The Supreme Court and Trump’s Last Ted Cruz Birther Case: SCOTUS Declines to Hear Cruz's Birther Lawsuit

[RedHead]

I very much doubt you have the patience for me to go through the requisite background that you would need to clearly understand how.

Oh go ahead.  I could use a laugh.

 

But the quickest answer is that I have read quite a few of these court decisions and I also know enough about the subject to point out where they simply skipped over the available evidence that  would have been needed to weigh the issue on it's merits. 

Which is what?

They simply accepted that Wong Kim Ark was the defining case on the issue,  (this is incorrect)   and they simply accepted as fact,  without verified proof,  that Obama was actually born in Hawaii. 

I would, cautiously, agree with you there.  The Wong Kim Ark case is not the defining case because the Supreme Court has never had to rule on the definition of natural born citizen. 

To date,  no valid record of Obama's birth documents have ever been submitted to a court.

No reason to date why they should be.

[RedHead]

Accurate according to objective facts which I could acquaint you with had I the inclination and you the interest in learning.     

Again, go ahead.  I could use the laugh.

That is self evident.   The difference between us is *I* actually have enough knowledge of the issue upon which an accurate understanding can be based.   

They don't.

Of course they don't.

[RedHead]

We amended the constitution to abolish slavery,   but no one has amended the constitution to get rid of the natural citizen requirement.

Maybe they need to amend the Constitution where it defines "natural-born citizen"?  Oh wait...

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The mother being a citizen is not a requirement for "natural born."   The father being a citizen *IS*   a requirement for "natural born."   


Since 1790,  American men could pass on US Citizenship to children born in a foreign nation.

American women could not do this till 1922. 

In the Founding era,  only the father's citizenship was required.   The mother's citizenship was irrelevant.   


Therefore,   Trumps children would have been regarded as Natural citizens,  while Cruz's mother would not have been sufficient to do this.   


This sounds unfair to our modern ears,   but "fair"  has not got a D@mn thing to do with what was the understanding and the law of that time period.    Slavery was unfair,   but it was very much legal in 1790. 


We amended the constitution to abolish slavery,   but no one has amended the constitution to get rid of the natural citizen requirement.

This has been debated so many times, but just to make two brief points....

1)  I think there's a very good constitutional argument to be made (I'd say privileges and immunities, court would likely use equal protection) that drawing a distinction between the citizenship of the male and female parent is unconstitutional after the passage of the 19th Amendment.  So what allegedly was believed in 1790 (though not defined in the constitution itself) wouldn't matter.

2) Just because something was done a certain way in 1790 does not mean that such a practice was constitutionally mandated.  It may well have been a product of statute (such as the Naturalization Act of 1790) and therefore could be freely changed by subsequent Congresses.

[Bigun]

The case has been argued fully on this old thread.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,190577.0.html

I've said all I'm going to say on the matter there if anyone is interested in reading through it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Oh go ahead.  I could use a laugh.

Well if you are just looking for amusement I doubt it is worthy my trouble to indulge you.   Likewise,  you probably wouldn't find digging through dusty old bits of history  to be very funny. 

I would, cautiously, agree with you there.  The Wong Kim Ark case is not the defining case because the Supreme Court has never had to rule on the definition of natural born citizen. 

Yet the vast majority of modern legal minds go straight to that case,  which was interestingly enough rendered by the exact same court that gave us the "Separate but Equal"  Plessy v Ferguson ruling.   


People assert that the court did not have two standards of citizenship,   but I point out that the Plessy v Ferguson case indicates they did.   

No reason to date why they should be.

You don't think a valid proof of birth is necessary for the court to make a ruling regarding someone's citizenship?   Especially when this particular someone had for years  led people to believe he was born in Kenya?   


And how is evidence not necessary to a hearing based on the merits of a case? 

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course they don't.

Many a true word is said in jest.   Who studies this issue?   Just how important is the correct meaning of "natural born citizen"   in acquiring a law degree?   


It isn't.   It's some teeny little backwater footnote at the periphery of legal study,   and nobody pays any attention to it.   Most have been taught to go no further than Wong Kim Ark,  and then they simply regurgitate that.   


To get to the truth you have to go beyond that.   You have to go to the source,   or as they say in the scientific community,   "first principles."   

[DiogenesLamp]

Maybe they need to amend the Constitution where it defines "natural-born citizen"?  Oh wait...

Here is the first place where you might actually learn something from me.   The constitution does not,  and cannot define "natural born citizen"   because the constitution is not the source of that term.   


By the time the Constitution came along (1787)  the US had been creating "natural born citizens"  for  11 years.   

[DiogenesLamp]

This has been debated so many times, but just to make two brief points....

1)  I think there's a very good constitutional argument to be made (I'd say privileges and immunities, court would likely use equal protection) that drawing a distinction between the citizenship of the male and female parent is unconstitutional after the passage of the 19th Amendment.  So what allegedly was believed in 1790 (though not defined in the constitution itself) wouldn't matter.

The supreme court has a methodology regarding constitutional interpretation.   They assert that an amendment cannot be construed to make a constitutional change by accident.   That any changes made to the constitution must be explicitly enumerated,  rather than being the unintended consequence of a change which was intended to affect a completely different aspect of constitutional law. 


Of course the courts violate this methodology constantly by applying the 14th amendment in such a manner that it was never intended,   but their reasoning for refraining from  recognizing accidental amendments to the constitution is valid. 

2) Just because something was done a certain way in 1790 does not mean that such a practice was constitutionally mandated.  It may well have been a product of statute (such as the Naturalization Act of 1790) and therefore could be freely changed by subsequent Congresses.

Except the meaning of "natural born citizen"  does not derive from statute.    If it did,   people would have been pointing at that statute for the definition all along.   

[libertybele]

I've weighed in on this issue before in several other threads.  Two key issues that the article points out:

#1   The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a birther lawsuit claiming that Sen. Ted Cruz is ineligible to be president because he is not “natural born citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution

#2  Since the all talk and no action Trump first raised the birther issue, thirteen federal and state courts and administrative bodies have considered and rejected Donald Trump’s bogus claim that Sen. Cruz is not eligible to be president.

Done.

[DiogenesLamp]

I've weighed in on this issue before in several other threads.  Two key issues that the article points out:

#1   The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a birther lawsuit claiming that Sen. Ted Cruz is ineligible to be president because he is not “natural born citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution

#2  Since the all talk and no action Trump first raised the birther issue, thirteen federal and state courts and administrative bodies have considered and rejected Donald Trump’s bogus claim that Sen. Cruz is not eligible to be president.

Done.

Which is just as rational as the Massachusetts Legislature passing a law to eliminate gender.   


They can make whatever prattlings they like,   but reality does not bend to the will of idiots.