Posted on 01/15/2016 10:55:31 AM PST by justlittleoleme
Sen. Ted Cruz might finally get the chance to prove he is eligible to run for president once and for all.
A Houston-based attorney has filed a lawsuit against Cruz, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to settle whether Canadian-born Cruz is eligible for the presidency. Noting that the Iowa caucuses are just weeks away, the attorney asks the court to expedite the case as quickly as possible.
"This 229 year question has never been pled, presented to or finally decided by or resolved by the U. S. Supreme Court," wrote attorney Newton Schwartz in his lawsuit that he filed Thursday. "Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now."
He writes: "It is undisputed, by all legal scholars, there is no U.S. Supreme Court decision or precedent: determinative of the following agreed facts of this case and controversy. 'Natural born citizen' has never been defined."
Schwartz asked the court to rule that Cruz is not eligible to run for President.
The Cruz campaign declined to comment on the suit, but said Cruz has no connection Schwartz.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
More like Manchurian Candidate.
Of course the media will run with it. I guess what I’m saying is its mickey mouse BS and a really &#^tty way to gain a political advantage.
Seems he should first sue to to try and keep Cruz off the ballot in Texas.
IF successful, let Cruz come back and sue to get back on.
then pass the popcorn.
I’m sorry if I offended
Not at all.
I only wish this nominating process would turn on issues that matter.
Think what you will...and I will think what I will.
I’ve believed that for several weeks now.
I’m very much for Trump, but I desperately want Cruz to be declared completely and finally eligible. The way I see it, the only two who would be acceptable are Trump and Cruz. If something were to happen to Trump, and Cruz were ineligible, look at the also-rans we’d be stuck with. Not a pretty picture.
Please, God, make Cruz eligible!
Robinson v. Bowen was filed in the Northern District of California. This new suit is filed in the Southern District of Texas. A decision in the federal court in CA is not binding on and would not need to be considered by the federal court in TX. Though, there's a very good chance Robinson is cited (along with any number of other cases from the McCain and Obama litigation) as support for dismissing this case for lack of plaintiff's standing to sue.
Though Robinson is the case that suggests that for proper standing to be found it will require not just that another presidential candidate sue, but that it be a viable candidate (i.e., not one who gets on a ballot in a single state for the sole purpose to be a plaintiff):
Turning to the viability of the case at large, plaintiff has no standing to challenge Senator McCain's qualifications. Plaintiff is a mere candidate hoping to become a California elector pledged to an obscure third-party candidate whose presidential prospects are theoretical at best. Plaintiff has, therefore, no greater stake in the matter than a taxpayer or voter. Hollander v. McCain, 2008 WL 2853250 (D.N.H.2008).
I expect this reasoning may well be extended from one hoping to be an elector to an obscure third-party candidate to the "obscure third-party candidate" himself.
Maybe it will be settled in such a way that you, that are so willing to ignore the Constitution, will have the issue settled one way or the other.
Take cheer your position may win, of course the Constitution would then be the loser but hey, who cares about a bunch of cr@p written a couple hundred years ago by a bunch of senile old white men, right?
“And if the Supremes decide that BOTH parents must be citizens for their little snowflake to be Natural Born?”
Awkward, considering the foreign SOB — and I mean that literally — who’s been squatting in the White Hut for seven years. Could we turn back time and pretend he never existed?
So this guy has STANDING (/s)
Among other things, this guy has his basic facts wrong. When AZ SOS Ken Bennett asked the HI state registrar to verify the birth facts claimed on the BC image posted on the White House website, registrar Onaka would NOT verify those facts. What was eventually sent to Bennett after much fuss was a document that claimed there was a birth certificate on file that says Obama was born in HI. However, nothing was said of the county of birth, date of birth, mother’s name, and father’s name - and ALL those were required to be verified as true if the BC claiming a HI birth was LEGALLY VALID. IOW, what was on that “verification” actually showed that the HI BC claiming a HI birth for Barack Obama is NOT legally valid.
