While we are waiting for for Donald Trump to file Godot v. Cruz, another pro se lawsuit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court, reports the Washington Times. Lawrence Joyce, a Ben Carson supporter, says:
My case presents the perfect opportunity for Donald Trump himself to step forward and bring the matter to court personally.
(Check out “pigs fly” at Google images.) Joyce says that he wants to clear things up so that Democrats can’t use the eligibility issue against Cruz in the general election. Can you imagine Clinton or Sanders doing that?
A search at the Circuit Court web site didn’t turn up any filing of the case.
Update:
In addition, three challenges to the NY Board of Elections will be heard next week. One is from Gregory-John Fischer challenging Cruz. William Gallo and Barry Korman filed a joint complaint, and Robert Laity, a name familiar to regular readers here, is challenging Cruz, Rubio and Jindal under the two-citizen-parents-born-in-the-country theory. Read more at the Albany Times Union.
What Joyce contends is that moving forward with a Cruz candidacy and without a definitive court ruling in his eligibility could prove a disaster for the Republican Party with a predicted flurry of lawsuits from Democrats should Cruz be the Republican nominee. This view flies in the face of history. There were 226 Obama eligibility-related lawsuits and the ones that did find Obama eligible did not dissuade the lawsuits that followed, nor appear to have made any dent in the birther beliefs that Obama was ineligible. The only result Joyce could get that might have some impact would be if Cruz were declared ineligible and ordered off the ballot, a very unlikely outcome. More likely than not, the Cook County Circuit Court will conclude that it lacks jurisdiction.
Read more:
- Ted Cruz birther lawsuit makes it to Cook County courtroom – Chicago Tribune
- Downstate man says Ted Cruz is not “natural-born” citizen, wants him thrown out of Illinois primary – Chicago Sun Times
- Ted Cruz Facing ‘Birther’ Challenges to Appear on Primary Ballots – ABC News
- The Ted Cruz Citizenship Fight is Bogus–But Still Matters – Politico
- Ted Cruz moves to shut down ‘birther’ suit – Detroit News
- New York pair asks court to throw Cruz off primary – Bloomberg
- New Yorkers seek court order to keep Ted Cruz off the ballot in state Republican presidential primaries because he was born in Canada – NY Daily News
- Arguments heard in case questioning Cruz’s ‘natural born’ status – Albany Times Union
New birther scorecard, sort of:
http://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2016/2/status-of-pending-natural-born-citizen-challenges-and-litigation-in-2016-presidential-election
Joyce is, essentially, seeking review of his unsuccessful ballot challenge. Other sources have reported there is a hearing set for March 1 for a pending motion to dismiss.
Dave B.
New birther scorecard, sort of:
I found this article on your link: Natural-born mess: What would it take to kick Ted Cruz off the ballot?
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/01/15/natural-born-mess-what-would-it-take-to-kick-ted-cruz-off-the-ballot/
In related news, Paige gives his breathless update about his challenge in lawsuit.
Paige’s hubris prevents him from seeing that it’ll be dismissed. Just like before.
Here’s one going to Albany NY.
“‘
Natural born’ debate headed to Albany
Supreme Court will hear legal challenge to Ted Cruz’s candidacy
By Casey Seiler
Published 10:57 pm, Friday, February 19, 2016
”
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Natural-born-debate-headed-to-Albany-6843823.php
I think the truly ironic part is that he gave almost the exact reason for its inevitable dismissal in one of his snarky self serving comments, and he is too stupid and too self centered to even realize it. The humor is on him.
Doc, for some reason Fischer sent me a copy of his objection letter in a Facebook message. I just sent it to you at the admin email address. It’s a bit…mixed.
Thanks. I’ll add a link in my article.
For those who are unaware: In New York, the supreme court is the trial court, i.e., the lowest court.
Just to clarify, in New York State “Supreme Court” is the county trial court. The high court in New York is the Court of Appeals.
