New Hampshire Ballot Access Challenges Against Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Fail for Want of Jurisdiction
New Hampshire Ballot Access Challenges Against Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Fail for Want of
Jurisdiction
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 25, 2015
Christopher Booth of Concord, New Hampshire, Cameron Elliott of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Robert Laity of Tonawanda, New York, filed ballot access challenges in New Hampshire against presidential contenders Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio, arguing that neither of them is an Article II natural born citizen. The challengers are correct.
Still, the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission refused to rule on the question of whether the senators are natural born citizens because, chairman Brad Cook said, the issues were not under the panel’s purview.
“Our precedents say we don’t’ go there,” Cook said. “Personally, would I like the U.S. Supreme Court to decide these issues so we know what is, so it doesn’t keep coming up? Absolutely. Are we the vehicle to start that discussion? No, we’re not.”
http://www.wmur.com/politics/elections-panel-allows-cruz-rubio-to-appear-on-primary-ballot/36641254
~~~~~
The Commission refused to rule, basically saying that it does not have jurisdiction over the question of whether Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are Article II natural born citizens. It also said that it would like the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the issue.
On the merits, neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio are natural born citizens. Neither the original nor amended Constitution defines a natural born citizen. The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) informed that we have to look outside the Constitution for its meaning. It explained that at common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when the Constitution was adopted, all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were "natives, or natural-born citizens," and that under that same common law all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigners," who could be naturalized if they met the requirements of naturalization Acts of Congress. Minor v. Happersett (1875).
Cruz was neither born in the country, nor was he born to two U.S. citizen parents. He was born in Canada, presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. Unlike Senator John McCain, who was born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents who were there to serve the military interest of the United States, neither of Cruz's parents were in Canada for purposes of serving in the U.S. military. He therefore does not meet the definition of a natural born citizen. Cruz is a citizen of the United States at birth only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress. He is therefore not a "natural born citizen" of the United States by virtue of the common law. A “naturalized born” citizen of the United States is not and cannot be a “natural born” citizen of the United States.
Rubio was born in the country. But he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. He was born in the United States, but to two non-U.S. citizen parents. Hence, he also does not meet the definition of a natural born citizen. He is a citizen of the United States at birth only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and not by virtue of the common law that provides the only definition of the clause. He needs the Fourteenth Amendment because, while born in the United States, he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. Rubio is a "born citizen" of the United States only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. He is therefore not a "natural born citizen" of the United States by virtue of the common law. Simply being a born citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment does not make one a natural born citizen of the United States under the common law.
So, neither Cruz nor Rubio are natural born citizens. It is treason upon the Constitution and the rule of law to see our political institutions kick the can down the road under the guise of want of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 25, 2015
Christopher Booth of Concord, New Hampshire, Cameron Elliott of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Robert Laity of Tonawanda, New York, filed ballot access challenges in New Hampshire against presidential contenders Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio, arguing that neither of them is an Article II natural born citizen. The challengers are correct.
Still, the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission refused to rule on the question of whether the senators are natural born citizens because, chairman Brad Cook said, the issues were not under the panel’s purview.
“Our precedents say we don’t’ go there,” Cook said. “Personally, would I like the U.S. Supreme Court to decide these issues so we know what is, so it doesn’t keep coming up? Absolutely. Are we the vehicle to start that discussion? No, we’re not.”
http://www.wmur.com/politics/elections-panel-allows-cruz-rubio-to-appear-on-primary-ballot/36641254
~~~~~
The Commission refused to rule, basically saying that it does not have jurisdiction over the question of whether Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are Article II natural born citizens. It also said that it would like the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the issue.
On the merits, neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio are natural born citizens. Neither the original nor amended Constitution defines a natural born citizen. The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) informed that we have to look outside the Constitution for its meaning. It explained that at common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when the Constitution was adopted, all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were "natives, or natural-born citizens," and that under that same common law all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigners," who could be naturalized if they met the requirements of naturalization Acts of Congress. Minor v. Happersett (1875).
Cruz was neither born in the country, nor was he born to two U.S. citizen parents. He was born in Canada, presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. Unlike Senator John McCain, who was born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents who were there to serve the military interest of the United States, neither of Cruz's parents were in Canada for purposes of serving in the U.S. military. He therefore does not meet the definition of a natural born citizen. Cruz is a citizen of the United States at birth only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress. He is therefore not a "natural born citizen" of the United States by virtue of the common law. A “naturalized born” citizen of the United States is not and cannot be a “natural born” citizen of the United States.
Rubio was born in the country. But he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. He was born in the United States, but to two non-U.S. citizen parents. Hence, he also does not meet the definition of a natural born citizen. He is a citizen of the United States at birth only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and not by virtue of the common law that provides the only definition of the clause. He needs the Fourteenth Amendment because, while born in the United States, he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. Rubio is a "born citizen" of the United States only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. He is therefore not a "natural born citizen" of the United States by virtue of the common law. Simply being a born citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment does not make one a natural born citizen of the United States under the common law.
So, neither Cruz nor Rubio are natural born citizens. It is treason upon the Constitution and the rule of law to see our political institutions kick the can down the road under the guise of want of jurisdiction.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
November 25, 2015
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
November 25, 2015
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
Copyright © 2015
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.