Posted on 01/15/2016 1:18:15 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The showdown over eligibility may shift from the political arena to the courts – at least, it might if two plaintiffs get their way. Both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio face legal challenges to their presidential ambitions based on the circumstances of their birth. In Florida, the challenge comes from a voter whose previous lawsuit against Barack Obama’s eligibility went nowhere, and names both Republican contenders. Rubio’s legal team didn’t exactly shrug it off, but asked the court to do so instead:
This week Rubio sought to have a court complaint in Florida against him thrown out, saying the argument "would jeopardize centuries of precedent and deem at least six former presidents ineligible for office." (Last week he told reporters of Cruz, “I don’t think that’s an issue.”)
Rubio was born in Miami in 1971. But Rubio’s Cuban immigrant parents did not become U.S. citizens until 1975.
That's convinced so-called birthers to conclude Rubio is ineligible under Article 2 of the Constitution, which says “no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” …
A Fort Lauderdale man, Michael Voeltz, filed a complaint against Rubio and Cruz in December, arguing they are "naturalized citizens, or at the very least, simply fail to comply with the common law Supreme Court established definition of natural born citizen …"
Rubio filed a motion to dismiss on Jan. 11. The 34-page filing, heretofore unknown, shows that Rubio's legal team spent considerable time researching the issue. "Senator Rubio is a natural born citizen of the United States and he is eligible to be President of the United States," it concludes.
Interestingly, the first argument in the motion goes to a lack of standing. That would be pretty much a standard approach to lawsuits anyway, but perhaps not the most politic of arguments. The motion argues that the question raises only a general claim of injury to the plaintiff rather than a “particularized” injury. While that’s based on plenty of precedent, it might rub some who see standing as a barrier to properly enforcing the Constitution the wrong way. That irritation might increase with the second major argument based on Berg v Obama that eligibility is “a non-justiciable political argument,” although again based on substantial precedent. Politically, Rubio is on much firmer ground with his positive argument in the latter part of the motion on what makes him an eligible candidate.
Meanwhile in Texas, Newton Schwartz has filed a new lawsuit to declare Cruz ineligible. Schwartz wants the suit to go straight to the Supreme Court:
The federal case filed in Texas argues that the question must be presented to the Supreme Court for fair adjudication instead of left up to popular consensus.
"The U.S. Constitution is not a popularity document for fair weather only," says the lawsuit filed by Newton Schwartz says.
"However persuasive, one finds each side in this debate, the final decision ultimately rests in the hands of five or more of nine Justices on the Supreme Court as mandated by the Constitution." …
The suit argues that the constitutional mandate that the president must be a "natural-born citizen" has never been settled in court and warned that the "mounting questionings crescendo" must be settled as soon as possible. It goes on to note the "persistent doubt" about President Obama's eligibility.
Well, that would at least put an end to the debate, although it’s doubtful that the district court will pass the case directly to the Supreme Court. At least thus far, Cruz has not had the opportunity to file a brief in this case, but it will probably follow along the same lines as Rubio’s motion in Florida, asking to dismiss it outright. Who knows, though? Cruz did a pretty good job of arguing his case last night, and might relish representing himself at the Supreme Court in an emergency hearing — assuming that the Supreme Court would bother to hear it, which is a fairly large assumption at this point.
Don’t get your hopes up, though. The courts steered very far clear of this issue with Obama, and there’s no reason to think they want to get themselves ensnared in this debate now. If Congress wants to clarify the phrase “natural-born citizen,” they have plenty of room to do so, and the courts will probably be happy in this one instance to send the controversy to Capitol Hill.
In other words, Cruz's description of "New York values" are precisely the values that Trump specifically cites as springing from his New York upbringing. Repeatedly. And even distinguishes from Iowa values. Amazing.
What a cynical phony Trump is on this issue. And now you have the video proof.
I apologize to all readers if I included the RECOMMENDED FOR YOU portion in the article. I was an accidental copy and paste error.
Sorry...
if obama never had to produce a copy of his birth certificate, why should anyone else be required? can’t everyone just cite obama??
This is how scared they are of a real conservative. This is essentially a Borking move to try anything to stop a true conservative from becoming President.
We must fight to the last breath.
Good about the lawsuits. It’s best to get these things settled now BEFORE the nomination and the general election gets going.
Good. Hear it now and settle it. The SCOTUS should be mandated to take this up Monday morning and issue a declarative ruling. This is their job to decide constitutional questions.
I'm ALL FOR a clear, accepted definition of "natural born citizen", accepted as the law.
Rubio is an actual anchor baby. Geesh America, Wake up!
RNC has standing and needs to file the declarative judgment naming Rubio , Cruz , Trump and even Jindall. It needs to be settled NOW before there is anymore slipping off the slope of the original constitution
I dont think he did. All we tried to do was to suggest that Trump bringing it up was crazy. That won't work in court.
Interesting that this never got anywhere with Obama...
Ted Cruz, constitutional scholar, has argued successfully before the Supreme Court. I think he can hold his own on this issue.
Interesting...
The Court in Miami will rule that it is only necessary for a person to be born in the US, and ‘natural born citizenship’ does not derive from the parents.
The Court in Texas will rule that it is not necessary to born in the US, and that a person with a US parent is a ‘natural born citizen’
The two courts will be in contradiction and then it will have to go to the Supreme Court.
Or both courts could just punt and say the suits lack ‘standing’. Very interesting.
we were told that it was racist to ask this question and yet we have two men with Hispanic heritage and now it’s fair game!!!
It may not look like it, but this is a gift horse for cruz. Sooner or later cruz is going to face this issue if he is on the ballot for president or veep. Better to fight it out against a poorly prepared and ill-eguipped opponent now on your turf than a well prepared opponent later on their turf.
Why is the date of his mother’s becoming a U. S. citizen relevant, if he was born in the U.S.A.?
Does place of birth hold more weight than the citizenship of the mother? Is an anchor baby’s citizenship greater than the baby of an American citizen mother born out of country?
These are important questions, not just for Ted Cruz, but for all foreign born children of American citizens such as missionaries, contractors, military, and those conducting business in foreign countries.
“Ted Cruz, constitutional scholar, has argued successfully before the Supreme Court. I think he can hold his own on this issue.”
Ted Cruz failed miserably in the debate, because he got caught making a bald faced lie about his citizenship and the citizenship of Donald Trump. Ted Cruz said the theory is supposed to be that both parents have to be natural born citizens for the child to be a natural born citizen. That is a lie. The parents only need to be naturalized citizens or natural born citizens, and not just natural born citizens. He said this falsehood, which he is obligated to know was false since he claims to be an expert Constitutional lawyer. His lie removed all doubt as to his claims to be a conservative, and thereby demolished his credibility in the debate.
Why is it only the people who have the capacity to save this country - why must only they be brought down? Why?
Cruz has the skill to argue in court. Doesn’t mean he will win. Facts are facts.
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.