Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz 'birther' lawsuit appealed to Supreme Court
UPI ^ | 04/22/2016 | Eric Duvall

Posted on 04/22/2016 10:14:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

A Utah lawyer has appealed a lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging Republican presidential candidate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is not a "natural born citizen" and therefore ineligible to become president.

Legal scholars say there is virtually no chance the high court will consider the appeal, partly because they do not want to encourage a wave of similar suits.

Cruz has faced questions about his eligibility to become president from his chief rival, Donald Trump. Cruz was born in Canada, though his mother is a U.S. citizen.

The U.S. Constitution sets only a few standards for presidential eligibility. Candidates must be 35, have lived at least 14 years in the country and be a "natural born citizen."

To some, legal vagaries exist surrounding the constitutional language. Congress has never passed a law explicitly defining the term "natural born citizen" and the nation's founding document does not specify what qualifications someone must have.

For centuries, the courts have fallen back to the British common law explanation, that a "natural born citizen" is anyone who is granted citizenship at birth and, therefore, does not have to undergo any naturalization process later in life. Traditionally, that has included anyone born on American soil and the children of American citizens born abroad.

But that definition has generally not been tested in courts because federal judges are first bound to consider whether a plaintiff has standing to bring a lawsuit. To establish standing, someone making allegations has to pass the threshold they have been personally injured in some way.

(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; nostanding; scotus; tedcruz; tinfoilhatbirthers; tinfoilhattrump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-300 next last
To: Tau Food

My point remains: the function of electors is to cast votes for President and Vice President of the US. They have no other authority.


221 posted on 04/25/2016 8:48:39 PM PDT by Ray76 (Judge Roy Moore for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
the function of electors is to cast votes for President and Vice President of the US. They have no other authority.

Yes, their only function is to choose our presidents and vice-presidents every four years. But, that's a pretty big job.

I assume that they try to make legal choices and understand that they are required to choose only persons qualified to serve. A lot of electors have surprised people with their votes. It could very well be that some of them did not vote as people predicted they would because they found there to be eligibility defects in some candidate. The Constitution does not require that they explain their votes.

222 posted on 04/25/2016 8:59:23 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

They serve a ministerial function. They have no authority to inquire into the age, citizenship, or residency requirements specified by Art. II. They vote. Period.


223 posted on 04/25/2016 9:06:56 PM PDT by Ray76 (Judge Roy Moore for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
They serve a ministerial function. They have no authority to inquire into the age, citizenship, or residency requirements specified by Art. II. They vote. Period.

Maybe you're familiar with the Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. Federalist Number 68 concerns "The Mode of Selecting the President."

Federalist No. 68 explains why such an important function (choosing a President) was delegated to a small number of very important persons (electors):

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men (the electors) most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

Obviously, the Founding Fathers thought that choosing a president required "complicated investigations" and that the selection of a president should be made by people "most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

The Founding Fathers saw the job of an elector as being much more than the perfunctory, ministerial function that you envision for them.

224 posted on 04/25/2016 9:30:06 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

The 12th amendment states in part:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President [] 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 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 presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

They vote. Nowhere is there mentioned any other function or grant of authority. Electors are assembled for this one purpose and then disbanded.


225 posted on 04/25/2016 9:42:07 PM PDT by Ray76 (Judge Roy Moore for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
According to Federalist 68, it was also felt by the Founders that the Constitution's procedures "affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." I agree with the suggestion that if we just continue to trust the constitution's provisions for selecting our presidents, we can be confident (to a "moral certainty") that the electors will not choose anyone who is not "endowed with the requisite qualifications."

It has to be conceded that a "moral certainty" level of confidence does still allow for some small possibility of error, but no system is 100% perfect. We shouldn't abandon a system just because we may be unhappy (for other reasons) with the selection of a particular president.

226 posted on 04/25/2016 9:45:31 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
Both before and after the 12th Amendment, the electors vote for and choose the president and vice-president. Your disagreement is with the Founding Fathers. They saw the electors job as a very important job requiring "complicated investigations" and deliberation. See Federalist No. 68.

The fact that you are unhappy with the selection of a president does not justify that we alter our whole constitutional system.

227 posted on 04/25/2016 9:52:00 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

> The fact that you are unhappy with the selection of a president does not..

I am telling you what is.

Electors are assembled for one purpose: to vote. They are never again assembled as a body.


228 posted on 04/25/2016 9:54:49 PM PDT by Ray76 (Judge Roy Moore for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Danny I agree. If Cruz wants to run for President, he needs to move forward, and let the courts decide his eligibility.
Get it done Ted or move on...


229 posted on 04/25/2016 10:09:22 PM PDT by hapnHal (**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
Actually, if you read the Constitution, you'll find that they are never all "assembled" in any one place at all. They vote in their respective states. But, as indicated in Federalist 68, their job is to investigate and to deliberate before voting. As far as I am concerned, the voters who select the electors are also obligated to investigate and deliberate before voting.

Legitimate issues concerning qualifications get plenty of attention. Both the voters and the electors can be counted on to separate the real issues from the baloney.

230 posted on 04/25/2016 10:11:36 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

I did not claim that they assembled at one place. In fact I cited the 12 Amendment, “The Electors shall meet in their respective states”.

Electors are assembled: Congress determines the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States (Art. II).

Electors are assembled for a singular purpose: to vote.


231 posted on 04/25/2016 10:20:01 PM PDT by Ray76 (Judge Roy Moore for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
I really don't have anything further to tell you. We agree that the electors vote and when you actually read the relevant materials (Constitution, Federalist 68), you will find that the Founding Fathers intended that electors would carefully choose the president and vice-president after investigation and deliberation. I have no reason to believe that electors have been derelict in their duties. You may believe that electors should not take their function seriously, but that just means that you disagree with what the Founding Fathers prescribed. You may believe that electors are incapable of choosing only qualified persons, but again that just means that you disagree with the Founding Fathers, who felt to a "moral certainty" that electors would never choose anyone lacking in qualifications.

Now, do I believe that you honestly disagree with the Founding Fathers about any of these things? I think that's unlikely. More likely, you're just angry that the voters and electors selected one or more presidents that you didn't like for other reasons. That's been true for me, too, but that doesn't lead me to conclude that our whole system is defective. In 2008 and 2012, most people just disagreed with me about the election. I can accept that. Four years later, we always have another election and life goes on. ;-)

232 posted on 04/25/2016 10:32:51 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

> You may believe that electors should not take their function seriously

There you go again falsely attributing to me things I have not said.

> More likely, you’re just angry that the voters and electors selected one or more presidents that you didn’t like for other reasons.

There you go again falsely attributing to me things I have not said.

The electoral college votes. Period. You wish they had the authority to decide questions of law, they have no such authority.


233 posted on 04/25/2016 10:41:44 PM PDT by Ray76 (Judge Roy Moore for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

I hope that this year’s election goes better for you. ;-)


234 posted on 04/25/2016 10:48:46 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

It says on the bathroom wall of a DC gay bar that the good Justice Roberts can indeed twist himself into a pretzel.

Personally, call me crazy, but I think we should vet candidates for high office even stricter with documentation than we do at Paycheck Cashiers, Little League, or your household maids.


235 posted on 04/25/2016 10:53:37 PM PDT by Yaelle (Tinkerbelle glittering up the runway for Trump Force One!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Someone put Roberts on the court because he already was or could soon be blackmailed. His children were illegally adopted. Achilles, heel, etc.


236 posted on 04/25/2016 10:55:40 PM PDT by Yaelle (Tinkerbelle glittering up the runway for Trump Force One!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

That is why I think the SCOTUS needs to pick this issue up and settle it once and for all.


I think we need a careful amendment to the Constitution defining NBC clearly for all.


237 posted on 04/25/2016 10:57:23 PM PDT by Yaelle (Tinkerbelle glittering up the runway for Trump Force One!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

That’s all ya got?


238 posted on 04/25/2016 11:01:15 PM PDT by Ray76 (Judge Roy Moore for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
 photo image_zpsztatkrpf.jpeg
239 posted on 04/26/2016 3:32:53 AM PDT by bushpilot2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER; Forty-Niner

From Forty-niner: “While Natural Born citizens are all Born Citizens not all Born Citizens are Natural Born Citizens.”

You are both coming around to what I wrote in my original post. It took a lot to get you there, but you did finally arrive.

You both insist that there are 3 legal definitions of Citizen. You might split hairs, as you did above, and say that there are TWO types of born citizens but that is six of one and a half dozen of the other.

My answer to you both is that the current working legal definition of citizenship stands as only TWO types, naturalized and NBC. You two have the right to disagree, but it will take a SC decision or written legislation to CHANGE the current working definition. As such Cruz is ELIGIBLE. Does that mean he is ELECTABLE? That is another matter.

And to a later remark by Rocklobster it has nothing to do with either opinion or climate change. It has to do with those that won’t change their view of the matter in the face of 50 states nominating boards and about a half dozen court rulings. That’s your right, of course.

My hope is that once we get our marginally documented first black president out of the oval office our nation can proceed with the process to actually DEFINE what NBC should be from this point out to eliminate any confusion.


240 posted on 04/26/2016 5:25:12 AM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-300 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson