washamericom
Gold Member
- Jun 19, 2010
- 13,703
- 1,904
- 245
- Banned
- #1
this is a pretty sweeping headline for/from the wall street journal.
born in canada to a cuban father. hillary and barney sanders probably don't know a thing about it.
here's the article:
A Pennsylvania judge has rejected an effort to kick Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz off the state primary ballot, ruling that the Texas senator’s birth outside of the United States doesn’t disqualify him from the ballot under the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling is the latest legal victory for Mr. Cruz on the eligibility question. So-called “birther” suits have been filed in other states, including New York and Illinois. The cases in those two states were dismissed on technical grounds.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says a president must be a “natural born Citizen.” Mr. Cruz has been a citizen from birth because his mother was one. The question is whether his birthplace, a hospital in Calgary, makes him a “natural born citizen,” a term undefined in the Constitution and by the Supreme Court.
Unlike the suits filed against Mr. Cruz in other states, the case in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court resulted in a ruling on the underlying constitutional question. The judge, citing various legal scholars, agreed with Mr. Cruz that he’s eligible to run.
“Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a ‘natural born citizen’ includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth,” wrote Judge Dan Pellegrini in a written opinion issued after denied the petition at a hearing Thursday.
The challenge was brought by Carmon Elliott, a retired mental health counselor and registered Republican voter who represented himself. Eight years ago, he tried to boot Sen. John McCain from the Pennsylvania presidential primary ballot on similar grounds. Then, he argued that Mr. McCain’s birthplace in the Panama Canal Zone made the Republican candidate ineligible. The state’s highest court ultimately rejected the case because it was filed too late.
The ruling can be appealed to the state’s highest court. “I feel like I have ample grounds to appeal,” Mr. Elliott told Law Blog.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette covered Thursday’s proceeding:
Judge Pellegrini asked Mr. Elliott to consider two hypothetical cases: first, a husband and wife who are both winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor and whose baby is born on a trip to Canada; and second, a couple who are Russian spies.
“The first couple were incredibly silly to go to Vancouver when she’s eight-and-a-half months pregnant,” Mr. Elliott responded. “If it made any difference to them whether their child would be natural born or naturalized.”
As they discussed the law about the “natural born” requirement, Judge Pellegrini said more than once: “This is complicated.”
You might be wondering why a state court — and not a federal court — is tackling the constitutional question about presidential eligibility.
There’s no consensus in the legal community on the meaning of “natural born citizen.” But some scholars, most notably Ohio State University law professor Daniel Tokaji, have observed that state court could be where a court action opposing Mr. Cruz’s place on the ballot has the best shot of going somewhere.
The reason is that state courts have less stringent standing requirements for bringing a lawsuit than federal courts. Mr. Elliott could object to the nomination petition of Mr. Cruz in state court just by being a registered Republican voter.
“Fortunately for skeptics of Senator Cruz’s eligibility, there’s at least one state where a challenge could still be brought,” wrote Mr. Tokaji in a February essay posted on Election Law Blog. “Pennsylvania will hold its primary on April 26. The last day for candidates to file nominating petitions was yesterday, February 16.”
It’s true that “only a Supreme Court ruling could dispel the uncertainty surrounding” the meaning of the “natural born Citizen,” clause, the professor wrote. But state court, in theory, could be the avenue to get to a high court ruling. Wrote Mr. Tokaji:
The good news is that review of a state court decision on Cruz’s eligibility could be sought in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to review federal law questions is broader than that of lower federal courts. In particular, the Supreme Court can review a state court’s erroneous interpretation of federal law, even if standing would have been lacking had the lawsuit originally been brought in a federal district court.
who knew, after all this time, and arguing, all it took was a judge in Pennsylvania to define the ever elusive "natural born citizen", from our old constitution's article 2.
personally ? i like that there is a consensus about global warming, but not the term natural born.
is this a great country or what ??
born in canada to a cuban father. hillary and barney sanders probably don't know a thing about it.
here's the article:
A Pennsylvania judge has rejected an effort to kick Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz off the state primary ballot, ruling that the Texas senator’s birth outside of the United States doesn’t disqualify him from the ballot under the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling is the latest legal victory for Mr. Cruz on the eligibility question. So-called “birther” suits have been filed in other states, including New York and Illinois. The cases in those two states were dismissed on technical grounds.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says a president must be a “natural born Citizen.” Mr. Cruz has been a citizen from birth because his mother was one. The question is whether his birthplace, a hospital in Calgary, makes him a “natural born citizen,” a term undefined in the Constitution and by the Supreme Court.
Unlike the suits filed against Mr. Cruz in other states, the case in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court resulted in a ruling on the underlying constitutional question. The judge, citing various legal scholars, agreed with Mr. Cruz that he’s eligible to run.
“Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a ‘natural born citizen’ includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth,” wrote Judge Dan Pellegrini in a written opinion issued after denied the petition at a hearing Thursday.
The challenge was brought by Carmon Elliott, a retired mental health counselor and registered Republican voter who represented himself. Eight years ago, he tried to boot Sen. John McCain from the Pennsylvania presidential primary ballot on similar grounds. Then, he argued that Mr. McCain’s birthplace in the Panama Canal Zone made the Republican candidate ineligible. The state’s highest court ultimately rejected the case because it was filed too late.
The ruling can be appealed to the state’s highest court. “I feel like I have ample grounds to appeal,” Mr. Elliott told Law Blog.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette covered Thursday’s proceeding:
Judge Pellegrini asked Mr. Elliott to consider two hypothetical cases: first, a husband and wife who are both winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor and whose baby is born on a trip to Canada; and second, a couple who are Russian spies.
“The first couple were incredibly silly to go to Vancouver when she’s eight-and-a-half months pregnant,” Mr. Elliott responded. “If it made any difference to them whether their child would be natural born or naturalized.”
As they discussed the law about the “natural born” requirement, Judge Pellegrini said more than once: “This is complicated.”
You might be wondering why a state court — and not a federal court — is tackling the constitutional question about presidential eligibility.
There’s no consensus in the legal community on the meaning of “natural born citizen.” But some scholars, most notably Ohio State University law professor Daniel Tokaji, have observed that state court could be where a court action opposing Mr. Cruz’s place on the ballot has the best shot of going somewhere.
The reason is that state courts have less stringent standing requirements for bringing a lawsuit than federal courts. Mr. Elliott could object to the nomination petition of Mr. Cruz in state court just by being a registered Republican voter.
“Fortunately for skeptics of Senator Cruz’s eligibility, there’s at least one state where a challenge could still be brought,” wrote Mr. Tokaji in a February essay posted on Election Law Blog. “Pennsylvania will hold its primary on April 26. The last day for candidates to file nominating petitions was yesterday, February 16.”
It’s true that “only a Supreme Court ruling could dispel the uncertainty surrounding” the meaning of the “natural born Citizen,” clause, the professor wrote. But state court, in theory, could be the avenue to get to a high court ruling. Wrote Mr. Tokaji:
The good news is that review of a state court decision on Cruz’s eligibility could be sought in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to review federal law questions is broader than that of lower federal courts. In particular, the Supreme Court can review a state court’s erroneous interpretation of federal law, even if standing would have been lacking had the lawsuit originally been brought in a federal district court.
who knew, after all this time, and arguing, all it took was a judge in Pennsylvania to define the ever elusive "natural born citizen", from our old constitution's article 2.
personally ? i like that there is a consensus about global warming, but not the term natural born.
is this a great country or what ??
Last edited:
