I was gratified to see that FactCheck linked to my coverage of the Voeltz lawsuit in Florida against Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in their article “Trump Overstates Cruz Challenges.” This is an update.
Voeltz (pictured right) filed the lawsuit December 17. Counsel for Rubio filed a notice of appearance January 8, and counsel for Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner filed theirs January 11. On January 11 Senator Rubio filed a motion to dismiss. (RC had posted the motion at Scribd a couple of weeks ago.) The summons issued to Senator Cruz was docketed as returned served on January 21, and on that date counsel for Cruz entered a notice of appearance, and Voeltz moved for default judgment against Rubio; however, that motion was not entered because Rubio had answered. (There is apparently some confusion in the docket where it shows that Rubio filed his motion to dismiss on January 11, but on the notation to not enter the motion for default, it says the date was January 21).
The Broward County Clerk of Court web site (search for case number CACE15022044) allows downloads of documents, and we should see some sort of response from Ted Cruz eventually. Yes, Cruz supporters, your campaign donations go to defend your guy’s eligibility against an onslaught of legal challenges.
Update:
Cruz moves to dismiss. (Well, he would, wouldn’t he?)
I think you’ve got the wrong photo. That’s not Voeltz. That’s William Shatner wearing Trump’s hairpiece.
Speaking about eligibility, Kommandant Zoolow was on Fact Free Friday today with the good Reverend Carl Gal-Oops. The subject addressed was the definition of Natural Born Citizenship. Of course neither Gal-Oops or Zoolow are constitutional attorneys, but they can read and have God given understanding of the written English language and have determined that three GOP contenders for the presidential nomination are not eligible to be president.
These are the same goof-balls who also claimed that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president, even though having been born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and an American mother, all of which has been verified by the state of Hawaii.
While I do have trouble with Cruz’ eligibility, my consern has never been or never will be based on anything stated by the two non-experts called Gal-Oops & Zoolow.
I want to emphasize one thing from the Rubio motion to dismiss that questions the notion from Rogers v. Bellei that persons born citizens of the US under a statute are naturalized as opposed to natural born. It is a case I have been reading recently, Miller v. Albright, 523 US 420 (1998), one that is more recent than Bellei.
That is, persons like Cruz are citizens “by birth.” If their source of citizenship is birth, then it is not naturalization. The Rubio motion concludes, “The argument that Senator Rubio was naturalized at birth is as incongruous as it is wrong. … One is either a citizen at birth or one is a naturalized citizen. There is no third option of naturalization at birth” (citing Miller).
Since Rubio and Cruz both believe in fetal personhood, would it not be more appropriate for them to argue about naturalization at conception?.
One interesting claim in the Rubio MTD is “Six presidents were born in the United States to at at least one parent was not a citizen.” The list is: Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and Barack Obama.
I thought we had gone through this material and found only Obama and Arthur were precedent-setting. Jackson, of course, was born in 1767 before the American Revolution.
I believe in the cases of Buchanan, Wilson and Hoover it was their mothers who were born overseas and they were naturalized upon marriage under the laws in effect at the time. If that isn’t the case, then Herr Drumpf has a birther problem because his mother was from Scotland.
There was a thread about Buchanan in 2010, but it was inconclusive.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/was-james-buchanan-a-natural-born-citizen/
Did Rogers v. Bellei really have that much of a notion that statutory citizens are naturalized. I went through it, and one of the dissents certainly does, but not the majority opinion doesn’t specifically say that. It refers to “naturalization acts”, but there’s a question as to whether or not that’s just a term of art.
Wilson’s mother emigrated in 1936 with her mother and father when she was somewhere around 6-10 years old (I have seen 2 different birth years so I am being approximate). Her mother died very shortly after they emigrated. Wilson’s parents appear to have married in 1849.
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=woodrow_wilson&id=I00048
8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
I wonder why ?
[ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents], Is not listed then?
Guess [Statute] means something different than 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
Oh let me see?
stat·ute ˈstaCHo͞ot/Submit noun
plural noun: statutes
[a written law passed by a legislative body.]
I guess it depends on the definition of [that much]
Let’s see..
Marco Rubio naturalized by statute
8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
[ (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;]
That Much! Hummm.. Obama?
Ted Cruz naturalized by statute 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
[(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;]
Or… Hummmm Obama?
naturalized by statute 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
[(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:..]
That Much!
Hmmmm.. Obama?
Maybe … Statute doesn’t mean Statute that Much?
