- This topic has 35 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Doesn’t the president of the US need to be born on US soil (except Obama of course)?
No need to be born in the US to be President. McCain and Romney (Sr.) were both born outside of US soil. Only need is to be a US citizen at the moment of birth.
Being born on American soil guarantees you a right to citizenship. Congress allows other persons to become citizens at birth, particularly children of American citizens born elsewhere. That is why many Jews born in Israel to American parents have American citizenship.Congress could limit citizenship to those born on American soil but has chosen not to do so.
The job as president requires one be a natural-born citizen, menaing a citizen at the moment of birth, as opposed to one who is an alien at birth and has been naturalized.
Cruz’s mother is from a family that immigrated to the United States in the 19th century and she is clearly a citizen, therefore her son is a natural born citizen. Cruz’s father was an alien until he was naturalized recently.
Trump is being an ignorant jerk, which might explain why he appears to have very little chance of winning the election (unless he decides to be an intelligent mentsch, which he could easily do as he is an apparently good actor).
“Then why all the fuss?”
People with awful midot who will stop at nothing to get their way. Both Obama and Cruz are natural born US citizens, and so were McCain and the elder Romney. Three of those four were born outside the US but each had at least one US citizen parent.
“Cruz’s father was an alien”
Klingon?
If this were an issue, then the children of any Americans stationed outside the U.S. who were born outside U.S. soil would be excluded from being president. Does anyone believe that is the intention of the law, except Trump and his followers?
Overseas army bases are not considered US soil.
Wait for the truth of Obama’s Kenyan birth to come to the fore after he leaves office.
Joseph, yes they are. That is why Castro could not touch Guantanamo. Also embassies and consulates. As for Cruz (there were also questions about Romney Sr. and McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone and some thought that C.A. Arthur had been born in Canada as his parents bounced back and forth), the question is how to interpret the statement “natural born citizen”. Cruz’ was born to an American mother so he has citizenship from birth and most Constitutional scholars think thatt his is sufficient. There is now a suit on the matter but probably it will not be decided unless Cruz is elected as American courts do not rule on hypothetical matters (which is why they did not rule on Romney Sr. or McCain).
You’re mixing apples and oranges. The US has a 99 year lease, signed by Cuba, for Guantanamo that the US sends a check annually to Cuba to pay for. (They refuse to cash it on principle.) That keeps Castro out of Guantanamo. But US army bases, there or say in Afghanistan, Iraq or Germany, are not US soil.
AviK
“There is now a suit on the matter but probably it will not be decided unless Cruz is elected as American courts do not rule on hypothetical matters”
The suit in Illinois was reinstated by the judge after its original dismissal.
You don’t know enough about the law to make such statements. You have most likely not read the actual lawsuit only news reports.
The lawsuit seeks to remove Cruz’s name from the Illinois primary ballot, making the claim he in not a natural born citizen.
This is not a ‘hypothetical’ question, but one that is ‘ripe’ for action.
A prospective suit at this time in FEDERAL court claiming that Cruz could not legally serve as President would likely be tossed for lack of ripeness. He is not the party nominee, nor has he been elected by the Electoral College.
The current question before the Illinois court could also be brought in other states that have Cruz’s name on the primary ballot. These are state law questions and a ruling in one state is not binding on other states.
CTL: Similar State lawsuits were filled against McCain eight years ago, and were all tossed out of court without a ruling because the plaintiffs lacked standing and were uninjured by his being on the ballot.
They should get their acts together. It makes no sense for states to have different standards than each other or than the federal government. If he is ineligible, it would be dumb for any state to put him on the ballot. If he is eligible, he should be able to appear on all state ballots.
His eligibility is relevant right now to determine whether he should be on the state ballots. Therefore, the federal courts should consider it ripe.
AviK
US Embassies and consulates abroad are NOT US Soil. You might want to read the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) Articles 22 and 23.
The Vienna Convention sets out the rules for Embassies and the US is a party to it.
Article 22
1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
Article 23
1. The sending State and the head of the mission shall be exempt from all national, regional or municipal dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission, whether owned or leased, other than such as represent payment for specific services rendered.
There are a few phrases, all in Article 22, which have to do with mission sovereignty.
1. The premises of a mission shall be inviolable
Nobody can enter the mission without permission- this includes the host country
2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity
If you visit the US Embassy, especially in more dangerous parts of the world, you will see the exterior of the mission being guarded by local nationals. The inside will have a marine detachment, but the outside will either be local police or military.
Similar to number one, unless the individual or party is asked to conduct any of the above, it is not allowed by a host country or any entity. The premise, just like the diplomat and their family, is awarded immunity.
