Posted on 02/12/2016 11:22:56 AM PST by GIdget2004
Donald Trump supporters have filed a lawsuit challenging the eligibility of one of his primary rivals, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), to run for president.
The lawsuit, filed Feb. 3 at a district court in Alabama, seeks a judgment "declaring that Rafael Edward Cruz is ineligible to qualify/run/seek and be elected to the Office of the President of the United States of America" due to his Canadian birth. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada, to an American mother.
The five plaintiffs — Sebastian Green, Shannon Duncan, Kathryn Spears, Kyle Spears and Jerry Parker — are all backing Trump in the Republican primary, according to AL.com.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
If you want to be heard, say it with fewer words.
It says that to hold the offfice, one must be eligible (NBC plus 35 years old plus 14 years a resident). The statutes that support this anticipate the possibility of an ineligble person being elected. That person is not to take the office.
No, they wouldn't. You are not being denied your right to vote, and you are not being denied your right to vote for the candidate of your choice. And the injury you propose is not specific to you nor different from the generalized injury that might apply to the population in general.
It is an open question WHO might have standing or at what point. Most opinions I have seen is that it would have to be another candidate, and that it probably would have to be after they lost. Otherwise the injury is only speculative, so even if they have standing, the court might not consider the issue to be "ripe". Even if the injury might be real for them, if they don't lose, they don't actually suffer the injury.
Most people don't understand how hard it can actually be to get a case in front of a federal court, especially if the case is political in nature.
Hey! You can't call the 'face of God' that?
Well .. I’m just guessing, but I’d say if they are sitting in a DOJ classroom .. they’re already born .. which would mean they were not born in America.
The authors of the constitution must be rolling over in their graves if they are aware of the contortions you and Ted Cruz are making with the document they so carefully wrote.
In 1801 Thomas Jefferson was forced to go to war with four North African Muslim states known collectively as the “Barbary States” to protect our merchant ships. Anyone “lucky” enough to survive these attacks were taken prisoner and used as slaves.
Is it necessary for me to describe to you how women who were on board were treated by the pirates? Do you really think that Thomas Jefferson or any of the authors of the constitution would view the bastard offspring of these unfortunate women as Natural Born United States Citizens? And using your logic wouldn’t the children of these bastard offspring be Natural Born Citizens regardless of the location of their birth also be Natural Born United States Citizens? If not then tell me why using your logic we do not have thousands upon thousands of Natural Born US Citizens who are decedents from these Muslim bastard children?
Your point of view is foolish and does not make any sense at all from a legal stand point. That is why Obama went to all the trouble he did to come up with official documentation that established that he was born in the state of Hawaii.
I know you will either ignore a direct confrontation or try to overwhelm is with more cut and pasted buffoonery, I would prefer to hear a rational argument in your own words.
If you adopt that position, other parts of 8 USC likewise operate to "fill the gaps." 8 USC 1402 through 8 USC 1407, and 8 USC 1409 all define citizens at birth.
Sorry for the typos and I would point out that the skullduggery that Obama had to use was both risky and puts him in possible legal jeopardy once he is out of office. He would not have done this if he did not feel the location of his birth was important.
BS. Bellei does not rely in its outcome on determination of NBC status. Indeed, there is only one possible case where discussion of NBC status can be the ratio decidendi, the reason for the decision, and not dicta, and that is the only case in American law where it matters, presidential eligibility, and that has never been adjudicated.
Peace,
SR
That statement is a non-sequitur. The evidence supplied does not establish the point asserted.
No kidding. Our history is littered with incorrect court rulings.
if Obama was born in Hawaii as is claimed, then he is distinctly qualified for the Presidency of the United States.
If he was born in Kenya, just as Ted Cruz was born in Canada, his status as a natural born citizen is non-existent, and thus neither would be Constitutionally qualified to be President.
Whatever the case, should Ted Cruz win the Republican primary, you better believe his eligibility status will come into question by ‘birthers’ in the Democrat Party.
LOL
A necessary premise for taking the Bellei case is that Bellei was naturalized.
You err by taking the finding that Bellei is naturalized as unnecessary to the case. Dicta is rhetoric that is unnecessary, material that can be removed from the decision, and the decision still stands. If Bellei was not naturalized (even if he had been found to be a 14th amendment naturalized citizen), it would have been unconstitutional to uphold the part of the law that stripped him of his citizenship.
The Bellei case doesn't settle NBC for all candidates, but it does settle it for Cruz.
By the way, congratulations. Can you point me to a link to learn about you?
That is arguable, but of no matter to the Cruz case. Cruz was not born in the US. Therefore, under the constitution, if he is a citizen, he is a naturalized citizen.
-- should Ted Cruz win the Republican primary, you better believe his eligibility status will come into question by 'birthers' in the Democrat Party. --
Assuming the RNC doesn't take him out first, I agree.
cut and pasted buffoonery
**************
Just scroll on thru as most will do. After a while it is
just repetitive space filler.
Even if the suit is thrown out for not having standing,
the publicity generated will turn of some Cruz voters.
Regarding the 1802 Naturalization Act the Report states:
"it further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States."
Aliens - whether born within or out of the United States.
Aliens born within the United States.
h/t Mick
“Do you want to be president? You must be born in the United States.”
https://archive.org/stream/ERIC_ED338116#page/n55/mode/1up
Page 38
Doesn’t matter who the students are. This is an American government course published by the DoJ. Doesn’t discuss nationality of parents.
This one is printed in 1988
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.