More Trump: I'll sue Cruz over his eligibility if he doesn't take down

Hot Air.com ^ | February 15, 2016 | ALLAHPUNDIT

[Kaslin]

He said the same thing last week about suing Cruz if he doesn’t play nice, which is a weirdly conditional approach to the idea of someone whom you think is constitutionally ineligible becoming president. But we’ve been over that. Read this post if you missed it on Friday. What I want to know is what he means when he says the RNC should “intervene.” Intervene in what?

Ted Cruz is a totally unstable individual. He is the single biggest liar I've ever come across, in politics or otherwise, and I have seen some of the best of them. His statements are totally untrue and completely outrageous. It is hard to believe a person who proclaims to be a Christian could be so dishonest and lie so much…

One of the ways I can fight back is to bring a lawsuit against him relative to the fact that he was born in Canada and therefore cannot be President. If he doesn't take down his false ads and retract his lies, I will do so immediately. Additionally, the RNC should intervene and if they don't they are in default of their pledge to me.

I am the strongest on the borders and I will build a wall, and it will be a real wall. I am strongest on illegal immigration, strongest on ISIS, strongest on the military and I will take care of our Vets. I will end common core and preserve the second amendment. I will renegotiate our trade deals and bring our jobs back to our country. I am the only person who will Make America Great Again.

Read the full statement for a list of Cruz’s alleged lies about him. When he says “intervene,” does he mean the RNC should intervene to get Cruz to pull his ads? Or does he mean they should intervene in his lawsuit against Cruz, i.e. that the GOP should take it upon itself to find out in court if one of its top contenders is legally eligible for the presidency? And why, for the second time today, did he mention the RNC supposedly having broken its pledge? It sure does seem suddenly like Trump is eager to make the case that he’s no longer bound by his promise not to run third-party.

John Ziegler offers a theory on that:

@allahpundit AP this isn't about Trump going 3rd party, its about him not endorsing GOP Nom & creating dirty tricks narrative for convention

— John Ziegler (@Zigmanfreud) February 15, 2016

Good point. Trump’s image depends on him being seen as the consummate winner; if he loses to Cruz, he’ll need to explain how that possibly could have happened. The only tolerable excuse is that he was cheated — Cruz is ineligible, Cruz is lying about his record, Cruz gamed the vote in Iowa with dirty tricks, and so on. Maybe Trump’s even reached the point where, if it’s too late to go third-party, he can at least advise his supporters to stay home in November rather than support dirty cheater Ted Cruz as nominee. I remember Trump (or maybe one of his advisors) saying somewhere many months ago, maybe as earlier as last summer, that if he was destined to lose the nomination, he was going to take Jeb Bush down with him. The same logic may apply now to Cruz. That’s a bad deal for Trumpism in that Trump will have more leverage over the nominee if his endorsement is in play than if he’s rejected the GOP, but maybe Trump’s ego is now sufficiently bruised that revenge is the only option.

Speaking of which, D. Hawkins asks a good question. What ever happened to Cruz’s strategy of making nice with Trump in hopes of becoming his voters’ second choice? That strategy seems to have “failed” now that Trump’s calling him, ahem, “the single biggest liar I’ve ever come across.” My pal Karl points to this National Review piece from earlier this month explaining what went wrong:

Cruz felt confident that while the front-runner was energizing base voters, he wouldn't ultimately win them over. So he stayed in Trump's wake, banking on what he told allies would be a "natural transition" to his camp once conservatives determined that they liked Trump's message but not the messenger.

There was another strategic reason that Cruz spent the first six months of Trump's candidacy refusing to attack him: He was certain Bush would do it for him. Cruz and his team had long been convinced that because Bush needed to win New Hampshire - where Trump polls the strongest and where he is best organized - the former Florida governor would "go nuclear" on the billionaire real-estate mogul with the help of his super PAC's $100 million war chest. In turn, Cruz's team predicted, Trump would "go nuclear" on Bush, damaging both an anti-establishment threat and the man whom Cruz's camp once projected to emerge from the establishment lane as his chief rival for the nomination.