If you are curious about what diplomatic immunity entails, you should read Articles 29-41.
Though the immunity can be violated, for the most part it is respected. Without such immunity, the life of a diplomatic would be more difficult during times of aggression within and between countries.
AviK……….
and you are getting this education without paying the $600+ per credit hour the students in my law class pay.
Correcting misconceptions about the law is pro bono on my part. Since I don’t know you, or your real name and we are not in a live group where identities are known; correcting in public or embarrassing someone by calling them out on misstatement of facts is not an issue.
As for the idea that Embassies are US soil is is a very common one, repeatedly spread by the press and even well meaning (but incorrect) school teachers.
DY……..
Who gets on a ballot in an individual state is a state law question, not a FEDERAL question.
The primary elections are state elections, not federal and the federal courts cannot impose their rules on such. That would violate the states rights guaranteed under the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.
The States determine who can be on the ballot and who can vote.
In some states convicted felons never get to vote. Here in CT after a convicted felon has completed his/her prison time, probation and/or parole and made all ordered fine and/or restitution payments the vote may be restored. Some states never give the vote back, and a few let felons vote from prison.
In many states you must be a registered member of the political party to vote in its primary election (CT requires this). Other states have crossover elections which allow any registered voter to vote in a primary.
The current question being asked: is Cruz eligible to be on a particular state’s primary ballot MUST be answered by that state’s courts.
IF and ONLY IF the state court rules NO and Cruz claims the decision violates one of his US Constitutional rights could the appeal be heard in federal court and federal law applied.
For example if state X turns Cruz down for not being born on native soil, fine. But if it is claimed that it is because Cruz is of Canadian national origin, as opposed to just a foreign birth it would be cause for appeal to the federal courts. National origin is one of the constitutionally protected forms of discrimination.
Joseph…..
A suit that was dismissed has no bearing on the current anti-Cruz candidacy suits filed in state courts. Stare Decisis–the court has ruled…only is applied to cases where courts have made decisions and the decisions will be followed by other courts.
Furthermore, the question in the two candidates’ cases is substantially different.
In the Illinois suit re: Cruz, it is asked if the child of a US citizen mother residing full time in Canada at the time of birth is a native born citizen?
The question in McCain suits was: is the child of 2 US citizens, one an active duty military officer, born in the Panama Canal Zone, territory leased to the USA a native born citizen.
While somewhat similar in nature, in that ‘native born citizen’ has never been fully defined by the courts, the circumstances of birth are different. Military personnel do not always get to choose where they are deployed. Cruz’s mother left the USA by choice.
Personally I do not care if Cruz is on the primary ballots. CT does not allow crossover voting, and as I am not a registered Republican I could not vote for him in the CT primary (his name is on the ballor an d no suit has been filed to remove it).
Who is eligible to vote and who is eligible to run are two different questions.
I’m not saying that you are not correct legally, I just think it’s silly to have different standards, and that the issue should be considered ripe, because the states should definitely know whether a candidate will ultimately be eligible for the presidency to determine if he should be on the ballot.
DasYochid…
The point you are missing is that primary elections are to elect delegates to the national political party conventions. While you may cast your primary vote for X, you are not voting for X. You are instructing your state party political convention to appoint/elect delegates to the national convention who pledge to vote for X on the first ballot.
Since state party rules vary, as do state election laws, the federal government doesn’t get to set rules for primary elections. Sometimes, the state supporters of a particular candidate don’t gather enough petition signatures to get X on the ballot. The federal government can’t tell states how many signatures are necessary.
The primary elections are state affairs, no federal official is being elected, in fact, no public office is being decided.
The states’ rights in this matter are sovereign under the 10th Amendment.
The fact that is doesn’t seem logical is not the issue.
MAYBE….if we ever amend the US Constitution to have direct election of the President, then we could have a primary process under federal rules.
Remember, you and no other elector has ever cast a vote in November for a candidate for US President. We vote for a members of the Electoral College tp be named later that will vote for the President. This is why we can end up with a President who lost the popular vote. The will of the poeple does not decide the Presidency in the USA.
CTL: Irregardless of Stare Decisis not being applicable, the reasoning given in all the dismissals for the McCain suits is equally applicable here. The plaintiffs have no standing and are uninjured by his being on the ballot.
TY for your clarifications on the status of an embassy or consulate. However, IMHO, if (Article 22 section 1) “The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission” there is certainly a limitation on the sovereignty of the host country. However, I am relieved to know that I am not still in Eretz Yisrael (I am writing these lines in the American Cultural Center library in Yerushalayim).
CTlawyer, regarding your class, this one statement would have to be a pro-rated part of the $600 per credit. Considering all of my posts on Halacha I think that my Comparative Law lessons put me ahead.
As for military bases The Free Dictionary’s legal dictionary states:
“… land used as a military base is considered a form of territory. These areas are inhabited almost exclusively by military personnel. They are governed largely by military laws, and not by the political structures in place for commonwealths and territories. The United States has military bases at various locations around the world, including Okinawa, Japan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”
Cruz WAS born on American soil. NORTH American. I still do not believe Obama was. Cruz’ mom is an American born citizen. That should have been the end of the discussion.
AviK
The fact that the free dictionary states that the land used as a military base is considered a form of territory doesn’t make it sovereign soil. In most cases it is leased for exclusive use by the military and the lessor has agreed that the lessee may govern what goes on withing the leased premises. This is quite different from sovereign soil.
In your reading of the section of Article 22 regarding entry by the host country: In many cases the US leases the embassy premises. The land is not owned by the US and cannot be US sovereign soil. Many countries do not allow foreigner to hold title to land in their own names.
The important point is that military bases, embassies and consulates are not sovereign US soil although they have special rights.
Oomis
Obama’s mother wasn’t American born?
Joseph…
How can you decide if the Plaintiff(s) in the current Illinois case have no standing?
Have you read the actual suit? Have you read the assorted 8 year old McCain suits that never went to trial?
A suit that is dismissed does not mean a verdict was rendered in favor of McCain and that he was ruled a native born son.
In none of my comments do I state that Cruz is NOT a native born son. I think under the law as interpreted by the courts until this date he is a native born son.
The fact that is doesn’t seem logical is not the issue.
It is an issue to me.
DassYochid………….
In legalese, ‘issue’ has a meaning that may be different from what you mean when you write issue.
When you write that it doesn’t seem logical, I think you mean that lack of logic is a concern of yours.
There are things that bother or concern me as well, but does noit mean they rise to the status of a legal ‘issue.’
Unfortunately, the English language is not precise. Different words have different meanings and interpretations in different places and contexts.
Unlike the French, we have no Academie Francaise, the final arbiter on word meaning and what is permitted to enter the dictionary.
CTlawyer,
1. If military law applies on the base and even the postal address is a military address then how can it be said to be under the sovereignty of the country in which it is found? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck.
2. What standing could there be under restrictive American standards? Anyway, you can correct me if I am wrong but to the best of my knowledge there is no law that states that someone who is not a natural born citizen may not appear on the ballot. If he wins he cannot serve. Thus, it would appear that there can be no case unless Cruz wins the election in Nov. Even then, it would seem that the only one with standing to challenge his election would be his opponent. After the hue and cry over Bush v. Gore SCOTUS might very well not want to get involved.
AviK
Military law applies on the base for members of the military. They subject themselves to it when they are sworn onto service. Military law doesn’t apply to local civilian employees on the base. They are subject to local laws and courts.
The military mail APO/FPO addresses are for the convenience of the military, not the foreign government.
An analogy might be made with Indian Reservations here in the US. Having 2 major casinos on Indian land (Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun) right here in Connecticut the topic comes up often. If you slip and fall while visiting the casino you have to sue in the tribal courts, not state courts. Your entry is considered consent to jurisdiction. Employees (mostly non-tribal members) are not covered by state wage and labor laws. However the land is still part of the sovereign United States, not the tribe. The tribes cannot erect customs and immigration checkpoints and/or negotiate treaties with other nations.
AS for standing, I do not pretend to know enough Illinois state law to expound on their requirements for standing. They may be far different than the federal court requirements. Without reading the suit one does not know the exact claim being made to exclude Cruz from the primary ballot. This case has nothing to do with the national election in November.
Another aspect y’all been overlookin’ is that voters are not voting for president. They’re not voting for Cruz for president, for Rubio for president or for Trump for president. None of ’em. Voters are only voting for electors in the electoral college. Those electors we vote for, they and only they, vote for who should be president.
A similar principal about voting for electors applies in the primaries and caucuses. Voters are voting for delegates to nominate a candidate for their party.
Joseph you have just repeated what I stated in my reply to DY 7 hours ago
CTlawyer, the Free Dictionary defines “sovereignty” as:
1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.
Thus, it would seem that Indian reservations are indeed sovereign (and, in fact, Native Americans were not considered citizens until passage of the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act). States in the US are also sovereign even though in some respects they are subject to Federal law. It would seem to me that military bases and diplomatic compounds are extraterritorial. However, if the child is not subject to US law it would not be a citizen. This includes children of diplomatic personnel so an American military compound or diplomatic mission might be considered US territory for this purpose even though being the child of an American is not generally sufficient (which it might well be).
After Obama, anyone over 35 can be president.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.