The Board of Elections claims that the plaintiffs missed, by two weeks, the deadline for objecting to a candidate.
Case documents can be found here:
https://nyelectionsnews.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/korman-v-nysboe.pdf
Although New York City also has civil courts, which are lower than Supreme Court. But your point is well taken.
Here’s an interesting piece on the Chicago case. This one covers Lawrence Tribe’s involvement in the Cruz eligibility issue.
”
Bad news for Ted Cruz: his eligibility for president is going to court
Updated by Dara Lind and Jeff Stein on February 18, 2016, 11:22 p.m. ET
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11058038/ted-cruz-court?ref=yfp
Tribe isn’t “involved” in the eligibility issue. Tribe has only said that Cruz’s preferred method for interpreting the U.S. Constitution would lead to Cruz being ineligible.
Going to court isn’t bad news. It turned out to be very good news for Barack Obama because his eligibility was confirmed in 226 original jurisdiction lawsuits, 98 state and federal appellate rulings and the Supreme Court denied cert and denied petitions for injunctions and stays on 27 occasions.
Winning in court is good news.
The judge postponed this until March 1st when she will decide if she has jurisdiction or if she has to dismiss the complaint.
Actually Tribe claims that Cruz has become a “fair weather Originalist” since he was Tribe’s student at Harvard.
read:https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/11/through-ted-cruz-constitutional-looking-glass/zvKE6qpF31q2RsvPO9nGoK/story.html
”
When Cruz was my constitutional law student at Harvard, he aced the course after making a big point of opposing my views in class — arguing stridently for sticking with the “original meaning” against the idea of a more elastic “living Constitution” whenever such ideas came up. I enjoyed jousting with him, but Ted never convinced me — nor did I convince him.
At least he was consistent in those days. Now, he seems to be a fair weather originalist, abandoning that method’s narrow constraints when it suits his ambition
.
”
That’s legalize for Cruz is a hypocrite.
It’s not nice to call someone a hypocrite…
So what will you say if some court rules that Cruz is ineligible?
I’m sure you will justify that as Cruz’s fault.
Still looking for the magic unicorn?
The only way I would ever blame Senator Cruz for losing an eligibility lawsuit is if he was a pro se defendant. “He who represens himself has a fool for a client.”
Thus far, he’s been smart enough to use attorneys from his campaign and get eligibility lawsuits dismissed for lack of standing.
It also not nice to tell lies about people, especially those who are dead. But nicety hasn’t stopped you….
It depends on the nature of the ruling.
A decision that Ted Cruz is not a US Citizen at all? I would have a lot of questions about the vacancy of his Senate seat.
A decision that Ted Cruz is a Naturalized Citizen? I would want to know about the evidence and an explanation of exactly how he became eligible for Naturalization, considering he was a citizen at birth.
A decision that a “natural born citizen” is something different from a “citizen at birth”? That’s not going to happen as the result of a court order. That’s only going to happen with a Constitutional Amendment that changes the two kinds of citizen established by the Fourteenth Amendment to the three kinds of citizen you imagine there to be.
That’s probably the ultimate intellectual dishonesty – “I brought this birther lawsuit not because I’m a birther but to prevent actual birthers from bringing it”.
Check out this long article on the Joyce lawsuit at the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-ted-cruz-lawsuit-20160219-story.html
Yeah, right. Like “multiple sources” pressured Obama to not run again when his eligibility was challenged in the 2012 ballot challenges? This guy is a nutcase, treating birtherism as if it were a legitimate concern.
The only honest concern he could have is that *conservative* birthers would probably not vote for Cruz, costing him the election.
Cruz moves to dismiss Illinois suit because of defective service. Cruz’ attorney says you can’t serve someone by email. 😳
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/02/20/ted-cruz-moves-shut-birther-suit/80676310/
I’ve added news story links at the end of the article.
I hadn’t heard that either Cruz or Tribe had died.
There already are three kinds of citizens. A child born jus soli doesn’t have to take his foreign birth certificate to a U.S. consulate to get a U.S. Citizenship certificate.
