Judge dismisses attempt to kick Ted Cruz off New York ballot

Wouldn't it be sweet if Cruz takes NY?

NY doesn’t have that many Big C Conservatives.
And Baby Killing is a right-of-passage for lots of debauched NY Debs, don’t ‘cha know?

The Donald will take NY in a BIG way, and 44 other states as well. NY, NJ, PA etc etc etc . . .

45 states, that’s my call.

Biggest landslide in decades.

OH YEAH......

It was dismissed because it was filed WAAAAY too late to be considered. Not even looked at by the Judge. Not even commented on otherwise by the Judge.

As to NY. Trump. I even saw Trump bumper stickers in NYC. And I never even hear Cruzs name mentioned while out chatting. It’s always Trump. Saw a funny pro-Trump bumper sticker today - on a hipsters little electric car. Now THAT cracked me up.

I think this is the second or third court to dismiss an eligibility suit against Cruz. Of course, they might not be dismissed on the same grounds and they may not reach the merits, but the more state judges that avoid these decisions, I believe there will pressure built up against every judge that follows. They won’t want to be the one who breaks ranks and draws a lot of unwanted media attention and public fury. Judges, unlike politicians and other celebrities, do not like a lot of media attention. Most are appointed and tenured and no longer need to achieve name recognition.

Maybe this is wishful thinking, but I think its one reasonable paradigm for how this unfolds.

Reminiscent of all that Orly Taitz (sp?) nonsense. You learn a lot about the case someone has by the number of stupid procedural mistakes they make. In other words, if they make a lot, it's not likely they had a meaningful case. If they had a meaningful case, competent counsel would have been employed and the gross procedural errors would not have occurred.

So, that's IL and NY where this has happened. Next!

Is New York primary open or closed?

I don’t know about sweet, but it would be remarkable.

First of all, as usual, the headline implies something that’s not there.

All this is pointless anyway. The gop will not allow Crus to be the nominee.

Another technicality dismissal.

The courts do not want to address this at all.

They either rule correctly upholding the original meaning, born here of citizen parents, and thus expose The Usurper and their culpability in The Usurpation or they find for the new meaning, born a citizen, even if only on one’s mother’s side, making every anchor baby and Winston Churchill eligible.

If forced to, they will rule for the latter to cover their own posteriers.

None of these judges have any authority in the first place. It’s a Congressional matter.

Every time Cruz gets an eligibility challenge thrown out on techicalities or procedural grounds instead of the merits, it proves Cruz is or has good lawyers, and that he would be a terrible defender of the constitution. Defending it only when it was to Cruz’s benefit.

3 days after a Candidate registers is not long enough for this type of challenge. NY needs to change their laws.

And for Cruz to argue that the “horse is out of the barn” when the Democrats could still sue just shows a lack of respect for the constitution and the system.

Every time Cruz gets an eligibility challenge thrown out on techicalities or procedural grounds instead of the merits, it proves Cruz is or has good lawyers, and that he would be a terrible defender of the constitution. Defending it only when it was to Cruz’s benefit.

3 days after a Candidate registers is not long enough for this type of challenge. NY needs to change their laws.

And for Cruz to argue that the “horse is out of the barn” when the Democrats could still sue just shows a lack of respect for the constitution and the system.

The NBC crowd keeps losing on Cruz but they never give up.

Conservatives must be stopped at all costs to credibility.

Are you kidding. Hillary will nuke Cruz over the naturalized issue.

The courts will take a technical or procedural approach whenever the opportunity presents. But, in the end, they will never support the birther argument. They don’t want to get involved with this argument.

No. She thinks it’s idiotic and like the Obama birther arguments she and bill got burned on in 2008.

She will go for racism and extremist arguments.

I don’t think that’s right. There are some eligibility issues that the state courts can definitely decide. To the degree you may be right, that’s very good news for Cruz because Congress is not likely to take up an issue like that right in the middle of a campaign. The question is, can a state court decide what a “natural born citizen” is under the Federal Constitution? While the Constitution allocates the procedures for voting and for getting on the ballot, it does not give the states control over Article I eligibility. In that sense, you may be right.

Ping for later

Thanks to Yosemitest for the original post on this; Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen and the law and the Constitution are clearly on his side on this issue: As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...

As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article

Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN’s Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:

“ ... The Constitution’s 12th Amendment clearly saysthat Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session; and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes that Congress considers invalid. Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clearthat each house of Congress may “judge” whether a would-be member of that housemeets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house. Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator. He wins election in his home state. But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old. If a dispute arises about Smith’s age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says, the Constitution clearly says the Senate is ”the judge” of Smith’s birth certificate dispute. Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution’s structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate disputeor any other issue of presidential eligibility. Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rulesbut it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution. Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever. They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge. In legal jargon, the issue is a ”nonjusticiable political question.”

NOTE: nonjusticiable political question

American Constitutional Law Volume 1.

the court will refuse to hear that case.

2

nonjusticiability

the issue presented before the court is usually so specific that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches, or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague
that the United States Constitution does not even consider it.

The court will not engage in political disputes. A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge
of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.

Now, let’s take a close look at the word “NATURALIZATION”, its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived . What is the root word of ”Naturalization” ?

”Naturalize” !

naturalized

from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of “by birth” + -ize;

naturaliser

from natural.

Naturalizing

Not only could the Founding Father define “natural born citizen”, BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT ! The Naturalization Act of 1790, let’s read it !

United States Congress, ”An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,

wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,

to support the Constitution of the United States,

dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,

beyond Sea, or out of the limits

as natural born Citizens:

shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in

except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS, and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !

1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

READ IT VERY CLOSELY.

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship ... Citizenship is mentioned inArticle 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments. If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath. Natural-born citizen Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday? The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:”All persons born or naturalized in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inSection 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are ”citizens of the United States at birth:” Anyone born inside the United States ** There is an exception in the law - - the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision. Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) A final, historical condition:a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S. Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example. Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asPuerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive. The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states thatanyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen.Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section. In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized thatbecause McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):”a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.”Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship. U.S. Nationals A ”national” is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born. (Continued)