Now let’s look at the last Statute passed by Congress that had the definition of [natural born Citizen] in it; because none of the above actually deal with the combination of words used for the Qualification for the Office of President, but they do use the word used to identify the Qualification for the Office of Representative and Senator. ie.[Citizen]
That would be U.S. Sen. Res 511 passed by the entire U.S. Senate the great Body of Congress Cruz, Rubio, McCain, H. Clinton, and Obama were part of representing and admired greatly for their wisdom and keen intelligence..by this group. What do they say?
McCain is a Statute Struck [natural Born Citizen]
Born in the United States or its controlled outlying possession to U.S. Citizen [Parents].
Hummm that’s kinda like [ Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents] if Panama is considered outlying possession militarily at the Time.
Wow!
That is the last Controlling Statute and quite modern too [’07- 2008]
So., we can formally agree that all these Senators, at the Time they were Senators or if now serving as Senators, agreeing Rubio and Cruz are eligible don’t agree that Statute means Statute that Much.
That sounds like a bunch of hypocrits bending The Law over and porking it to their own personally satisfaction. It just seems a bit.. I don’t know…UNNATURAL?
8 USC 1401(a) is superfluous given that there’s the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
And SR 511 (2008) wasn’t a statute. It was a resolution. A fluff piece without any legal teeth. It only required a vote of one house and wasn’t subject to Presidential veto.
8 U.S. Code § 1401 (a) is merely a restatement of the 14th Amendment. It did not change anything.
“Born in the U.S. to citizen parents” is not listed because EVERYONE born in the U.S. while subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen at birth. The citizenship of the parents is irrelevant.
Marco Rubio and Barack Obama were citizens at birth because of the Constitution, not because of 8 U.S. Code § 1401.
The money quote from Bellei is: “The [Wong] Court concluded that ‘naturalization by descent’ was not a common law concept, but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment.”
That is a misquote of Justice Gray’s decision in Wong. He does not say “naturalization” but rather “nationality” citing Dicey:
Of course Dicey is the source of another citation in Wong:
So your saying Amendment 14 is not a [naturalization act] of Congress’s ability along with States per Article 1, Clause 8, C-4 ?
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/693489734786506753
At least you admitted to your thoughts on American Culture Sir? It’s irrelevant? Why Don’t you run around Italy, Mexico, Russia, China etc screaming their [ natural born Citizens] Born in the Country to Citizen Parents are irrevalent?
Let me know how that goes for you!😂😂😂
Exactly!
But, TITLE 8 is Statute for [Citizen] like 511 is for [natural born Citizen]
And guess what fluff pieces Cruz, Rubio, and Obama fit under?
It’s NOT the reccommendations of the Senate in 2008 and USRES511 certainly is non binding, but it also is the U.S. Senate Body of the United States of America including 50 Senators 2 from each State not a single Judge or Panel AND it deals with their feelings on [ Natural Born Citizen] representing the most modern interpretation we have of Law.
Now, if jurisdiction by Statute considered naturalization is important to us considering Amend 14, in the excercise of Congress per Art 1, Sect. 8, C-4, I suggest the natural born Citizen Qualification for the Office of President not be confused with the qualifications for Senators and Representatives as they dually Noticed in USRES511.
With regards to the Qualification of President it seems an emphasis of [ born in the U. S. to Citizen Parents] illustrated closely the exclusion of Foreigners, Aliens, and Nationals, as well dual citizenships after the Adoption of the Constitution subject to Statute Naturalizations that did include some U.S. Citizens at birth according to adoption criteria or naturalization processes.
Art II. Sect 1, C-5 for President [ Citizen ] at the Time of Adoption or [ natural born Citizen] thereafter.
Art. 1, Sect 2 for Representatives [Citizen]
Art. 1 Sect 3 for Senators [Citizen]
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ITCr420K4i8
It’s actually quite simple.
CRJ:
Let me make it plain. You, sir, are ignorant of law. Of life. Of politics. Of your own mental health. Please stop. Stop writing. Stop lying. Stop terrorizing. Just stop.
Doc:
Is there a way to filter CRJ’s comments? I really like reading here, but I hate scrolling past pages of idiocy to get to relevant discussion of topics.
Italy-President is a figurehead. The Prime Minister runs things. I believe he only has to be a citizen.
Mexico-Interesting case. President has to be a natural born citizen. However the Spanish term “mexicano por nascimiento” clearly translates as “Mexican by birth”. You are also required to have at least one parent who is a natural born citizen. So, Obama and Cruz would qualify, but Rubio wouldn’t.
