Posted on 01/25/2016 7:13:33 PM PST by Citizen Zed
The plaintiff, Walter L. Wagner, asserts that Cruz is not natural born as defined by the Constitution because only one of Cruz's parents (his mother) was a U.S. citizen at his time of birth in Canada and because, he alleges, their intention at Cruz's birth was "to have residency or citizenship in a foreign (non-U.S.A.) country."
...
In 2008, Wagner filed suit in federal court against the U.S. Department of Energy and European Center for Nuclear Energy Research (CERN), alleging that the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator might create a black hole that could destroy Earth -- and that the governmental entities were covering up this risk.
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
Here’s an irony for you. When you add all the facts up, the odds are overwhelming that Obama was born in Canada. (He started claiming Kenya at a young age, as part of his Malignant Narcissistic need to create an alternative reality for himself. That is why so much evidence points to Kenya—because Obama claimed it as his birth place for so many years.) So except for Obama’s mother being too young to convey citizenship at the time, the cases would be identical.
It would be nice to get it settled but I don’t believe Cruz has a chance of becoming the nominee. I agree, Trump won’t touch Cruz now.
A summary judgment would still need a suit be filed in civil court, and would need a plaintiff and a defendant. Cruz isn't going to sue himself and Trump doesn't have standing to sue so there will be no court decision.
“Obama was born in Canada”
Where are you going with this?
But he does. Earlier ballot challenge cases got dismissed because 1) the plaintiffs could demonstrate a particularized injury, either because they were voters and stood in no different position relative to the population at large or 2) they were marginal candidates or potential electors for such candidate whose claim of injury was deemed speculative.
Trump is in a different position. He could commission a survey in a state that asks the common "Who is your first choice . . who is your second choice? questions. It would then be simple to count the number of instances where Cruz is first and Trump second and translate that into likely lost votes and lost delegates. With that in hand, I think Trump demonstrates the particularized injury the courts say is necessary for standing.
But this is in the end a political calculation, and given widespread belief the courts are very reluctant to interfere to such a degree in presidential elections, Trump will prefer to leave this issue hanging rather than risk losing in court.
Make the above “plaintiffs couldn’t.”
Trump can sue in any state that has a ballot with both he and Cruz on it. He sues the secretary of state, asking the court to order Cruz name be removed from the ballot.
Prag is suing in this fashion. She's on the NH GOP primary ballot, so has standing. Has to exhaust her remedies before the election commission before filing in a court of law.
Obama being born in Canada is the destination, not the journey. I followed every fact I could find re Obama’s birth, the countless lies, the myriad discrepancies, the gaping hole in his mother’s life/history, the bizarre anomalies, the cut and paste birth certificate, and so much else besides. When you put each piece of the puzzle in place, Canada is the ONLY birth place option that ties it perfectly and completely all together. Nowhere else comes close.
That's entirely speculative. There is no proof that those polled will actually turn out and vote.
So? There are a dozen other opponents on the ballot as well. How does Cruz alone being on the ballot cause damage to Trump?
Trump can sue in any state that has a ballot with both he and Cruz on it. He sues the secretary of state, asking the court to order Cruz name be removed from the ballot.
Didn't work with the birther suits against Obama. What's changed since then?
Prag is suing in this fashion. She's on the NH GOP primary ballot, so has standing. Has to exhaust her remedies before the election commission before filing in a court of law.
Yes, well wake me when something actually happens.
I don't think mere presence on the ballot gets her there unless she can credibly allege Cruz's presence stands to harm her in a way that is not merely theoretical. As I outlined above, I think the plaintiff in such a case needs to show that Cruz's presence is harming him/her in terms of lost votes, or, more importantly, lost delegates. I strongly doubt she gets anywhere close to that.
Dummett was an opponent on the ballot, so had standing. Case turns on the fact that the Secretary of State has no legal duty to exclude unqualified names from the ballot, but may exclude them if she wishes.
You identified the difference in your other posts.
Such a proffer couldn't be dismissed at "entirely speculative." There's a wide body of evidence to show that statistical samples, if the sampling methodology is sound, are good predictors. This is all the more so the closer the survey is to the election and the broader the sampling pool. "Margin of error" on a sound statistical sample is usually in the low single digits.
A survey such as I'm suggesting would naturally sample only "likely voters" (as most these days do). Even if one assumes a 50 percent margin of error (only half of those surveyed who put Cruz first and Trump second are assumed to show up), Trump still makes his case. Even at 66 2/3 percent error (one-third are assumed to show up), Trump still makes his case. Even if only 20 percent . . . or 10 percent show up, Trump makes his case.
You're making it sound as if it's equally plausible that none of these sampled "likely voters" would actually vote as they state. That's not plausible at all.
They aren’t confident. They hate and fear Trump.
I don't see any of these allegations as involving a substantive challenge--what the parents intended; whatever. The issue is what is required to be natural born under Article II Sec. 1.
No doubt Cruz was a US Citizen at birth, no matter what the intent was. Also no doubt that the birth did not occur within the geographical territory subject to sovereignty of the several states. Easy case--no dispute about the facts. Just a pure argument about what the law is.
Hopefully get the case before a three judge court and seek urgent review from the Supreme court.
Given the opinion doesn't discuss standing in the least (nor is there any indication that issue was raised in the defendant's motion to dismiss) I don't see how the case is instructive on that point. It's silent.
Now, the California case that I do think may forecast the point I'm making is Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Ca. 2008):
Turning to the viability of the case at large, plaintiff has no standing to challenge Senator McCain's qualifications. Plaintiff is a mere candidate hoping to become a California elector pledged to an obscure third-party candidate whose presidential prospects are theoretical at best. Plaintiff has, therefore, no greater stake in the matter than a taxpayer or voter. Hollander v. McCain, 2008 WL 2853250 (D.N.H.2008).
There's also the discursive "on the one hand; on the other hand" opinion by Judge Carter in Barnett v. Obama that doesn't resolve the "this candidate-plaintiff could never win" argument, but instead dismisses the complaint on general standing rules.
Trump is the one candidate who I think could easily claim standing. I think any candidate who can't credibly claim a "but for" causation ("but for the ineligible candidate being on the ballot, I would reasonably stand to gain at least ___ more delegates") gets the case tossed.
Then I must have said there is no difference.
And a body of evidence that shows they are not. One prime example would be the exit polls from the 2004 election that showed Kerry would take Ohio. Didn't quite work out that way.
There have to be actual damages for a court to rule on, not predicted ones.
On that we agree. But even if he has standing, the logic of Dummett is that the Secretary of State has no duty to remove even a KNOWN unqualified name from the ballot. IOW, the court, absent some law, can't order the Secretary of State on ballot matters. The Secretary of State's decision is conclusive. This cuts both ways, eh? An excluded person has no remedy either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.