HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Donald Trump Supporters F...

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:17 AM

 

Donald Trump Supporters File Lawsuit to Declare Ted Cruz Ineligible for White House

Last edited Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: Yahoo

A group of Donald Trump supporters have filed a lawsuit asking a judge to rule that fellow GOP candidate Ted Cruz is ineligible for the office of president.

The suit, filed in Alabama, seeks to declare that Cruz “is ineligible to qualify/run/seek and be elected to the Office of the President of the United States of America,” according to papers obtained by Washington blog The Hill.

The pack of Trump devotees seeks the ruling on the grounds that Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, albeit to an American mother.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/tv/donald-trump-supporters-file-lawsuit-declare-ted-cruz-214854593.html



And boom goes the dynamite!

I know it has no standing, but it is still fun to watch them eat each other.

61 replies, 3995 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 61 replies Author Time Post
Reply Donald Trump Supporters File Lawsuit to Declare Ted Cruz Ineligible for White House (Original post)
Feeling the Bern Feb 2016 OP
Delver Rootnose Feb 2016 #1
procon Feb 2016 #3
Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2016 #11
H2O Man Feb 2016 #5
yeoman6987 Feb 2016 #28
William Seger Feb 2016 #7
PatrynXX Feb 2016 #36
Recursion Feb 2016 #44
Sanity Claws Feb 2016 #2
elleng Feb 2016 #4
cstanleytech Feb 2016 #6
DinahMoeHum Feb 2016 #8
Nyan Feb 2016 #9
stonecutter357 Feb 2016 #10
valerief Feb 2016 #12
elleng Feb 2016 #14
valerief Feb 2016 #16
Recursion Feb 2016 #45
Kip Humphrey Feb 2016 #13
elleng Feb 2016 #15
BillZBubb Feb 2016 #18
elleng Feb 2016 #19
yallerdawg Feb 2016 #22
24601 Feb 2016 #48
davsand Feb 2016 #23
elleng Feb 2016 #29
elljay Feb 2016 #31
elleng Feb 2016 #33
BillZBubb Feb 2016 #24
davsand Feb 2016 #41
24601 Feb 2016 #49
Recursion Feb 2016 #46
elleng Feb 2016 #55
Recursion Feb 2016 #56
elleng Feb 2016 #57
24601 Feb 2016 #47
elleng Feb 2016 #54
24601 Feb 2016 #58
elleng Feb 2016 #60
24601 Feb 2016 #61
iandhr Feb 2016 #17
Gothmog Feb 2016 #20
happyslug Feb 2016 #21
BillZBubb Feb 2016 #25
elleng Feb 2016 #30
happyslug Feb 2016 #32
elleng Feb 2016 #34
happyslug Feb 2016 #37
elleng Feb 2016 #38
happyslug Feb 2016 #40
Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2016 #35
VMA131Marine Feb 2016 #26
robhalf4369 Feb 2016 #27
AngryAmish Feb 2016 #39
Dont call me Shirley Feb 2016 #42
Initech Feb 2016 #43
SunSeeker Feb 2016 #50
The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2016 #51
jberryhill Feb 2016 #52
elleng Feb 2016 #59
libdem4life Feb 2016 #53

Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:22 AM

1. Sadly,

The courts will find they don't have standing to pursue this case. I bet the only person who might have standing is another candidate, or a political party or maybe even congress, singularly or collectively.

A random voter does not have standing as shown by other cases, which I don't have sites for at the moment, sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:39 AM

3. There are several articles confirming this, but if Trump

himself were to push a lawsuit as a competing candidate, he would have standing to claim potential damages from have an illegal contender in the race that reduced his chance of winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:17 PM

11. There are no personal damages in political suits. The theory is politics is not for personal gain

TheRump even says that he is so rich he doesn't need to get elected for personal gain. And he has a bridge in Brooklyn he can sell you.

But I don't know of any case where a candidate successfully sued for damages due to a lost election and I do seem to remember a case or two where such damages where explicitly denied by the court, though I don't remember any details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:48 AM

5. I think you are correct.

I believe that the courts will rule, based upon previous case law, that individual voters do not have standing. But the facts in this instance may be different enough that a judge will decide differently. He/she will likely have their decision overturned, should that happen. Either way, it opens the door to Trump filing. He will be able to say that he is doing it "for the people."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 04:13 PM

28. Wouldn't that be hilarious if a lower court says he is ineligible

 

The Supreme Court ties and he ends up ineligible? Oh how that would be karma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:52 AM

