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 have to leave for an appointment in a few minutes, so I’ll have to provide a short answer. Simply put, there have been all too few of you who make these types of complaints who have been willing to stand with us in demanding the natural born citizen clause to be respected. As a consequence you got Chester Arthur, the Wong Kim Ark decision, and the entire rogue’s gallery of ineligible candidates ever since then. Had the citizens of all political parties stood up and defended the natural born citizen clause, Obama and his subversion of the Republic could not have happened. Given yet another election and another opportunity to stop this abrogation of the natural born citizen clause, yet again there are too few defenders to stop the continued destruction of this safeguard for the Republic and the destruction of the Supreme Court of the United Sates by unqualified appointments.
G. Romney campaign tanked before his elligibility got challenged in the courts.
McCain was born of two American citizens on a military base while they were serving in the military. Congress passed a near unanimous resolution confirming McCain’s eligibility to run for President. There was no legal challenge.
Hillary should be on trial for crimes but not eligibility.
Obama managed to get all the cases dismissed without any being heard on their merits.
Because the Democrats, GOPe, and some GOPc; and the judiciary are conspiring and/or collaborating to give them protection and virtual immunity. As a consequence the not so conservative conservatives and outright non-conservatives are getting the kind of government they asked for and deserve. And, they’re dragging the rest of us along with them into the catastrophe.
I could be wrong, but it seems as if your m.o. is just to get Trump the nomination by hook or crook - you know, the "New York" way...
(BTW I reject your premise outright: Cruz is eligible to run and we should not even be having this conversation.)
Look at Obama’s elective history prior to 2008... Look carefully at his Senate campaign, and before that his State Senate campaigns... How did he win?
Cruz wants to be the “Defender of the Constitution” but he is dodging this very important constitutional eligibility question.
Every time he gets a case dismissed on standing or technicalities it’s going to hurt Cruz. How can he defend the Constitution when is own eligibility is questionable and he won’t go through the steps necessary to resolve it once and for all.
Maybe the lawsuits will resolve it. But I bet those drag out until it doesn’t matter because Trump has won enough primaries that Cruz concedes and drops out.
And if that is the result - they drag out and effect the primaries - those of us with long memories will remember it in November and, as in 2012, sit out the general. Count on it. Trump may have cost us the WH this past week.
effect = affect
Trump didn’t file the lawsuits. And there is no indication the suits are being filed on behalf of Trump in any way.
Trump tried to get Cruz to head this off. But Cruz either refused or dallied.
The entire thing is a "when did you quit beating your wife scenario?"
Not even close.
Cruz isn’t being accused of doing anything wrong. It’s just he may be ineligible because he wasn’t born in the U.S. to two American citizens.
Dude, chill. Cruz brought up the most extreme tin foil hat arguments that are floating around for a laugh to let Trump know his argument is as baseless as the claim he, Cruz, just made. Cruz doesn’t think Trump is not eligible. It just went over your head is all. I guess you missed the entire audience, Trump included, laughing. Listen to it again. Christy could be heard laughing louder than anyone because it was... funny.
Cruz REALLY should have gotten ahead of this.
He’s effectively being accused of existing in America. The Donald is doing what Obama did, trying to remove him on some technicality to “clear the field”.
"...I know it's a lot to ask, but you are one of my best supporters and that's why I'm turning to you first. If I can't count on you, I have nowhere else to turn..."
Ted is so toast. Because his "best supporter", me, is totally in the tank for Trump.
I write the bots that send mass e-mails like this and can assure you they do not distinguish. That’s not a Ted problem, it’s a software limitation.
RE: 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.
Let’s be accurate here. Referring to what people have argued in the past does not make it a lie. It makes it a RECOGNITION that such theories exist.
Cruz was referring to theories being touted by MANY people who insist that both parents have to be natural born citizens for the child to be a natural born citizen.
Of course that theory is NOT a lie. The best you can call it is that it is a MIS-UNDERSTANDING of the term “natural born” as it applies to a child.
But to say that such theories do not exist does not comport with reality. THEY DO. I’ve debated it with a few FReepers myself.
RE:He said this falsehood,
Let’s make that a bit more accurate.
He REFERRED to this falsehood which is believed by quite a number of people interested in this subject in order to rebut it.
RE: Ted is so toast. Because his “best supporter”, me, is totally in the tank for Trump.
LOL, you think a mass e-mail is a very personal one directed specifically to you?
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.