Could Ted Cruz Be Disqualified?

Townhall.com ^ | January 28, 2016 | Steve Chapman

[Arthur McGowan]

Since everyone agrees that the 14th Amendment was written for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of freed slaves, the 14th Amendment should be repealed.

This would undo Roe v. Wade and a host of other wretched jurisprudence purportedly based on the 14th Amendment.

[Arthur McGowan]

The State of Hawaii can issue all the letters and statements it pleases. The “birth certificate” on the White House website is a crude, blatant forgery displaying dozens of laughable blunders and anomalies. It is certainly not an image of any piece of paper that has existed since 1961 in the possession of the State of Hawaii.

[Arthur McGowan]

If Soetoro’s grandmother filled out a form with the Hawaii Dep’t of Health in 1961, absolutely regardless of where Soetoro was actually born, the newspaper announcements would have appeared.

[Nero Germanicus]

The newspapers’ entries were in the “Health Bureau Statistics” sections of the papers. The data came from the Hawaii Health Bureau which is what the Department of Health was called back in 1961, along with marriage certificates issued and death certificates issued. The Obama Certificate of Live Birth is signed by Stanley Ann Dunham and Dr. David A Sinclair, MD. Attending Physician at Kapi’olani Hospital. Verna K.L Lee also signed as Local Registrar.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif

[Arthur McGowan]

So?

The “birth certificate” is a crude, laughable forgery.

[cynwoody]

Where is your authority for the proposition that the winning ticket (Pres and VP) is tossed if the Pres on that ticket is found ineligible by Congress (sitting in early January). 3 USC 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress? Or elsewhere in Chapter 1 of 3 USC? Or directly from the US constitution?

The proper authority is the Twelfth Amendment.

Turns out I'm wrong.

If no presidential candidate wins the majority (after any electoral votes are tossed, based on whatever criteria the Congress can agree upon), then the House picks the President, and the Senate the Vice President (if, as is highly likely, he also fails to win a majority of the electoral vote). But, if the House can't agree on the new President by 4 March, then the VP becomes President. And, if by then, the Senate hasn't picked a VP, then WTF knows?

But my real point was, the courts don't get to judge eligibility. It's up to Congress, as (somewhat) clearly set forth in the Constitution!

[Cboldt]

Thanks for the reply. So, the pres-elect slot can be under a cloud for more than one reason.

• No candidate (ticket, these days) gets a majority (toss elections to the House and Senate)
• The pres-elect or VP-elect that got a majority of the electoral college, is not qualified (this is the scenario I assumed was under discussion)

-- But my real point was, the courts don't get to judge eligibility. It's up to Congress, as (somewhat) clearly set forth in the Constitution! --

I think that's an open question, and it plays at several points in the process.

Taking just the final counting and selection of a president elect by Congress, the constitution doesn't clearly prohibit the court from review, and unlike judging qualification for House and Senate, doesn't clearly assign any branch the job of deciding qualification for the office of president. Amar and Balkin have expounded on this, coming down on opposite sides of court review.

I think the courts would review it, or could, just by asserting themselves into the process. What could Congress do about that? A fundamental argument in favor is preservation of checks between branches. If Congress goes rouge or derelict (as it habitually does), the subversion should not be conclusive.

[Nero Germanicus]

Then it would have been a very good idea at some point over the last nine years to have a prosecuting attorney initiate a Grand Jury investigation of that crude, laughable forgery.
Forgery is a crime and crimes are not adjudicated via lawsuits.

[Nero Germanicus]

The problem with trying to repeal the 14th Amendment is that its Citizenship Clause says “ALL PERSONS...” and not all persons formerly held in slavery or involuntary servitude.
The 13th Amendment, by way of contrast, is specific: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

The landmark Supreme Court decision on citizenship under the 14th Amendment is U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Wong Kim Ark was never a slave.

[Arthur McGowan]

The language of the amendment is irrelevant to whether the amendment can be repealed. Once it’s repealed, it’s repealed.

Yes, it SAYS “all persons.” But it was intended to protect freed slaves. Since they are all now dead, the amendment should be repealed. And 150 years of ABUSIVE INTERPRETATIONS (The “incorporation doctrine,” Roe v. Wade, anchor babies, etc., etc.) of the amendment would be swept away.

The 13th Amendment would remain. The repeal of the 14th Amendment would not legalize slavery.

[Nero Germanicus]

If 38 states go for repeal, it would happen. However the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws [Article 1, Sections 9 & 10] so repeal would have no impact on anyone or anything that occurred before the repeal was adopted.

[Dajjal]

ineligible bump