling on something in the courts, shouldn't we ask whether it's even constitutional?

*sigh* The constitution wasn't amended. The constitution didn't define natural born citizen. Now the definition of natural born citizen has changed. It would be like the constitution granting certain rights to people of voting age. If the voting age was 21 when the constitution was passed, then lowered to 18, the constitution wouldn't have to be amended to reflect the change. It would be automatic.

 

[Zippyjuan]

So Zippy... did you read the entire ruling? This "judge" relies on "scholars" and British statutes, and ignores all current case law regarding naturalized, foreign born children of citizens. Pocket, meet judge.
For those interest folk who read: http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/williams-v-cruz-decision/

WND still thinks Obama was born in Kenya.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

The judge is a treasonous Communist scumbag who may eligible for the federal death penalty under the Espionage Act.

A Communist would have much more sympathy towards Trump than Cruz.

 

[Ender]

If you could find any reference to the mother ever being how citizenship passed on outside the country, I'd appreciate it. I posted blackstone in the other thread. Vattel said the same thing. Citizenship goes through the father, not mother:
l?[/B]

My post wasn't necessarily about the mother- but that one parent was a US citizen.