Russia- Only required to be a citizen.
China-Only required to be a citizen.
So, yeah, I’ll be happy to run around there screaming about natural born citizens, because they won’t care.
Not explicitly, but it’s implicit in the ruling, assuming my possibly-erroneous understanding that one of the distinctions between “natural born” and “naturalized” is that the former citizenship can never be taken from the citizen is correct.
There also remains the dicta in WKA that specifically classified the type of law that gave Cruz his citizenship as “naturalization”, whichwas in the majority opinion. The WKA decision seems to me to be saying that interpretation of the Constitution’s citizenship wording should be based only on common law, and not include English statute law.
Which part of WKA are you referring to?
I haven’t read Miller but the quotes provided don’t support that claim. It cites WKA and says:
Which, both from the dicta in WKA, and a straightforward interpretation of the enumerated powers, is “naturalization”.
The fact that we have only “birthright” and “naturalization” doesn’t mean that there’s only one path of naturalization.
This one:
That scrolling requiring about the same energy as blinking twice really is disconcerting. I hear you, but I think your whining like Jeb Bush does about Donald Trump. In the end you would miss me and think of me as a little Teddy Bear.
Seems Andy’s one comment. Is irrelevant to the discussion causing everyone to blink once.
Well, I always try to take some one at their word, but this gibberish you are slinging is like comedy.
Because, indeed I am not ignorant of Law reciting many very important aspects of it regarding Cruz, Rubio, McCain, and Obama subjects roundly considered topic specialties of this Site.
Of Life, I’m the only one here that’s probably been charged with two 5-Life’s holy st*t that’s frightening thinking you might not get McDonald’s ever again! So I know all about that wicked card game prosecutors play, and it’s one very BIG Reason I’m here doing all I can to appeal to REASONABLE minds.
Of Politics, well, I’ve got more experience here running for the Offices of U.S Representative, U.S. Senator, and U.S. President than anyone here does. Be happy to answer questions for you about that also, because you need to recognise in this Legal Law Network it doesn’t always go down according to Law, but politics places a BIG Qestion Mark into about every aspect of Law.
The fact that 2008, 2012, and 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections have been highly affected by 3 People Sen McCain, Sen H. Clinton, and Sen Barack Obama who just so happened to be Major Players in U.S. Sen. Res 511 is highly applicable in the discussion of [ natural born Citizen] and your blessed to have me here as the only Presidential Candidate with a bi-partisan federal Court Record involving all of them.
I’m sorry they do not think well enough of you to join the discussion, but that does not deterr my feelings to be here assisting and serving as I can. So, if really want to make things plain, your comment doesn’t make any sense given any of the facts.
So compose yourself and do those little finger excercises we were taught to strengthen your scrolling abilities with your mouse or finger; man up and put your big boy pullups on. GO register to Vote or Caucus for me.
Gotta get back to #iowacaucus
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/693533841403740161
Thank you, CRJ, for making my point. My posts are succinct, of at least average intelligence, and are based in reality. (As is my life.)
Yours are not.
You are an unimportant little person with delusions of grandeur. You aren’t even a joke; you’re merely a punchline.
But you’re also the only terrorist who thinks he’s running for office that I’m aware of! So that’s something.
Your ignorance of the Constitution is appalling.
A Constitutional Amendment is not an act of Congress. An act of Congress is a law which can be implemented by Congress on its own (the President can veto an act of Congress, but Congress can override a veto.)
A Constitutional Amendment, on the other hand, can only be proposed by Congress. It’s right there in Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution…
Congress cannot ratify an amendment to the Constitution. Ratification (passing) of an amendment requires the approval of 2/3 of the states.
So a Constitutional Amendment is not an act of Congress.
It’s 2/3 of each house to propose, but there’s an alternate method with 2/3 of state legislatures to call a convention to propose amendments.
Ratification requires 3/4 of state legislatures or 3/4 of state ratification conventions.
So it’s possible to completely bypass Congress, although it’s never been done yet.
Thanks for pointing out my error. 2/3 to propose, 3/4 to ratify is correct, of course. I had 2/3 on my mind for some reason.
YES.
Amendment 14 is NOT a naturalization act (nor any other kind of act) of Congress’.
It is a Constitutional Amendment. Not an act; an Amendment.
An Amendment is an integral part of the Constitution as per Article V:
I’ll anticipate your moaning and yeah-buts and ask exactly what part of ‘YES, Amendment 14 is NOT an act of Congress’ do you not understand?