And an anchor baby doesn’t have to do that either.
Neither do those who are the children of US citizens born abroad. They can get a US passport with their birth certificate and proof of their parent’s US citizenship and US residence.
You are confusing documentation with status. People born back before birth certificates were issued, people just as much citizens as those born today.
They hadn’t. Hermitian ironically complained that it wasn’t “nice” for Tribe to have implied that Cruz was a hypocrite when Hermitian engages in all sorts of un-nice (and, ergo, hypocritical) behavior.
All of which, I’m sure, will lead to Obama no longer being the president this time next year.
Two. There are exactly two kinds of US citizen, “Born” and “Naturalized”. And “anchor baby” is a two-word salad with no legal meaning.
But with highly offensive racist connotations and extremely un-American ignorance.
There are 5. In addition to the 2 you mentioned, there are “good”, “bad” and “senior”.
The Constitution gives to Congress the power to regulate naturalization. After Congress repealed their Naturalization Act of 1790, they have never revisited the question of their authority to define the meaning of natural born citizen. The Senate resolution regarding John McCain’s natural born citizenship was non-binding.
So a strict interpretation is that any citizen by birth created by statute is naturalized at birth.
Well at least you didn’t claim that children born abroad to one or more U.S. citizen parents are “natural born” because they are not. Children at birth by statute are naturalized. There are several paths to having that citizenship recognized by U.S. authorities. The local birth certificate and U.S. Consulate Certificate of Citizenship is one of them.
Also Native Americans, born within the territory, do not receive citizenship under any provision of the Constitution but rather by statute. Native Americans were explicitly excluded from receiving citizenship under the 14th amendment. Because Native Americans receive their citizenship by laws passed by Congress, they are actually naturalized citizens.
Not that I necessarily believe that being born a US citizen (outside of the US) doesn’t make one a natural-born citizen, but it’s unsettled law. The State Department’s official stance is that there is no definitive court ruling either way, and that the 1890 law’s declaration of “natural-born citizen” for those born outside the US may not have necessarily applied to Presidential eligibility.
This will all boil down to a bunch of ill-defined phrases. I personally don’t like the language. While one law specifically mentions that naturalization is the acquisition of nationality after birth, it’s not clear whether or not that applies to the definition for Presidential eligibility. It makes one wonder what the Framers were thinking.
Not that I fall into the category, but what about “sovereign”?
My view is that they were never attempting to define “natural born citizen,” but rather that they intended to create citizens at birth, and “natural born citizens” is how they described such individuals. That is, they understood that a citizen at birth was a natural born citizen and so that’s the term they used. If that is correct, and we agree that Congress can create citizens at birth, then they can create natural born ones.
All Americans not born and residing in the territory that belonged to the United States at the time the Constitution was ratified receive their citizenship by the laws passed by Congress to acquire those lands from France, Spain, Mexico, Britain, Russia, the Hawaiian Kingdom, etc and later to admit them as states. Even those in the original territory in the South are Americans, rather than Confederates, only because Congress acted to prevent them from seceding by force and then by re-admitting them after they lost that war.
The distinction between acts of Congress and some mystical world in which things just sort of happen is far less clear than you would like.
That is a sub-category of “bad”.
I don’t understand why you aren’t challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility.
I believe that the following paragraphs (that I have clipped from Monk’s article see: below) accurately describe the interaction between state citizenship and U.S. citizenship for the period between the ratification of the Constitution and the ratification of the 14th amendment.
“
Birth Rights:
CITIZENSHIP AND THE CONSTITUTION
by Linda R. Monk, J.D.
http://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/Monograph_BirthRights.pdf
The Constitution and Citizenship
The U.S. Constitution did not define citizenship when it was written in 1787, although it refers to the term several times. Rather, each of the thirteen states had its own rules for citizenship in that state, which then formed the basis of national citizenship. A person could not be a citizen of the national government without first being a citizen of a state. Congress did pass certain laws regulating residency requirements for becoming a naturalized citizen, but these did not supplant other criteria issued by the states. Not until the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision in 1857 did a clear definition of national citizenship emerge, one that specifically excluded African Americans–both slave and free.
In the sectional crisis that divided America before the Civil War, the states fiercely disagreed about the legal status of slaves. Northern states, which had abolished slavery, sought to prevent slavery from expanding into the newly created western states formed from the Louisiana Purchase. Southern states feared that slavery would be abolished outright if free states came to outnumber slaveholding states. But under the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slavery was prohibited in any future states created north of Missouri.
Dred Scott, who had been born a slave in Virginia, filed a lawsuit in 1847 to seek freedom for himself, his wife, and his two daughters, because they had temporarily been taken from the slaveholding state of Missouri into free territory. When the U.S. Supreme Court finally considered Scott’s appeal in 1857, President James Buchanan actively lobbied members of the Court to intercede–hoping a legal ruling would end the political conflict over slavery and avert bloodshed. 27 But his interference backfired.
—–
The national outcry against the Dred Scott ruling was immediate and intense. By overturning the Missouri Compromise, the Court had sided entirely with slaveholders and made political compromise on the issue impossible. Slaves were to be held wherever slaveholders wanted to take them, so there was no such thing as free territory anymore. The Union could not hold. Out of that firestorm arose the Civil War, from which emerged the Fourteenth Amendment. It added to the Constitution, for the first time, a definition of both national and state citizenship.
“
However, even after passage of the 14th amendment, Native Americans were still excluded from citizenship and the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” within the 14th amendment was a continuing matter of debate.
But at least you used the quote function properly.
Hmm a long post not relevant to the point? You obviously don’t know hermy.
Its a little more complicated than that. About eight percent of the Native population at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment qualified for U.S. citizenship due to being “taxed.” (Non-reservation, not enrolled in a recognized tribe). Article 1 of the Constitution mentions “Indians not taxed…”
Other American Indians obtained citizenship by serving in the military, marrying whites or accepting land allotments. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 granted citizenship to about 125,000 of the estimated 300,000 indigenous people in the United States.
Additionally the children of naturaluzed citizens who are born n the U.S. are Natural Born Citizens.
I disagree. My original post addressed the situation today (after passage of the 14th amendment). So the bottom line is that Native Americans are still citizens by law only and the inclusion (or not) of anchor babies rests on the interpretation of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. The issue that you raised regarding the added territories is moot, because the phrase “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” is all-inclusive regardless of the instant boundaries of the territory.
The citizenship of children born outside the territory has always been a matter of law only. And Congress is only authorized to regulate naturalization.
You need to read the Monk paper in its entirety — especially the parts dealing with anchor babies and illegal immigration. And then reflect on the fact that the number of criminal illegal aliens has increased sharply after Monk’s monograph was published in January 2011.
Cruz wouldn’t lose a birther lawsuit as a pro se defendant, in fact he could win with an empty chair representing him. There’s a precedent.
It has?
It’s THEIR FRICKIN’ COUNTRY, where their ancestors have lived for millenia, stolen from them, and you presume to devalue their citizenship? Go back to Europe or wherever your people came from you ignorant jackass…
“Report: Nearly 90,000 Illegal Immigrant Criminals Released Last Year”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/22/report-nearly-90000-illegal-immigrant-criminals-released/
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has called the program, a “a game of Russian roulette.”
“By defining its ‘priorities’ to exclude large categories of illegal immigrants, including those who have already been ordered deported or those who illegally reenter after having been deported, PEP ensures that countless more dangerous aliens will be released into U.S. communities—allowing otherwise entirely preventable crimes, including some of the most violent and egregious, to occur,” Sessions over the summer.
As of March 2015 more than 347,000 convicted criminal immigrants remained at large in the U.S. And as of September 2015, 918,369 illegal immigrants with final orders of deportation remained in communities across the U.S.”
