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.
What's really upsetting is the Trumpsters are circling like sharks in the bloody water... not around one of the RINOS, but around the most solid conservative in the race. People don't forget stuff like this in the general.
That said, I won't be intimidated, and sent Cruz another $100. Talk is cheap.
I’m going to say this:
I was born on a US Military Base in a US Military Hospital in the late sixties to two parents who were both born in the US. My father worked at the hospital where I was born and my mother lived there with him.
And I’m - wait for it - *naturalized*... I have papers and everything. And I learned while getting ready to go into the military that I could never be president because I wasn’t “natural born” I was “naturalized”...
So I’m not sure what that means for Cruz or anyone else - but that’s my personal story.
And my understanding is that it doesn’t matter what the laws are *now* but what they were when you were born.
I thought if you were born here, no matter where your parents are from, you are a citizen. If that isn’t the case, a significant number of Democrat voters are ineligible to vote. maybe even hold office.
Which is the sure-money bet. There's a wealth of opinion in the McCain and Obama cases that a voter complaining a candidate is ineligible fails to claim a particularized injury and thus lacks standing to sue. Both these cases are brought by voters. They will both be dismissed.
John McCain’s eligibility was challenged. Because it was, Congress signaled SCOTUS about how Congress would define NBC by passing a non-binding resolution declaring McCain to be an NBC. SCOTUS declined to hear any of the eligibility cases petitioning for cert.
Actually, Trump urged Cruz to obtain a declaratory judgment in federal court. Federal courts will not issue a declaratory judgment unless there is an actual case or controversy involving the requesting party, as opposed to a theoretical controversy.
So until there is an actual case or controversy involving Cruz in the federal judicial system, Cruz can’t obtain such a declartion.
It isn't. It's one of those weird birther theories.
He can’t until there is an actual case or controversy involving him at the federal level.
Why is it only the people who have the capacity to save this country - why must only they be brought down? Why?
_________
Conservatism is used against conservatives. Conservatives (good ones) follow the rules and constitution.
Progressives always look to expand or loosen the standards.
They just have a different mindset.
Its something like comparing law abiding citizens to criminals. Morality vs. immorality. Apologies for the analogy, but here it is.
That is why a sex scandal ruins a Republican but not a Democrat.
Natural Born President
Born on the soil to parents who are Citizens (American).
“He can’t until there is an actual case”
Well, as it just happens to turn out, there’s a whole slew of lawsuits just filed and no doubt more to come.
"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."
That's not a contradiction. In both cases the person would be a citizen by birth.
Nope. If you are born on American soil your parentage is irrelevant.
As I understand it, only one federal case has been filed. The attorney who filed it has not suffered an actual injury. So he likely does not have standing to bring the case.
We may have to resurrect the Sanity Squad. My goodness.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
If Trump really wanted to clear this up he could file the suit.
I didn’t watch the debate but I cannot believe he would say that. If parents had to both be natural born citizens for the child to be a natural born citizen there never would have been ANY natural born American citizens.
Maybe a lawsuit should be filed to determine if Trump is eligible. Trump is an anchor baby since his mother was a British citizen until 4 years AFTER Trump was born and only his dad was an American, which means that Trump is and has been eligible for dual citizen. He may not have ever claimed British citizenship, but has he ever renounce it? Anchor babies are not governed in the Constitution and are only allowed via a court decision, but that does not mean they are eligible for office under original Constitutional standards..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/281157/
http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/07/donald-trump-natural-born-citizen-lets-investigate/
“And why was RINO McCain allowed to run without this issue coming up?”
https://www.opencongress.org/bill/sres511-110/show
A senate resolution was passed declaring that even though John McCain was not born on US soil he is a natural born citizen because his parentS were American citizenS. He was only born outside the US because his father was an admiral and the family was living where the father was stationed.
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.