Courts unlikely to entertain, let alone sustain, challenge to Cruz's qualification to be president

Hmmmm?

But Obama said he was born in U.S.. Of course anyone without their head up their whatever knows that’s a lie but Obama was already powerful enough to sustain the lie. Although he spent millions (not his own $) before he came up with a forgery good enough to pawn off.

At any rate, Cruz was not born in the U.S. so it’s kind of a different animal.

IMHO, neither Obama nor Cruz should have been able to run for President, but we’re playing with new rules now.

Cruz and Obama will be treated differently in the courts.

Especially after the RATS play the homo blackmail card on Roberts again.

There have already been court challenges on this against Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal. All have been dismissed.

Federal courts don't have jurisdiction in these cases. In the event of a dispute in a presidential election, it's up to Congress to address any issues like this.

This is why the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong in the 2000 presidential election case, even if the results turned out the way it would have ended up anyway. They never should have taken the Florida case in the first place.

Let me assure all who think. The Democrats will find a Democrat Federal judge and IT WILL BE ON!!! And with GW bushes faggot Supreme court judge — ROBERTS, we are screwed ,blued, and tattooed!!

Court unlikely to hold Obamacare Constitutional. News at 11.

Justice Roberts will not rule for Cruz.

For any who did not know Trump started this at least a year ago - January 2015.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/01/donald-trump-says-ted-cruzs-canadian-birth-could-be-a-difficult-problem-for-2016-bid.html/

“Justice Roberts will not rule for Cruz.”
Ya think???

You got it!! “Different animal”.

Seriously how could they with a straight face after the fraud that was allowed to occupy the WH the last 7 years?

LOL I’ll bite. I’m on pins and needles for Big Brother to tell me exactly who might be my lawful sibling. In civics, way back in the 60’s I remember being taught that if a child of TWO (2) AMERCAN CITIZENS BORN OUTSIDE OF US BOUNDARIES, that child would be an NBC. Here born is not in question - it’s the parents. BOTH PARENTS MUST BE US CITIZENS. Cruz dad was not.

I will continue to wait for any answer shared. This should prove interesting.

Those who paid attention and read the assignment learned that. Unfortunately .....

Vision. The man is amazing!

S T A N D I N G

Until one can demonstrate being harmed they have no standing to bring suit.

The only current path to denying POTUS due to lack of NBC occurs as the House certifies the results of the Electoral College...... after the election. Never has happened, never will happen.

Wish as much as you might. You are not correct. One USA Citizen parent.

Ever hear of “Wish in one hand and poop in the other, and see which fills up first”?

Too bad this is all Trump has to fend off Cruz.

Kenny, where Cruz, or Rubio, or Jindal, were born is irrelevant. As every US Senator agreed in April 2008 in the hearings addressing McCain’s ineligibility, â€œMy assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,â€ Chertoff replied. â€œThat is mine, too,â€ said Leahy.â€

“Chertoff” was Judge and former Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff. Chertoff appears to have been implying that birth to citizens was sufficient, but in the recorded minutes Obama’s former Harvard Adviser, Larry Tribe, and former solicitor General Ted Olson wrote a lengthy and misleading letter trying to address McCain’s having been born on foreign soil. Not one doubted the citizenship of McCain’s parents which implies that every lawyer involved with Senate Res 511 understood “born on our soil to parents who were citizens at the date of birth”. In other words, citizen parents were necessary, but not sufficient conditions to satisfy natural born citizenship.

Senate Resolution 511, was cosponsored by Obama and his campaign co-chair, Clair McKaskill. Resolutions are simply opinions with no legal authority. This resolution was hurriedly introduced after the Obama/MacAskill Bill, Senate 2678, “The Foreign Born Children of Military Citizens Natural Born Citizen Act”, failed to pass in February 2008. That bill was moot if McCain was a natural born citizen, born to citizen parents, but in the Canal Zone, which was not sovereign territory in 1936.