I think I can anticipate your answer to that question too: it is the words ‘YES’ and ‘NOT’ that you are having trouble with, amirite?
I would also debate that Art 14 is not about naturalization, but rather a codification of what the requirements for citizenship were as was understood at the time of passage. Art 14 does not need to speak to naturalization, since that power is already granted to the Congress by the Constitution.
Again, not amazingly, the lying convicted felon gets it wrong.
Doesn’t it strike you as somewhat inconsistent to claim that your Founders were so concerned about dual allegiances stemming from place of birth, parents, purity of blood, whatever, when two of them (Madison, Jefferson) agreed that becoming dual citizen of a rival country during adulthood while holding political office was basically fine?
I mean, between Cruz being born in Canada or him, today, hypothetically deciding to become a Russian citizen, which should concern you more?
If the intent was to forbid dual citizenship for Presidents, they could have done so explicitly as some countries do. Similarly, they could have explicitly said parents must be citizens. Why were they so coy? Was there an ink shortage in Philadelphia?
Hypothetical? Given the man-crush for Putin on the American right, one wonders..
I noticed that there are two notices of appearance by attorneys for Ted Cruz now on the docket, I believe Cruz was only properly served recently so I suspect he will be given an extension of time to file a reply. It will be interesting to read what real attorneys come up with to defend Ted Cruz. I suspect they will go heavy on standing and the political question doctrine.
It comes to mind that I do not remember much if anything being said during the convention or later during Congressional debates about DUAL citizenship one way or another. I would suspect that at the time that a great number of people actually had or could have claimed dual citizenship due to the influx of immigrants we had. I know that later statues required the person naturalizing to renounce any prior citizenship, but that really had no legal effect since the person could have gone back to where they came from and their old government would most likely not have cared in the least as they were still considered to be subjects there. This, as I recall, was a problem we had with GB until we forcefully reminded them otherwise. So to my way of thinking, the arguments about dual citizenship are really meaningless in this context historically.
There are also these notices:
1/21/2016 – “Answer or other pleadings filed on 1/21/16 clerk may not enter default.”
1/29/2016 – “defendant answered on 1/21/2016”
Rubio filed his motion on 1/11/2016 so maybe Cruz has filed something other than the notices of appearance.
Cruz’s Motion to dismiss is docketed and dated 1/25/2016.
Haven’t read it yet.
1) lacks standing
2) political question left to Congress
3) Fails to comply with procedures
Footnote 1 is a list of birther failures for lack of standing. Who is Riethmiller? She filed at lot of challenges in various states.
I posted the Cruz MTD to SCRIBD
https://www.scribd.com/doc/297538440/Voeltz-v-Cruz-Motion-to-Dismiss
Congress can define naturalized citizens only under the powers granted by the Constitution. Therefore if Congress passes a law that establishes citizenship at birth for a foreign birth then that citizen is necessarily naturalized.
Confusion on this point arises from the Naturalization Act of 1790 in which Congress declared that a child born over the sea of citizen parents was a natural born citizen.
However Congress dropped this language from their Naturalization Act of 1795.
The meaning of the term “natural born citizen” as it appears in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 is a matter for constitutional interpretation. Article II Section 1 Clause is original text and must stand alone. SCOTUS has assumed the sole authority to interpret the Constitution. So it’s way past time for SCOTUS to interpret this phrase in the context of presidential eligibility.
Certain terms in the Constitution fall to Congress, not the SCOTUS to interpret. Think about “high crimes and misdemeanors”. When Bill Clinton was impeached, many doubted that his crimes rose to the level justifying removal from office. The Senate agreed. There was no avenue of appeal of that decision, nor would there have been if the Senate had convicted him, because the interpretation of :”high crimes and misdemeanors” is up to Congress. I would argue similarly for whether a President-elect is qualified to take office, as specified in the 20th Amendment, which necessarily involves Congress deciding the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the case of a challenge.
SCOTUS has not assumed the “sole authority” to interpret the Constitution, when the Constitution assigns the responsibility to another branch of government. For example, the Supreme Court does not define “high crimes and misdemeanors” in impeachment cases, and it may well decide that “natural born citizen” is likewise assigned to Congress to define.
Possibly so but I believe that Congress still is unsure if they have the authority to define the term “natural born citizen”. The meaning of “naturalized citizen” is clear but the meaning of “natural born citizen” is still fuzzy. Interestingly, the last action was Senate Resolution S. RES. 511 which was non-binding. The resolution references the Naturalization Act of 1790 which was repealed in 1795. The 1795 Act removed the language containing the phrase “natural born citizen”.
However, My point is if SCOTUS is waiting on Congress for a law that defines “natural born citizen” then they may be waiting for a long time.
I wouldn’t be a law. It would be the certification of the results of the Presidential Election. That is, Congress has decided that Obama is a natural born citizen. If Cruz gets elected, then we’ll know about people like him.
They’ve done it 44 times (actually more, since they do it twice for a 2 term President and they also certify the VP who has the same requirement). You need to face the fact that not a single member of Congress was willing to put a challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility in writing. I suspect none would if Cruz won either.
You and your fellow birthers seem, frankly, to hate the idea of the people deciding things. You prefer unelected judges, except when they rule against you, at which point we hear that they are corrupt.
The truth is that a definition of natural born citizen by the Supreme Court would be no more “right” in an absolute sense than a definition from Congress, Doc, me or your local bartender. Nor would it necessarily “settle” the matter, since the court has ruled on abortion, guns, religious liberty, wiretapping, campaign contribution limits and so on and no one regards those as settled.
As an Engineer, I prefer to base my opinions on hard facts. There have been 42 times that the citizens have elected a President who was “natural born” (as defined by being born within the territory of two citizen parents). Only twice has that not been the case. It was not until the 21st President, Chester Arthur that questions of the candidates eligibility were raised. Obama, the 44th was the other whose eligibility was challenged. And now, some current candidates for the presidency are being questioned. The evidence clearly shows that candidates born within the territory of two citizen parents are not challenged. These candidates were chosen 42 out of 44 times.
No, they’ve never defined the term at all: all they’ve done is implicitly declare that some individuals were part of the class, without ever drawing any boundaries, or specifying any criteria, that would define the class.
Since delineating “natural born” and “naturalized” has implications in other areas (e.g., Rogers v Bellei), it would be appropriate for the Court to rule on finishing the definition that it started in Wong Kim Ark.
Bellei says that those born abroad to US citizen parents are not covered by the 14th amendment, which, if you read the plain words of the amendment “born or naturalized in the United States” seems correct. However, that is separate from presidential eligibility. Those born abroad to non-citizen parents and naturalized are covered by the 14th amendment, yet are clearly not eligible to be President. So the link between the 14th amendment and the natural born citizen clause is not absolute. If it were, then naturalized citizens should be treated equally as regards running for President.
As for some hard and fast definition that some seek, I come back to the matter of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and impeachment. The term has never been defined by either Congress or the Supreme Court and likely never will be. No President or other official can be certain whether some act he or she might do is impeachable or not. It’s something they need to consider before acting and rely on their judgment of the political situation. The same holds true when someone considers running for President. Cruz judged his Canadian birth wouldn’t be a barrier. Were he to win (something I fervently hope doesn’t happen) and be confirmed by Congress (highly likely) then the question would be answered for those born abroad to US citizen parents. Otherwise, you will just have to live with uncertainty.
If the uncertainty is untenable, then my remedy would be to amend the Constitution to either make abundantly clear in plain English who is and is not eligible or, better, dispose of the restriction, which served little purpose in the past and serves none today, and replace it with some period of citizenship like 25 years.
As a mathematician, I prefer to base my opinions on valid statistical argument, The screaming fallacy in your point is that the overwhelming number of people in the United States are born of two citizen parents, and so the relatively small number persons with an alien parent who became president may not be informative at all. You also skew the result by calling someone like George Washington a natural born citizen and Obama not. The father of both was a British subject who never became an American citizen.
As a scientist, I do the same.
The hard fact is that neither Obama nor Arthur were challenged. Internet chatter and meretricious court cases don’t count. The 20th Amendment delegates the matter to Congress, which has laid out a statutory procedure. A written challenge to the Electoral College vote is required, and such must be signed by at least one member of the House and at least one member of the Senate. No such challenge was made to either Arthur or Obama, and that is the only one that counts. I note that such a challenge was made in 2004 (though to the Ohio votes, not eligibility) and it was heard and quickly disposed of, so it is quite within the realm of possibility to make such a challenge.
The fact that not a single Member of Congress, including the many who are strongly opposed to Obama’s policies, was willing to go on the record in support of your position shows how truly weak your position is.
You mean like when you claimed that Brietbart was killed by a CIA heart attack gun, or a starbucks employee watering the sidewalk, or an electrified street plate or a jagged street lamp of doom?
Based on the mistaken belief that he was born in Canada and not based on his parents.
I deliberately included the “George Washintons” in my tally because it’s clear that the drafters of the Constitution instructed the new U.S. citizens to consider these prior citizens of the colonies as equivalent to “natural born”
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
Morever, the Founders clearly added a “loyalty test” for candidates for the “commander in chief” that applies to no other Federal office. They intended that the citizens would elect someone from the large pool of citizens who were both jus solis and jus sanguinis.
I believe you are reading more into the XX amendment than is really there.
”
Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
”
The phrase “or if the President Elect shall have failed to qualify” does not mean failed to qualify in the electoral college vote count (or under law) but rather it means failed to qualify under Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution. We know that because Article II Section 1 Clause 5 is original text of the Constitution (which has never been amended and therefore must have legal weight and stand on its own) and the phrase “shall have failed to qualify” is in the past tense. (i.e. before the House proceeds to apply article XX). Thus “failure to qualify” is a trigger to invoke the XXth amendment and therefore is not a requirement under the XXth amendment.
The actions of the Congress that you are referring to (i.e. objections to the electoral votes) are defined by law but not by the constitution. And law can never trump the original text of the Constitution if a reading of the plain text is clear. And, in this case, it is perfectly clear.
Hermie can’t get anything right. 43 (not 44) different persons have served in the office of President of the United States at least once. Every one of them has been eligible.
Take your Beef up with Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
So a position supported by no recognized authority, no member of Congress, and no sitting judge is in your mind a “fact”? You’re nuts.
Back in the box.
That’s nonsense. The text is clear. It’s failure to qualify-period. That includes all possible reasons including, death, inability to perform the job because of illness (the 25th Amendment covers death and disability after the President takes office), disputes over the vote or not meeting the age, residency and NBC requirements. The only challenge I know of was to the vote in Ohio in 2004. It was recognized by the President of the Senate at the time (Dick Cheney) and dealt with (in that case rejected).
But here is the most critical thing that you continue to dance around-NO CHALLENGE WAS MADE TO BARACK OBAMA. None. Not in 2008. Not in 2012.
So, clearly, in the opinion of Congress he was eligible.
Let’s examine the facts and use deductive reasoning to draw a conclusion:
Fact 1-Chester Arthur’s father was not a citizen at the time Chester was born.
Fact 2- Approximately 135 years after Arthur became President, the US still exists. In that time, it has grown immensely in wealth and influence in the world.
Conclusion-Based on empirical evidence, having a President with a non-citizen father, per se, does not appear harmful to the national interests.
I could argue that they intended that the citizens elect someone from the pool of white Christian (likely Protestant) males, thereby eliminating Clinton, Carson, Fiorina and Sanders, along with possibly Rubio, Christie, Bush, Santorum, O’Malley and possibly others. That has as much support, in fact, likely more, than your statement.
And that’s assuming the “intentions” of dead guys are the be-all and end-all, which is a whole other argument.
In Obama’s case Congress followed the Constitution. Obama was not proven to be ineligible before the counting of the electoral votes. And Congress understood that disqualification at that point would be contrary to the XXth amendment.
So you are comfortable with odds of 1 out of 42 as a basis for your conclusion?
Hermitian: In Obama’s case Congress followed the Constitution.
So, what’s your problem?
I don’t see your point. There are 2/43 Presidents who had at least 1 non-citizen parent. We are possibly looking at a third. So what? We are also looking at possibly the first woman or the first Jewish President, or the first 100% black President. So what?
Take it up yourself. Grover Cleveland is counted twice.
Wikipedia counts Cleveland twice because he served two non-consecutive terms and therefore was elected twice. So my earlier statement
“There have been 42 times that the citizens have elected a President who was “natural born” (as defined by being born within the territory of two citizen parents).”
is correct.
From that very wikipedia article:
Next time: Try reading for comprehension.
My original point was:
“There have been 42 times that the citizens have elected a President who was “natural born” (as defined by being born within the territory of two citizen parents).”
So there were 42 presidential elections where the citizens chose a person who was both jus soli and Jus sanguinis.
I stand by my original count.
From wikipedia
There have been 43 people sworn into office, and 44 presidencies
Obama has never been proven to be ineligible period.
Washington’s father died a British Subject before the American Revolution.
I notice that Hermie implicitly admitted that Presidents Washington, Jefferson, et al. were natural born citizens. This leads to an inescapable conclusion that President Obama and President Arthur were natural born as well. [Briefly, it means that natural born subjects became natural born citizens and we know the rule for natural born subjects is that jus soli is sufficient. This law was recognized by the sates (see the Virginia citizenship law) before the Constitution was ratified and not changed by the Constitution, it is still in effect.]
Sorry Hermie, but, once again, the logical conclusion from your own arguments is that you lose.
He hasn’t figured out Grover Cleveland yet.
The grandfather provision for citizens of the colonies was intended to make their status equivalent to natural born citizens.
The first seven Presidents benefited from the Grandfather provision.
It’s interesting that citizens of the colonies did not become Naturalized citizens of the new U. S. government but rather were equivalent to natural born citizens, that were born after ratification of the Constitution.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
Except that under your “definition of natural born citizen”, all Indian children who were born jus soli before ratification would automatically be natural born citizens after ratification. But the colonists (for the most part) did not consider the children of Indians as citizens. So it’s obvious that the correct definition of “natural born” is children born both jus soli and jus sanguinis.
No President benefited from the Grandfather provision. Any authority will tell you that provision was for the foreign-born, like Hamilton.”
Madison, in the Smith debate in 1789, explains the reason why the persons born in the British colonies were equivalent to those born in the new United States. It explains why Congressman Smith was born in Charleston, and was absent during the American Revolution, but was considered a US citizen from birth.
However the Madison argument does not work if the father had to be a citizen, because Washington’s father died a British subject.
First Nations had a special status as independent nations within the territory. They made their own laws and ran their own affairs. Here is what you cannot show me-a person born within the Colonies who was neither First Nations or a slave, but who was not a citizen. I challenged Mario Apuzzo to show me one years ago and he couldn’t. I challenged this fellow “Kenley Noltensmeier” to find one just yesterday and the response is crickets. i doubt you can do better, but have at it. Assertions don’t count, only documented examples.
Hermy how’s your English.? You know that if you read that sentence as written, under the rules of English grammar, no one who was not alive in 1791 is eligible, Go ask a grammarian if you don’t believe me. So, it was very sloppily written to say the least, which is why trying to extract meaning is fraught with problems.
So Bernie Sanders will be the first?
I have to admit that I was better in Math and Physics than English. So I don’t see your point. Maybe the drafters were using the English of the Colonies.
I’m not seeing why the “Washingtons” didn’t benefit from the grandfather provision.
He was already a natural born citizen, and therefore was not helped by the clause.
I think you need some qualifications there. There were any number of English loyalists born in the colonies who, after the Revolutionary War, left and returned to England. They were never citizens of the United States. And prior to the Revolutionary War everybody was a subject, not a citizen. The whole topic of citizenship was very messy following the war.
They were citizens of the Colony they lived in regardless of whether their parents had ever naturalized there, because all of the colonies practiced jus soli under English law. At the point that Colony ceased to exist as an entity under the treaty of Paris, they had a choice. I know that some who settled in Canada returned and if they swore loyalty were considered to have resumed their citizenship.
The difference between subject and citizen is really a semantic one. Brits and other Commonwealth types were called subjects until 1949 and thereafter were called citizens, but nothing really changed in terms of their rights.
So you are saying that those who were grandfathered in were foreigners who became new “naturalized” citizens of the U.S.A.?
But wouldn’t they have to have already been citizens of one the Colonies to be grandfathered?
And if they were prior citizens then they would be equivalent to natural born citizens of the U.S.A. and would be eligible for the Presidency.
Use logic, as one does in math The comma after United States under the rules of English grammar says one had to be either:
1. A natural born citizen
OR
2. A citizen of the United States
at the time of ratification to be eligible.
All Presidents since van Buren were neither and thus ineligible. And yet, the Republic still stands.
Did you not read that I said NO ONE benefited from the exception?
If you want to understand the concept, get Kettner’s book and read Madison’s speech. If you just want to argue for the sake of argument, then go someplace else.
See also my articles:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/george-washingtion-first-in-war-first-in-peace-and-first-presidential-usurper/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/george-washinton-natural-born-citizen/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/was-george-washington-a-natural-born-citizen-2/
Well when the authorities report that he collapsed onto the sidewalk in front of his house in Westwood but he really collapsed on the sidewalk next to the entrance to Starbucks 1.4 miles away in Brentwood then there’s room for inquiry. And then, many weeks later, the Coroner reports the wrong address for the site where he collapsed then suspicion is raised.