Furthermore, registrar Onaka would not dignify the document that superficially appeared to verify Obama’s HI birth with his official seal. DOH director Loretta Fuddy had to use HER seal in order for the thing to have any seal at all, even though her seal is only legally used to verify her signature and her signature was nowhere on the document.
So the document itself was not properly certified - most likely because Alvin Onaka knew that he bears the legal responsibility to follow the statutes, which say that non-valid certificates are NOT prima facie evidence, and he can only verify facts if he has prima facie evidence of their truth.
IOW, if the BC was legally valid, Onaka HAD to verify every submitted fact that matched what was on that BC. If the BC was not legally valid, Onaka COULD NOT verify any of the facts even though he MUST verify the existence of a BC. And that is what he did: he verified the existence of a BC (which to be a HI BC would have to claim a HI birth) but did not even mention the other birth facts that Bennett asked to be verified.
He would not verify that Oahu was the county of birth, would not verify that Aug 4, 1961 was the date of birth, would not verify that Stanley Ann Dunham was the mother, would not verify that Barack Hussein Obama was the father, and would not verify that the child’s gender was male.
If this “verification” was to be considered legally valid, it would now be legally confirmed that Obama was not a male at birth, was not born on Oahu, was not born on Aug 4, 1961, and was not born to either Stanley Ann Dunham or Barack Hussein Obama I.
All this changes the argument that this attorney is trying to make. But if the case is accepted and he is given standing, all these “facts” should be disputable, with evidence allowed to verify their truth or falsehood.
So, the contingent insisting that both parents must be born in the USA are saying 2/3rds of native born blacks are ineligible to serve as prez since their fathers are unknown and thus of indeterminate ancestry? Or are they saying that one parent of indeterminate ancestry is OK? If indeterminate is OK, how about adopted children where the records are lost or dubious? There’s no Constitutional requirement for a DNA test.
Besides, the XII Amendment already establishes a “court” system (complete with an appeals process) for resolving such disputes - it’s called the Electoral College, the Senate, and the House. The judiciary has no role (I know, that doesn’t usually stop them).
This is an opportunity for Constitutionalist Cruz to educate the electorate (and the dumbasses in congress, most of whom have never read the Constitution).
Dont worry about those native born blacks running for president !!!!!!
Does he have standing?
Your statement is a bit at-odds with a prior statement of the U.S. Supreme Court:
"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 696, 702, 703 (1898).
If foreign-born children can only become citizens by being naturalized via statute, how is it that they are also "natural born citizens?"
I REALLY, REALLY hope so, because together they could thwart the ability of the dems to get a corrupt judge to throw out the R candidate when it’s too late to replace him. AND bring into the open, with legal proof, the coup of 2008.
If Cruz really did bring up Trump’s mother being born in Scotland (I didn’t watch the debate), then it does seem like a set-up - like 2 pro wrestlers who know what the final outcome will be - because as long as Trump’s mother was a US citizen when Trump was born on US soil, her foreign birth would not disqualify Trump by ANYBODY’s interpretation, and I’m sure Cruz knows that.
The one who would have standing to sue is Trump, once Cruz gets primary votes. And that’s what Trump needs to do, if he genuinely cares about any of us, the Constitution, the R party, or the US as a whole. If Trump does file suit saying that Cruz is ineligible because he was born outside the US, Cruz could use as one of his arguments the fact that the HI state registrar would not verify the birth facts on Obama’s HI BC, even though statute says he MUST if the submitted facts match what is claimed on a LEGALLY VALID birth certificate. (See my last comment for more context on that). If Trump’s lawyer and Cruz’s lawyer both cede to that fact, the only way the judge could try to get around it is by ordering the evidence admitted into court. And then discovery begins...
I REALLY, REALLY hope they do this.
The judiciary has the Constitutionally-stated duty to decide matters arising from the US Constitution.
That’s why the the courts quite regularly overturn the votes of the people. Why is the Presidential vote any less subject to Constitutional review than any other vote?
Love the gif. I know there’s going to be a good comment whenever I see it.
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.