I think McCain’s ineligibility should be addressed, and there is opinion in Vattel’s Law of Nations supporting that belief. The Senate full of lawyers obviously didn’t think so or they wouldn’t have gone to the trouble to sponsor a bill to address McCain’s well-known problem. Just search the Washington Post, NY Times, Chicago Trib, and dozens of legal journals if you didn’t notice the challenges before and after McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.

Cruz cited the 14th Amendment, a naturalization amendment, to support his presumed eligibility. Again, the 14th Amendment is a “naturalization” amendment, built upon Article 1 Section 8, “Congress shall... create an uniform Rule for Naturalization.” The Obama administration snuck in a bill that claimed being a citizen at birth was not naturalization. Citizens are either natural born or Naturalized. Congress has decided to amend the Constitution; and both parties are complicit. No Congressional act except an amendment can effect a Constitutional article. Otherwise there would be no reason to have a Supreme Court as Congress would simply reinterpret whatever constitutional provision that interfered with their objectives.

The 14th Amendment never mentions natural born citizens. Because it addressed the dilemma of citizenship of slaves, it was necessary before a federal definition other than natural born citizenship could be confirmed. Virginia Minor’s suffrage could only be addressed by The Court - her claim was that the equal rights provision in the 14th gave her voting privileges - if she were a citizen. The only Constitutionally defined citizen before the 14th Amendment was a natural born citizenship. She was a natural born citizen and thus a citizen.

Father of the 14th Amendment, abolitionist judge John Bingham made the definition, cited dozens of times in Supreme Court Cases. He explained the citizenship component of the 14th to Congress in 1866: “I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizenâ€¦.”

Obama, Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, were all born with legal allegiance to the country of their parents, or of one parent. Obama has never claimed to be a Natural Born Citizen. He and Cruz are disciplined sophists. Cruz did claim to be a natural born citizen. Mark Levin, claimed that “I am a Constitutional Expert”, and citied the completely rescinded mention in the First Congress of Natural Born Citizenship. That was the only time Congress has ever attempted to address natural born citizenship. They quickly realized their transgression and removed the only mention ever made by Congress of natural born citizenship in 1795. I can only assume that Levin does know the law and chooses to declaim his authority while providing no law to support his belief.

Read Minor v. Happersett, cited often in Supreme Court cases, and significantly in Wong Kim Ark, to decide that Wong Kim, born as were Rubio, Jindal, and Obama on U.S. soil, but to parents who were not citizens. All three, like Wong Kim, became citizens at birth on our soil, dual citizens of Britain, Cuba, and India. Wong Kim was explicitly made a “citizen”. There are two classes of citizen, natural born, and naturalized. Obama, Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are all citizens, naturalized at birth, but not citizens by birth. Natural born citizens needed no law to make them citizens. Fifty or sixty years ago Obama, Cruz, Jindal and Rubio would not have been “born citizens”. U.S. Code, passed a few decades ago, changed that birth status. It was not the intent of our framers to allow men who serve two years in Congress to redefine our Constitution.

The British were drafting their subjects from U.S. ships at sea even when those men had repudiated their British citizenship. This is one of the catalysts of the War of 1812, and one example of the sorts of entanglements our framers knew would threaten our newly won independence. A famous 1814 case arising from citizenship claims made by importers, several having chosen U.S. citizenship while retaining their homes in England, caused Justice John Marshall to cite Vattel as the most concise source for the definition of who were natural born citizens. The Venus didn’t need that definition to address the case making Marshall’s statement “dictum”.

Minor V. Happersett needed the definition in 1875 and so created legal precedent which has never been modified, though twenty six cases were filed which would have amended Article II Section 1 clause 5. had they passed.

If Cruz’s claim is sustained a child born in a camp in Arizona to Islamic Terrorists is a natural born citizen, eligible to the presidency after residing with his sleeper cell parents on our soil for 14 years and attaining the age of 35. That was not the intention of our founders and framers, who knew well, and discussed in the Federalist Papers, the potential damage a clever invader with foreign allegiance, with allegiance to the dreams of his father and not to the fathers of our nation.