Official Notice of Dispute challenges 4 candidates' NH eligibility (Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, Santorum)

The Post & Email ^ | 11/13/2015 | Robert Laity

[Tau Food]

Yes, I was aware of what the court said. As I understand, having decided not to decide the merits of the issue, the court was careful to state that it was not denying that it might have the power to do so. That is what I would expect a court to say. A court will never deny that it has power to do anything unless and until that is the only way to avoid an issue that it wants to avoid.

I just cannot imagine the judiciary exposing itself to all of the crazy claims that will result from a willingness to become a screening committee for presidential candidates. They have read all of the background that everyone has now read. They know that there is no clear answer and that there is no way to avoid looking like the court is just making up standards on a case by case basis. And, they know that they will never satisfy the true believers because the court will no doubt be utilizing fraudulent documents from government agencies, stuff like birth certificates, etc. ;-)

[4Zoltan]

“I believe it was a lower court that said that in Elk v. Wilkins”

I’m not sure to whom or to what you are referring to in this statement. All of the citations are from or about the Wong Kim Ark case.

Lower courts are relying on the Wong Kim Ark decision to rule on presidential eligibility. For example,

“The issue of the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion, and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. While Ms Fair and Ms. Miltenberger may disagree with the holding of the Supreme Court, from a perspective of stare decises, the only means by which an opinion of the Supreme Court concerning substantive law can be overturned is either by a subsequent holding of the Supreme Court or an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Both have occurred in the past on very rare occasions, but this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to President Obama.” Judge Stansfield Maryland Circuit Court in Fair v. Obama

“Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.” Judge Gordon, Superior Court of Arizona in Allen v. Obama

Any challenges to Rubio or Santorum will be defeated by citing these and other similar lower court rulings.

As for Cruz, while his situation is different, I don’t believe any court will rule against him. And I suspect the SCOTUS will not take up the issue.

[4Zoltan]

FYI

Cruz’s response to ballot challenge

http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8589951054

Rubio’s response,

http://sos.nh.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8589951072

Other related documents

http://sos.nh.gov/2015-16BLC.aspx

[Nero Germanicus]

There have been quite a few judicial rulings that found Obama to be a natural born citizen. I can envision circumstances where courts could rule someone to not qualify as a natural born citizen which could set the stage for a state Secretary of State ruling that a candidate does not qualify for the ballot or a ruling could provide the grounds for the impeachment of an already elected official.
Courts that ruled Obama to be a natural born citizen.
1) Allen v. Obama (Arizona)
2) Ankeny v. Daniels (Indiana)
3) Fair v. Obama (Maryland)
4) Farrar v. Obama (Georgia)
5) Freeman v. Obama (Illinois)
6) Galasso v. Obama (New Jersey)
7) Jackson v. Obama (Illinois)
8) Jordan v. Obama (Washington)
9) Judd v. Obama (California)
10) Kesler v. Obama (Indiana)
11) Martin v. Obama (Illinois)
12) Paige v. Obama (Vermont)
13) Powell v. Obama (Georgia)
14) Purpura, et. al. v. Obama (New Jersey)
15) Strunk v. N.Y. Board of Elections (NY)
16) Swensson v. Obama (Georgia)
17) Taitz v. Obama [Quo Warranto]
18) Taitz v MS. Dem. Party & Obama (MS)
19) Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia)
20) Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (Florida)
21) Welden v. Obama (Georgia)

[AmericanVictory]

State court rulings are not binding precedent on a federal question. And it remains the case that presidential eligibility was not at issue in Wong Kim Ark so that it too would not be binding precedent. Why don't we just wait and see.

[4Zoltan]

I never said that the lower court rulings were binding precedent. But I am saying that these lower court judges consider Wong Kim Ark to be binding precedent on them.

[Tau Food]

I was not aware that any federal court had found him to be a natural born citizen. If there are such cases, then I can only say that I agree with them. I suspect, though, that federal courts are most likely to try to disqualify a presidential candidate and I will be surprised if a federal court will ever do that. I really believe that they will want to stay out of this kind of thing.

If your list includes only state court cases, you have to keep in mind that it would be extremely gutsy for some superior court judge in some little county to try to disqualify a candidate for president so it is really hard to hold that against the folks who say he was unqualified. I doubt that a good lawyer would ever ask a state court to do something like that.

[4Zoltan]

Tisdale v. Obama is a federal court case.

[AmericanVictory]

All of the arguments at these links go to a lack of jurisdiction to hear the challenge on the part of state ballot authorities. This would be parallel to what happened with the Great Pretender at the state ballot commission level. Similarly, all of the federal cases about the eligibility of the Great Pretender were found to be from plaintiff’s lacking standing so far as I know, with one exception. The constitutional clause does not address being put on the ballot or being nominated. Rather it speaks of “eligibility to the office.” It remains to be seen if there is a state ballot body that has the authority to address that issue or whether any person will be found to have standing should Cruz gain the office.

[4Zoltan]

Here is the video of the New Jersey hearing before the appeals court.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rsbd4HVre8

The appeals court ruled that the arguments were without merit.

[Tau Food]

Yes, it is. And, the district court ruled: "It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens." The court cited the Ark case. The court gave the claim very short shrift. The fact that a district court made a decision on the merits might even give encouragement to the folks who oppose Cruz (who was not born in the United States).

I notice that the Fourth Circuit then affirmed the decision, but in an unpublished opinion. So, I am not sure how a future court will treat that decision. If the Fourth Circuit had wanted there to be a precedent, it would have published an opinion with a reason for its decision.

But, if nothing else, it shows that one federal judge was willing to stick his neck out.

[Nero Germanicus]

Here are brief excerpts from four federal court rulings.

U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.

---

Barnett, Keyes et. al. v Obama, et. al. Judge David O. Carter, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 10/29/09:
The Court observes that the President defeated seven opponents in a grueling campaign for his party’s nomination that lasted more than eighteen months and cost those opponents well over $300 million. Then the President faced a formidable opponent in the general election who received $84 million to conduct his general election campaign against the President. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the President was not eligible for the office he sought. Furthermore, Congress is apparently satisfied that the President is qualified to serve. Congress has not initiated impeachment proceedings, and, in fact, the House of Representatives, in a broad bipartisan manner has rejected the suggestion that the President is not eligible for office. See H.R. Res. 593, 111th Congress. (2009) commemorating, by a vote of 378-0 the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood and stating “The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

---

Rhodes v MacDonald, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land: A spurious claim questioning the presidents constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Courts placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.

---

Taitz v. Obama (Quo Warranto) This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.
Chief U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, April 14, 2010

[Tau Food]

I believe that the Ninth Circuit determined that Keyes, et al. could not proceed because they lacked standing to sue. They would argue that because of that determination, any other findings were unnecessary. In other words, there being no standing to even present a case, there is no occasion for the court to consider its merits of what the plaintiffs would present if they had standing.

Similarly, in the Rhodes case, the court seemed to feel that the plaintiff's relief, if granted, would amount to improper "judicial interference in internal military affairs." Obviously, courts have always felt that these are matters almost always best left to the other branches of government. And, there is the language in footnote 3 in which Judge Land thinks it important that Congress was satisfied that Obama was qualified. That sounds like the court has doubts about whether courts should ever be involved in deciding these issues. I am not sure that that case will help anyone, but if I was trying to disqualify Cruz, I would try avoid Judge Land.

In Taitz v. Obama, Judge Lamberth denied Orly's claims for various reasons. For example, a quo warranto claim must be brought by the Department of Justice. He claimed that she lacked standing to pursue her various claims that Obama was not qualified.

The more I read of these cases, the more I suspect that the federal courts really do not want this task of becoming a screening committee for presidential candidates. When federal courts really want to get involved in something, they find a way to do it. With that in mind, compare the way courts approach these eligibility cases with the way (and the speed with which) the U.S. Supreme Court handled Bush v. Gore. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court really wanted to do something to shut down another court, the Florida Supreme Court, that the Supreme Court believed was improperly favoring Gore.