Huckabee: Cruz Should Go To Court To Settle Presidential Eligibility Issue

TPM ^ | January 14, 2016, 8:01 PM EST | Allegra Kirkland

[Red Steel]

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Thursday urged his Republican presidential rival Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to go to court to settle questions about whether he is eligible to run for President.

Appearing on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" after Fox Business Network's Republican undercard presidential debate, Huckabee said that the Canadian-born Cruz should seek a summary judgment from a court in order to prove that he can serve as commander-in-chief.

"I didn't think it was an issue until I started seeing extensive and thoroughly detailed articles from constitutional law professors with strong credibility saying that this is an issue," Huckabee said. "I think Senator Cruz needs to settle it. The RNC has no business telling him that he should step aside because there's a question. The issue is, answer the question. Settle it. Deal with it."

After Burnett pointed out that going through the courts could take months and force Cruz to sacrifice the GOP nomination, Huckabee pivoted to the matter of his own airtight eligibility for the presidency.

"For me, it's real simple," he said. "I was born in Arkansas. We already have clearly established that you can be born in Hope, Arkansas, and be president of the United States."

Former President Bill Clinton was born in the same Arkansas town as Huckabee.

[RC one]

Henry Clay was born in Virginia. He was "a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution" and was therefore fully eligible to be POTUS under article II, sec I, clause 5.

[Cboldt]

FWIW, and I mean no disrespect, but I think Alberta's Child is impenetrable, has learned it all already, etc. The presentations are always civil, and responsive. Alberta's Child makes many valuable contributions here.

The legal arguments that lie here are lawyer's arguments, that are difficult to teach to laypeople. Few people reading this forum are "at that level," and those who are, can read the law and make up their own minds. The rest of you are, for better or worse, stuck with choosing a side based on who you find more credible.

I reflect on the number of lawyers posting here, who misunderstood Rogers v. Bellei. I've personally interacted with at least two, at length. Rogers v. Bellei is child's play, compared with the question of who can hear an eligibility case, and when they can hear it, and who has standing, and when, and even on the question of ballot access, because the people choose electors, not nominees.

[P-Marlowe]

Let the Supreme Court decide. Just like they did with these cases:

Gibbons v Ogden
Dred Scott
Griswold v. Connecticut
Lochner v. New York
Korematsu v. United States
Lawrence v. Texas
Plessy v. Ferguson
Roe v. Wade
Casey v. Planned Parenthood
King v Burwell
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Obergefell v. Hodges

[Cboldt]

Even a dismissal on standing can be appealed. Loser has the right to appeal.

But if Cruz moves for dismissal based on standing, etc. it smells like avoiding the issue on the merits.

Funny thing is the public cannot distinguish between dismissal on standing, and a decision on the merits. 95% of the public will take "case dismissed" as "the court ruled that Cruz is NBC."

Frustrating. The press is a tool of the government. We are past 1984 folks.

[Alberta's Child]

Thank you.

P.S. -- I am not a lawyer, but I've been told that I should have been. LOL.

It's hard to avoid posting "legal arguments" on this subject when my contributions have generally been limited to threads like this one where candidates like Trump and Huckabee make specific suggestions about legal proceedings.

Personally, it isn't likely to matter in the long run. It would only be an issue if Cruz were to win the GOP nomination, and by that time other GOP candidates like Trump and Huckabee won't be in a position to make a big deal about it anyway.

[hoosiermama]

So true. And court TV hasn’t helped the reality of the courts job. Judge Judy has done her profession a disservice IMO

Incoming

[Alberta's Child]

Thank you. I may have the wrong candidate from that election.

FWIW, Andrew Jackson wasn't just a candidate in that election. He was later elected to the White House. To this day, nobody is sure exactly what state he was born in.

[hoosiermama]

But unsettled it might deny Cruz the opportunity of being appointed VP

[KGeorge]

This may or may not get interesting, imho.

It’s been a week. Or it seems like a week, give or take. Cruz is stonewalling. That’s like pleading the 5th, imo. I take that to mean that he cannot document a CRBA or else he already would have. Gleefully & smugly. There’s a reason he had his records sealed.

I think he’ll keep stonewalling. I’m not at all confident it won’t be an identical replay of 0bama. We are beyond the law- beyond the Constitution.
It’s up to the voters to proverbially settle this by refusing to vote for him. Or
not.

I would be glad if you are correct, hoosiermama.

[Tzfat]

We don’t care what you think Huckster.

[Cboldt]

-- It's hard to avoid posting "legal arguments" on this subject when my contributions have generally been limited to threads like this one where candidates like Trump and Huckabee make specific suggestions about legal proceedings. --

I understand. Every poster is in that boat, and there is some value in people probing how they think the law works. If nothing else, it's entertaining for them to engage in debate, and honestly ponder.

The pundits are, I think this is correct, 100% wrong, every time. It's all spin, and creates an incredible amount of tension and cognitive dissonance among the public. The discourse is at a low level, totally void of cite to the legal authority.

That's the state of public debate, on important matters, and I don't care if it is an election, the environment, tax law, health, law, or any other issue. The public debate is nothing more than uninformed gum-flapping.

-- Personally, it isn't likely to matter in the long run. --

I agree, Cruz is toast. He reached a peak, and he is going down, fast.

[hoosiermama]

Wouldn’t we all K?

[Alberta's Child]

Then that's Cruz's problem, not anyone else's.

Keep in mind that VPs aren't elected anymore like they were in the early years of the country. The two candidates run on a single ticket, and the presidential candidate often doesn't have much of a say in the matter. I can't imagine the Republican Party leadership will ever pick Ted Cruz to be anyone's running mate.

[Iscool]

The main thrust of the Amendment seems to be ignored...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof??? If you sneak across the border from Mexico are you subject to the jurisdiction of the US or Mexico...Many scholars would say Mexico...

This seems to be the actual law that everyone wants to ignore:

[hoosiermama]

If your last statement holds true, which I think it will , he better move fast
Otoh then only a VP appointment as DT suggested would be in contention

[Cboldt]

No, he's toast. Not NBC, not qualified for VP.

Plus, I don't think Trump would have him, for reasons of trust. There is no history between the two.

[KGeorge]

I would think. Sometimes, I wonder.

[Alberta's Child]

One of the problems these days is that people look at the legal aspects of a situation because they immediately think of court proceedings as the first avenue of recourse. At the Federal level, I believe this is the inevitable consequence of a government run by people in Congress who simply don't do their jobs. The Constitution is clear in the authority it gives to Congress, and almost every one of these issues we discuss here can be addressed through legislative action rather than court proceedings.

As with many of the other candidates, Cruz is probably there to push the agenda. I suspect a lot of those candidates are angling for appointments in a GOP administration more than anything else.

[nclaurel]

So any anchor baby who is raised with alligence to another country can be president in your view?

[paintriot]

The courts brought us obamacare, roe v wade, etc. They can’t be trusted.