Take it up with Sen. Sessions, but if I were you, I’d sharpen my pencil first.
Take it up with SCOTUS. The liberal Constitution hating, English Common law loving Supremes decided that it was more important to award Wong Kim Ark citizenship than to do likewise for Native Americans.
And here is the rest of the story:
“Senate Judiciary Republicans: Obama Program To Release More Criminal Immigrants; Sessions: Immigration Enforcement Should Not Be ‘Russian Roulette’”
by Caroline May8 Jul 2015
“Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans are raising alarms about the prospect of more criminal immigrant releases with the advent of the Obama administration’s new “Priority Enforcement Program” (PEP)”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/08/senate-judiciary-republicans-obama-program-to-release-more-criminal-immigrants-sessions-immigration-enforcement-should-not-be-russian-roulette/
Members of the Continental Congress loved the English Common Law too.
No it isn’t complicated at all. The prevailing legal precedent is the case of Elk v Wilkins. SCOTUS ruled that Elk was not a citizen even though he had left his tribe and moved into town and was living amongst the citizens. This precedent setting case still stands.
Apparently, SCOTUS has not seen the need to act since, probably because of the actions of Congress to award citizenship to Native Americans.
Politifact provides important context about the release of undocumented aliens who have criminal records.
“Notably, in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 the majority of releases of serious criminal offenders were made pursuant to federal court decisions or bond decisions by immigration judges. In a leading court case on immigration detention, Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court ruled that ICE generally could not detain an individual ordered removed in immigration detention beyond six months, unless the individual would be repatriated in the reasonably foreseeable future. This detention limit can be triggered when a country simply refuses to accept repatriation of its national, irrespective of the individual’s criminal history.”
As Politifact notes, the vast majority of the releases were mandatory, so they can hardly be blamed on the Obama Administration.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/aug/28/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-obama-administration-released-104000-crim/
Native Americans ARE citizens. What passport do you think they use? Iroquois? Navajo? Nope. In fact, there were a group of Iroquois lacrosse players a few years back who tried to use Iroquois passports to go to the world lacrosse championships in the UK. They were told only US and Canadian passports were acceptable http://www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/07/14/sport.iroquois.passport.controversy/. So as far as the entire world except you are concerned, they are US citizens if born in the US (or Canadian citizens if born in Canada).
if they are born in the US they are natural born citizens and they can run for President. I hope one does, because it’s the least the country can do to make up for the genocide committed against them.
The 33rd Vice President of the United States, Charles Curtis was an American Indian of the Kaw Nation.
After serving as a United States Representative, and being repeatedly re-elected as United States Senator from Kansas, Charles Curtis was chosen as Senate Majority Leader by his Republican colleagues. Born in Kansas Territory to a mother of the Kaw Nation, Curtis was the first person with significant Native American ancestry and the first person with acknowledged non-European ancestry to reach either of the highest offices in the United States government’s executive branch. He is notable also as an Executive Branch officer born in a territory rather than a state.
Since Politico must have the inside track with Homeland Security maybe you could get Politico to get DHS to provide answers to these questions from the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest? The subcommittee hasn’t been able to get the answers from the testimony of DHS officials in hearings.
”
Dear Secretary Johnson:
We write regarding the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), which requires immigration law officers and agents to ignore plain law and public safety, solely to the benefit of criminal aliens in the United States. This program, along with the so-called “enforcement priorities” outlined in your November 20, 2014, memorandum titled “Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants,” are contrary to law and pose direct threats to public safety.
Your Department has refused to confront so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, endangering the public safety and leading to tragedies such as the recent killings of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, California, and Angelica Martinez in Laredo, Texas. These deaths are the result of such sanctuary jurisdictions’ dangerous policies, and this Administration’s refusal to do anything to stop them. Yet, rather than enhance the successful Secure Communities program, confront sanctuary jurisdictions, defend federal law enforcement’s legitimate use of detainers, request additional resources, or ask Congress for a legislative solution, your Department has unilaterally designed a program that will endanger the American people.
As a preliminary matter, the “enforcement priorities” established in the aforementioned memorandum fail to include significant categories of criminal aliens defined by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), including, but not limited to:
∑ Aliens convicted of nearly all offenses that constitute crimes involving moral turpitude,[1] which includes not only crimes such as theft, but all offenses that are “inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or society in general”[2]; and,
∑ Aliens convicted of drug possession offenses,[3] including those who were initially charged with trafficking offenses but who were permitted to plead down to simple possession.
Your enforcement priorities also fail to include other criminal aliens, such as those who have been convicted of two or more misdemeanors that you deem not to be “significant.” They similarly fail to include aliens convicted of any misdemeanor offense who do not serve 90 days or more in prison—regardless of whether they received a suspended sentence that exceeded 90 days. Rather than take the common sense approach of defining as “enforcement priorities” all classes of criminal and dangerous aliens as defined by Congress in the INA, and adding others as a matter of policy, your Department has elected to acquiesce willfully to the presence of criminal aliens in the United States and ordered law enforcement officers and agents to look the other way except in extremely limited circumstances.
As though the disparity between these “enforcement priorities” and existing law were not bad enough, your Department has designed PEP in a manner that creates disparities between PEP and the “enforcement priorities” listed in your November 20, 2014, memo. Significantly, this includes priorities 1(b) (recent border crossers); 2(c) (aliens who enter the United States unlawfully or reenter after a previous removal or return); 2(d) (aliens who significantly abuse the terms of their visas); and 3 (aliens who have a final order of removal on or after January 1, 2014).
It is also our understanding that, under PEP, your Department will only seek the transfer of an alien in the custody of state or local law enforcement if the criminal alien has a conviction for a limited number of criminal offenses, engaged intentionally in organized gang activities, or poses a danger to national security. However, even in many of these cases, DHS will simply request “notification” of the release date from state and local law enforcement, rather than issue a detainer. Additionally, the mere fact that an alien has been charged with or arrested for an offense is no longer acceptable, as your Department will only seek to assume custody of any criminal alien once that alien has an actual conviction.
In recent briefings to congressional staff, your Department has described PEP as though it is somehow necessary to reengage with sanctuary jurisdictions that failed to work with DHS under the Secure Communities program. At the same time, however, DHS representatives have confirmed at these briefings that PEP does not guarantee the cooperation of any sanctuary jurisdictions, and that such jurisdictions will have the ability to determine which parts of PEP they will comply with, if any. Thus, even here, the Administration has once again acquiesced to sanctuary jurisdictions.
Under PEP, countless criminal aliens who have managed to evade conviction will be released, endangering our communities. More crimes will be committed, and precious resources will be spent to re-apprehend these individuals, a process that significantly endangers the safety of your officers and agents. It would be much more effective and efficient to issue detainers and simply transfer these criminal aliens directly into your Department’s custody. We note that as recently as 2012, then-Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, offered to pay localities any additional expenses of holding inmates until they can be picked up,[4] yet your Department has apparently abandoned even this reasonable proposal.
Accordingly, please respond to the following questions by July 21, 2015:
1. How many aliens present in the United States today have ever been arrested for a criminal offense?
2. How many aliens present in the United States today have ever been convicted of a criminal offense?
3. How many aliens with final orders of removal remain in the United States today?
a. Of those, please specify how many have ever been arrested for any criminal offense.
b. Of those, please specify how many have ever been convicted of any criminal offense.
4. From fiscal year 2009 through the present, how many detainers has your Department issued? Of those, how many were honored?
5. Does DHS have any projections as to how PEP will affect the number of detainers it issues each year? If so, please provide them.
6. Does DHS have any projections as to how the new enforcement priorities will affect the number of removals it can effectuate each year? If so, please provide them.
7. Does DHS have any projections as to how PEP will affect the number of removals it can effectuate each year? If so, please provide them.
8. Does DHS have any projections as to how many criminal aliens with any record of a criminal arrest or conviction will be permitted to stay in the United States after full implementation of PEP? If so, please provide them.
9. Does DHS have any projections as to how many sanctuary jurisdictions will comply with PEP? If so, please provide them.
10. DHS has publicly touted its engagement with Los Angeles County regarding PEP.[5] However, DHS has not actually secured any commitments from Los Angeles County as to how it will cooperate with PEP. Do you have any guarantees that Los Angeles County, or any other sanctuary jurisdiction, will fully comply with PEP?
11. How many jurisdictions that had previously refused to honor detainers or otherwise cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement have committed to comply with PEP in its entirety?
12. Under PEP, will DHS issue a request for a notification of release or a detainer for all aliens who are subject to mandatory custody under section 236(c) of the INA? If not, please explain why not.
13. In light of the tragic murders of Kathryn Steinle and Angelica Martinez last week, is it still the Administration’s position that federal immigration detainers should not be mandatory?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeff Sessions, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest
David Vitter, Deputy Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest
Chuck Grassley, U.S. Senator
David Perdue, U.S. Senator
John Cornyn, U.S. Senator
Mike Lee, U.S. Senator
Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator
Thom Tillis, U.S. Senator
Orrin Hatch, U.S. Senator
Native Americans are citizens because of laws passed by Congress. They have never received their citizenship under the authority of the Constitution or from court rulings.
Native Americans were excluded from citizenship under the 14th amendment.
Congress cannot amend the Constitution by passing a law.
Charles Curtis was also the 31st Vice President.
”
31st Vice President of the United States
In office
March 4, 1929 – March 4, 1933
President
Herbert Hoover
Preceded by
Charles G. Dawes
Succeeded by
John Nance Garner
”
He was a heartbeat away form the Presidency.
I don’t dislike Native Americans. It’s a historical fact that our Federal Government confiscated their native lands without just compensation. Also Native Americans were not well-served by the Federal courts. And they obviously were the original natural born citizens of the U.S. lands.
And the requirements for that position are the same as for President. So no one saw any reason to claim Curtis was other than a natural born citizen. Hence, gaining citizenship via an act of Congress doesn’t, per se, mean one is not a natural born citizen. Certainly, I have never heard anyone argue that membership in a First Nations group would disqualify one from being President or Vice President. In my view, that would make one MORE qualified…..
Yes, they were and are.
Typical Hermitian misdirection which utterly fails to respond to the points raised by Politifact (not Politico).
The point is that Charles Curtis qualified under Article 1 Section 2.
Nobody raised any Elk v Wilkins-based objections to his canddacy or his election based on the facts he was half American Indian and that he was not born in a state of the Union.
Getting back on topic….
Isn’t there a hearing in the Illinois challenge today? I believe also there is one in New York.
Both are today; correct. I expect both to be dismissed, on jurisdictional grounds.
Well you are 1 for 1 bob. The case in Illinois got tossed for lack of jurisdiction.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cruz-court-idUSKCN0W3578
I aslo found the hearing in New York was postponed until Thursday.
“For the record,” there are pending eligibility lawsuits in Alabama, Texas, and Vermont, all of which vote today; Cruz is on all of those ballots.
The Arkansas eligibility lawsuit was dismissed yesterday.
Florida hearing is Friday, March 4th
Creative use of the term suburb. Poplar Grove is not even in one of the collar counties. It is better viewed as a suburb of Rockford, Il.
And Strunk is attempting to intervene in the case, using his buddy Van Allen’s address:
PLAINTIFF (Korman et )
Bernstein Law Firm
35th Floor, 535 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10017
(212)227-8383
DEFENDANT (NYS Board )
NYS Board Of Elections
40 N. Pearl Street, Suite 5
Albany, NY 12207
(518)474-6220
DEFENDANT (Intervenor)
Christopher Earl Strunk
351 North Road
Hurley, NY 12443