7. That's probably even better for Trump

If it actually came to trial and Cruz was found eligible, that issue would be gone. Having it dismissed on a "technicality" leaves it open.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 06:43 PM

36. well the same standing that put John McCain on the ticket

congress has to act to make sure he can run. if they don't then Ted can't run

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Delver Rootnose (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 12:35 AM

44. A delegate or elector would have standing

The elector definitely (though the courts would, after acknowledging standing, say "that's your problem, not ours", the delegate possibly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:37 AM

2. I would send them a couple of bucks

I love the smell of republican desperation in the morning
And the night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:48 AM

4. Good. This will get the ball rolling,

tho 'standing' is an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:48 AM

6. Actually I am betting that this lawsuit will probably go nowhere for the same reason

none of the lawsuits against Obama went anywhere because they lack standing, Trump himself might be able to file it since hes actually running for the office but I still wouldnt be willing to risk money on him being able to win such a case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:53 AM

8. Just sit back and watch this train wreck. . .

. . .and pass the popcorn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 11:58 AM

9. Oh this just keeps getting better and better

What a great side show this is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:11 PM

10. I love my Alabama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:22 PM

12. If he's not eligible for the WH, is he eligible to be a U.S. senator, too?

Could that be stripped?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:30 PM

14. Different standards,

here's rationale for not eligible to be president: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027527962

Standards to serve as Senator:

at least 30 years old.

a U.S. citizen for at least nine years at the time of election to the Senate.

a resident of the state one is elected to represent in the Senate.

These are the only requirements for the office that are specified in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution.

Some argue that cruz isn't even eligible to serve as senator due to the status of his citizenship. That depends on those specific facts, and I'm not sufficiently informed about them to make a conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #14)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:32 PM

16. Damn! Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 12:37 AM

45. It's an interesting question

The courts have said before they are unwilling to strip citizenship once any of its benefits have been granted, and one only has to have been a citizen for 7 years to be a Senator.

But at least pedantically it really is possible that Cruz now isn't a citizen of any country...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:25 PM

13. A Canadian court will have to rule on the mother's citizenship else this is going nowhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kip Humphrey (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:32 PM

15. No, his mother's citizenship is not relevant to his eligibility to serve as President;

the only relevant issue is where he was born.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:14 PM

18. That is not correct.

Traditionally, the US has considered those born outside the United States where one or both of the parents is a US citizen to be naturalized citizens. There is a precedent. Although this is an open legal question, it probably would be decided in Cruz's favor.

If however, Cruz's mother became a Canadian citizen before his birth (which may have happened), Cruz definitely isn't naturalized and even his citizenship is in question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #18)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:24 PM

19. Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president.

by Mary Brigid McManamon January 12
Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.

'Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.' >>>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #19)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:00 PM

22. So McCain was born...

in US Panama Canal Zone.

Cruz was born Canadian.

Trump has said repeatedly if the Republicans or Cruz don't clarify this legally, if Cruz is the nominee the Democrats damn sure will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:12 AM

48. Cruz was born a dual citizen and was not naturalized. The Harvard law review covers it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #19)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:02 PM

23. Under this logic Cruz is legal as a Senator, but not as a President.

Interesting stuff.

I doubt this current case filed by Trump supporters is going to go anywhere (as stated in other posts here) due to the lack of standing of plaintiffs, however, it is possible that the matter of Presidential eligibility might well be something the courts could take on if another candidate/campaign would file. I doubt the GOP regulars would touch it, however. Maybe one of the third party candidates would do it...

Greens? Socialists? I doubt they have the money, but I'm pretty sure that the tRump supporters could funnel it TO them if they wanted to...

Just sayin.

Laura

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davsand (Reply #23)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 04:56 PM

29. Yes.

trump himself may very well be the one who follows up on this, and files his own case, down the road a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #29)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 06:11 PM

31. Or one of the other candidates

The way things are looking, none of them may get a majority of the delegates. I could see one of the other candidates trying to knock Cruz out and hope to get his delegates. They don't have to win the case - just tie the matter up in litigation and use it to scare people away from voting for a potentially ineligible candidate. I didn't think this election season could get more bizarre; I have now decided that it is best not to even think, just get on the roller coaster and ride it to the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elljay (Reply #31)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 06:26 PM

33. Yes of course.

I don't think it matters how apparently 'viable' they appear, but just that they stand to be harmed by his continuing participation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #19)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:15 PM

24. Other legal scholars disagree.

That's why Cruz's status has to be hashed out in the courts.

George Romney, mitten's father, was born in Mexico to American parents. George's republican candidacy was never questioned over naturalization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #24)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 10:41 PM

41. Was there any question about Romney's parents' citizenship?

I am not completely up to speed on this whole issue for Cruz, but I thought I saw some question about his mother's citizenship status at the time he was born. It was reported that Cruz's mother renounced her American citizenship and became a Canadian citizen (as Cruz's father has been) however, there is not a clear timeline for when that change in her citizenship status took place. IF she had renounced her US citizenship prior to his birth, Cruz would have been born to two Canadian citizens, on Canadian soil. If she surrendered her citizenship after his birth, he'd technically have been born to an American mother and possibly be eligible for dual citizenship...


Laura

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:19 AM

49. The Harvard Law Review comes to the opposite conclusion and covers it in detail.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

As much as I can't stand Cruz, the Harvard review is right and it's consistent with our first-hand experience.

One of our kids was born in the UK and along with the UK birth certificate, the State Department issued us a Consular Certificate of a US Citizen Born Abroad. It's not naturalization, but US Citizenship from birth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 12:38 AM

46. As long as the AmCit parent meets residency requirements

(which gets to the larger irony that even if Obama had been born in Kenya, he'd still be eligible to serve as President...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #46)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 11:42 AM

55. Prolly not, Rec,

but will have to be decided by the Supremes; not an issue that's been directly addressed yet.

Check this out, and be sure your kids, if any are born, IN the U.S. (OR IN an embassy!!!)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #55)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 11:49 AM

56. Hell, I'd be doing them a favor, if this election cycle is any indication



Though, I do remember there are specific treaties about diplomats' children as part of the Vienna Convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #56)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 11:57 AM

57. INTERESTING, as to Treaties,

and their standing vis a vis the Constitution! Y'all may get to make history, but please try NOT to, do it EASILY!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 12:56 AM

47. Someone has misled you. The Constitutional standard is a natural-born citizen. There are people

born in the US who are not citizens, for example children of foreigners who are diplomatically immune.

One of our kids was born overseas and we have two birth certificates - one is from the UK and the other is from the U.S. State Department - It's a consular certification of the birth of a US Citizen born abroad.

Cruz is in the same position in that he was born a US Citizen. It was slightly different in that he was a dual citizen but the Constitution says nothing about being only a US citizen.

If Trump wants to waste his money on a frivolous lawsuit, he can afford it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #47)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 11:35 AM

54. Not misled,

the fact that he's a citizen is not determinative; 'natural born' for the purpose of serving as President is quite particular. Read about it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 12:21 PM

58. The Harvard law review covers it in better detail and is not an op-ed like the WaPo piece.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

The position of the HLR is consistent with what we have experienced 1st hand with USG documentation we received from the State Department in the mid 90s.

McManamon's article is not based in reality.

And I believe that the 1st sign of a birther is the unsolicited instance that they aren't. Trips them up every time. It's up there with starting a sentence "I'm not a racist/sexist/homophobe, but...."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #58)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 12:25 PM

60. The Supreme Court will have to decide this one,

and will do so without name-calling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:34 PM

61. I doubt that they will for several reasons. 1st, it would be moot before the case would be heard in

a district court and then make its way up through the appellate process.

But suppose even if only for the entertainment value, that the case expedited. The most likely outcome that the District court would dismiss the case as a political question.

Trump would appeal the District court decision which would be upheld by a Circuit Court of Appeals.

An egomaniac like Trump with more money than brains still wouldn't give up and would appeal that to the USSC which would decline to take the case. Since Congress has sufficient power to resolve it, there is no compelling reason for the court to take the case. But even that is improbable since Cruz will not be a nominee and there will be no such issue to decide when the Joint Session of Congress counts the electoral votes.

Once the USSC declines to take the case, Trump's judicial appeals are over. It will be fun to see his head explode (metaphorically, not literally) as Trump turns his vitriol against the court: "All the Justices are bad negotiators and besides, I have great relationships with everyone in the country who is not a lawyer - the people all love me...."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 12:55 PM

17. I am feeling quite a lot of schadenfreude right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 01:34 PM

20. While Trump may have standing, these supporters lack standing

This lawsuit should be dismissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 02:27 PM

21. The problem is the courts have said only one court can hear this issue.

 

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)

And that court is Congress itself. Congress gets to decide if the person elected is eligible to hold office, not the federal courts. Unless Congress votes that someone is not eligible, no other court will do so.

This occurs when Congress reads the votes of the electoral college and then votes that the person elected can not be President. All it takes is one member of the House and one Senator to force such a vote. When Bush was elected on January 3rd 2001, several members of the House made such a motion, but were joined by NO Senators. Thus no Senator voted for a ruling, no need for a ruling and Bush became President. To get a hearing they needed at least one Senator and they had none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #21)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:17 PM

25. Yep, the Democrats in the Senate at the time were real profiles in courage.

What a disgrace that was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #21)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 05:00 PM

30. No, the Supreme Court is the entity that makes a final decision in this matter,

NOT Congress, and it sure as heck should be decided before the 11th hour you describe. There are many potential scenarios for this to be resolved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #30)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 06:25 PM

32. The supreme court has always deferred to Congress on this matter

 

This is a political question and the court has adopted that doctrine to avoid making such decisions. The court also relies on the wording of the constitution itself that gives Congress the right to elect the President if the electoral college fails to do so. Thus Congress gets to decide, no one else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #32)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 06:30 PM

34. 'This matter' has never been before the Court,

it concerns eligibility to serve as President, and Congress does NOT get to decide, as eligibility is set out in the Constitution.

We're not counting ballots or votes here.

Read this:

Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President.

by Mary Brigid McManamon January 12
Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.

'Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.' >>>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #34)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 07:09 PM

37. Nothing in that statement says he can not run for President.

 

Thus it is not even an issue till he is elected, then Congress gets to decide if he is or is not a natural born citizen. Till then the issue is speculative and thus not ripe for litigation. Till he wins, there is no legal issue. Only if he wins the Presidency that the issue is even ripe for litigation, till then it is mere speculation and the Courts will NOT decide a mere speculative legal issue. Thus Congress gets to decide the issue before any court will.

The supreme court will support whatever Congress decides if and when the issue comes up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #37)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 07:16 PM

38. You advocate letting an ineligible person RUN for President? Makes no sense to me.

'But Article II of the Constitution expressly adopts the legal status of the natural-born citizen and requires that a president possess that status. However we feel about allowing naturalized immigrants to reach for the stars, the Constitution must be amended before one of them can attain the office of president. Congress simply does not have the power to convert someone born outside the United States into a natural-born citizen.

Let me be clear: I am not a so-called birther. I am a legal historian. President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #38)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 09:32 PM

40. Remember it is up to STATE law who gets on the ballot

 

Thus as late as 1861, South Carolina picked its Presidential Electors by the State legislature NOT the voters AND none of the post Civil War Amendments alter that option (and neither had any other amendment to the US Constitution).

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

AMENDMENT XX
Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4.
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5.
Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html


Then you have Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 2, of the Constitution itself:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.htm


Then you hare Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 4:

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.


Paragraph 3 of Article 2, section 1 was replaced by the 12th Amendment:

AMENDMENT XII
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html


Thus until the electors have voted, it is all a matter of STATE LAW in each state who may be on ballot. Furthermore every state EXCEPT Hawaii permit write in votes, thus in theory someone can will an election and NOT even be in the ballot in 49 states. The rule in all states is who did the voter votes for, so in theory, anyone can win on the state level and then it is up to the Federal Congress is the winner is eligible to be President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #32)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 06:36 PM

35. Which makes it all-important to elect a Democratic Congress. . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:24 PM

26. Cruz is rapidly going to change his tune on Obama nominating a new SC justice

If he starts losing NB citizenship challenges in the lower courts because any 4-4 decisions will just affirm that he's not NBC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 03:33 PM

27. This is hilarious

The GOP is tearing itself apart. This will pretty much guarantee that they'll lose this year's election. Awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Sun Feb 14, 2016, 07:26 PM

39. Canadian Anchor Baby

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 12:10 AM

42. ...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 12:24 AM

43. Good luck with that, Donald. Especially with a divided SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Initech (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:29 AM

50. Bad choice of forum by his supporters. Maybe Donald will be smarter with his lawsuit.

4-4 SCOTUS tie means the Court of Appeal decision stands. So, they should have filed their lawsuit in a less Cruz-friendly appellate district, like say California (Ninth Circuit) or New York (Second Circuit). Plus I think they will have a standing issue.

I think Donald will have a better chance with his lawsuit, and will probably file it in New York.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:36 AM

51. It won't go anywhere; the court will find the plaintiffs don't have standing.

Still, I'm enjoying the spectacle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 01:44 AM

52. So THAT'S why they had to get Scalia out of the way!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #52)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 12:23 PM

59. Right, berryhill,

and a real irony, isn't it, the staunch 'originalist' the most likely to find cruz INeligible!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)

Mon Feb 15, 2016, 10:57 AM

53. Just goes to show Trump is an Equal Opportunity Birther.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread