It doesn’t work that way. Constitutional issues are not voted on. They are determined in the courts. I don’t see this one getting there because it is moot.
Indeed. This is the ultimate political question - the states get to vote on Cruz’s eligibility directly in the electoral college. No court is going to issue an injunction preventing Cruz from assuming office if he is elected.
Cruz citizenship case will be tried by Reince Priebus, Karl Rove and Justice Roberts just in time for them to rule Cruz ineligible and have his delegates stripped at the convention and handed over to Jeb.
This may be the dumbest article ever written. It doesn’t work that way. Egad.
Unlike Obama’s fake birth certificate, of which none may dare speak
From Wikipedia:
In American Constitutional law, the political question doctrine is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political question. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable.[1] One scholar explained:
The political question doctrine holds that some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal, and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case. It will claim that it doesn’t have jurisdiction. And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out.
— John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006[2]
A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law. In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine, the issue presented before the court is usually so specific that the Constitution gives all power to one of the coordinate political branches, or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vague that the United States Constitution does not even consider it. A court can only decide issues based on law. The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government. If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use. When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process. The court will not engage in political disputes.
A constitutional dispute that requires knowledge of a non-legal character or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States, is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question
No no and no again.
You don’t vote on Constitutional law. How ridiculous.
And we better hope we never do.
What our laws mean is not decided by popular vote.
People do not seem to grasp the fact that the Democrats will use any controversy to tie up Cruz. Trump is right Cruz should get into court ASAP.
Amar, a Yale Law professor, is a presumably a smart guy, so one must assume that the blatant lie he spins in the first paragraph is intentional:
“All thanks to a 1952 congressional statute that conferred natural-born birthright citizenship on various foreign-born children of American citizens.”
He knows d**m well that said statute makes no mention whatsoever of “natural born” anything. So sick of these people trying to subvert our Constitution by every means available to them.
“Cruz citizenship case should be tried in court of public opinion”
Some court rewriting the constitution will not change anyones mind, and will only cause anger towards Cruz, or any other candidate who seeks such preferential treatment.
See gay marriage, abortion, obamacare for confirmation.
Constitutional requirement to hold the office of president is ‘natural born’. Either you are or you are not ‘natural born’. Cruz is NOT ‘natural born’, and he knows it!
I am not a lawyer, nor do I need a law degree to know what ‘natural born’, means. I have decided to call it a birthright, circumstances of birth. There is none who can make Cruz natural born.
This is treasonous idiocy.
We follow the Constitution, not vice-versa.
Disputes on it’s meaning, for better or worse, are decided in court.
I see the attacks on our constitution are intensifying. Thanks a lot Ted Cruz. I hope I get to vote for your primary opponent when you run for reelection here in Texas.
Wonderfull
IF both the DNC and RNC put up Saudi Prince’s, and agree not to litigate each other’s POTUS candidate, THE PEOPLE have to bend over and take it??
Ridicuolus
The original meaning, born here of citizen parents, has been morphed to “born a citizenâ€.
The change does make anchor babies eligible, along with Winston Churchill and Ted Cruz and Obama.
The original definition was intended to protect us from foreign influence. If one could be considered anything other than an American at birth, one cannot be a natural born citizen.
Amar is part of the legal cabal that dupes the public on important issues.
It’s not that the court will be public opinion, it’s that this is a political matter and thus a matter for the Congress, and not the court of public opinion.
Why don’t we just try all cases in the “court of public opinion”?