Especially when he collapsed onto the access cover plate of an incompletely installed high voltage street light pull box. And this construction area was not barricaded and there were no warning signs. Plus there was no onsite investigation by the police or the Coroner.
A stray current of only 20 milliamps @ 60 Hz is sufficient to cause respiratory failure. At 600 volts (the street lighting circuit voltage) , skin breakdown occurs reducing the body’s electrical resistance resulting in a greater current for the same voltage. The skin damage need only be pinholes. If the contact area is immersed in water all of these conditions are more lethal.
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763825/
No. They were naturalized citizens before the Constitution.
People like Alexander Hamilton, born in Jamaica, naturalized in New York, patriot of the Revolutionary War.
Such patriots were granted exemptions from the NBC requirement precisely because they were known to be patriots and deserved the right to partake of the fruits of their patriotism to the fullest extent possible.
When Doc says that nobody ever benefited from the Grandfather clause he is accurate. Hamilton was the only one who had a realistic chance at the Presidency and he was, as I am sure you know being the great American History Expert that you are, killed in a duel with Aaron Burr before he had a chance to ‘have a go’ himself, but boy did he play politics with the first few election cycles.
Found this at answers.com:
What presidents had foreign born parents?
Barack Obama’s father was born in Kenya and is the only presidential parent who did not become a US citizen or a citizen of what later became the US. . Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both from Northern Ireland. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Protestant Irish fathers. Arthur’s mother was born in Vermont, but her family moved to Canada and that is where she met her husband and where they lived before moving to the US together. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_presidents_had_foreign_born_parents
They didn’t benefit from it because they didn’t need it.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story explained the purpose of the “grandfather clause” in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States”:
It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. [emphasis added] (available at Google Books, Vol. 3, pp. 332-333.
None of the first seven presidents were born in a foreign land. The grandfather clause didn’t apply to them.
Many weeks later?
The Case Report which says that Breitbart collapsed outside of 148 S. Barrington was dated and signed less than 11 hours after he died.
I disagree. The first five Presidents were all born before 1776 and therefore were not jus soli. However, they were citizens of the United States when the Constitution was ratified in 1788. They therefore did so benefit from the grandfather provision. However, the meaning of the phrase “citizen of the United States” in 1776 is dependent on the citizenship laws of the “new states”.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”
I was referring to the time of release of the autopsy report. That date was not until April 20, 2012, as first reported on Breitbart News.
”
Coroner: Breitbart Died of Heart Failure
by Breitbart News20 Apr 2012
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/04/20/coroner-andrew-breitbart-died-of-heart-failure/
Your comment just proves that the Coroner’s office got the address wrong from the get-go and never bothered to correct their error. That’s what happens when the Coroner jumps to conclusions and doesn’t send his forensic team to the scene. If he had his crew would have documented that Breitbart had collapsed on top of an incompletely installed high voltage pull box next to the entrance to Starbucks in Brentwood. And the crew might have discovered that water was pooled around the cover plate where Breitbart had placed his foot. This construction zone was not barricaded and had no hazard warning signs.
Have you read the autopsy report? It was dictated on 3/2/12 and typed on 3/6/12. That’s not “many weeks later.” It’s one day later. The date it was released is irrelevant.
You haven’t provided any evidence that the coroner’s office got the address wrong. Why would the coroner do an on-scene investigation for what obviously was a heart attack?
Disagree all you want, but you’re wrong.
As Justice Story noted, the so-called “grandfather clause” was inserted solely for the purpose of making patriots such as Alexander Hamilton eligible for the presidency. In fact, Hamilton’s biographer notes that many people suspected that Hamilton had pushed for inclusion of the clause in order to ensure that he would be eligible. Why would anyone have suspected Hamilton of being behind it if everyone needed that clause to be eligible?
And if Washington was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, how did he meet the residency requirement of living in the United States for 14 years? He was inaugurated less than 13 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is quite specific that he had to have lived in the United States for 14 years, not the colonies + the United States. George Clinton of New York even referred to people who were citizens prior to July 4, 1776.
The Founders clearly regarded anyone who was born in one of the colonies as a natural-born citizen as long as that person chose to have allegiance to the United States rather than Great Britain.
Florida Secretary of State has filed a 7 page reply. Basically saying Voeltz I failed, Voeltz II failed, Voeltz III failed and Voeltz IV should fail for the exact same reasons.
AJNTSA.
Voeltz has filed a reply to Cruz and an opposition to SoS change of venue motion.
Nothing new.