Bush and his Super PAC Death Star would eventually blow Trump up, Cruz thought, at which point the millions of Trump fans out there would instantly become Cruz fans. But it never happened: Although Jeb began attacking Trump, his PAC focused on tearing down Rubio. “Trump is, frankly, other people’s problem,” Super PAC chief Mike Murphy famously told WaPo back in August. As the months dragged on and Iowa crept closer, Cruz eventually had no choice but to do it himself. His new strategy, as described by Ben Shapiro, is based on separating himself from Trump in terms of their conservative bona fides after having spent months hugging Trump to prove their shared disdain for the establishment. The problem is, the nastier this gets, the less Trump fans may be willing to embrace Cruz notwithstanding the fact that he and Trump are the “outsider” candidates. Can Cruz win the nomination if he’s anathema to establishmentarians and to not-very-conservative populists?

Trump and Rubio Cannot Simply Scream Liar When Someone Points Out Their Actual Positions | Ted Cruz

[20yearsofinternet]

“The one person Donald has pointed to as a potential Supreme Court nominee is his sister,” Cruz told reporters here Monday, though Trump opened Saturday night’s debate by name-checking federal judges Bill Pryor and Diane Sykes.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/south-carolina-primary-2016-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/cruz-skewers-trumps-sister-in-supreme-court-debate-219303

I guess Ted “forgot” what Trump said standing right next to him 2 days ago.

[Dstorm]

"Apparently Trump doesn't have to do anything, because Cruz ads are being taken down after reviews from station legal teams. Can't imagine why."

So you lied about his ads being taken down.

[Dstorm]

Based on your posting history, your post at 89, shows fake outrage, you are a Trump Troll period!

[Hawthorn]

>> third/fourth-party candidates will not receive any electoral votes unless Trump runs away with New Jersey or New York <<

Maybe. But remember that PLURALITIES will rule on election day, not majorities.

With that caution in mind, I’d say Bloomberg has a better chance than does Herr Trumpf of getting pluralities in NY, NJ, New England and maybe a few others.

Then Trumpf might do well with pluralities in the southeast, while Cruz takes TX, AK, AR and the Rocky Mountain west — again with pluralities.

Last but not least, I can imagine Hilary’s taking California and chunks of the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic.

So in my humble opinion, it’s not unreasonable to lay out multiple scenarios where the Electoral College lacks a majority for any one candidate, meaning that the House of Reps takes over.

Moreover, if the choice is in fact thrown into the House, and if the House can’t coalesce around a consensus contender, then the new VPOTUS — chosen by a Senate that’s probably going to be Dhim-controlled — will become the acting POTUS. Hello Princess Liz. Ugh.

[txhurl]

Thank y’all very much for your edification.

[Yosemitest]

What a drunken "has-been" of a speaker !
She'd be thrown out of court.

I guess if you can't 'do', you 'teach';
and if you can't 'teach', you administrate;
and if you can't administrate, you referee;
and if you can referee, ...
you speak to a crowd so small, that they rarely show its size.

TED CRUZ is by far, the MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE we've got !

FACT: Cruz’s father’s Cuban nationality at the time of Cruz’s birth, is irrelevant, according to the law at that time,
just so long as he was a LEGAL Immigrant at the time of Ted Cruz's birth,
AND both of Ted Cruz's parents were legally married to each other.

What are the rules for people born between December 23, 1952 and November 13, 1986?

The 14th Amendment IS a part of the U.S. Constitution and states in SECTION 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
So, under that power to legislate, Congress legislated and the President signed into law:
When ONE parent was a US citizen and the other a foreign national,
the US citizen parent must have resided in the US for a total of 10 years prior to the birth of the child,
with five of the years after the age of 14.

... While there were initially rules regarding what the child must do to retain citizenship,
amendments since 1952 HAVE ELIMINATED THESE REQUIREMENTS.

When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK".

They married, moved to Calgary, Alberta, and in late 1970 had their first and only child, Rafael Edward Cruz.
Cruz was born on December 22, 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada where his parents, Eleanor Elizabeth Darragh Wilson and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz.

Cruz's mother was born and raised in Wilmington, Delaware, in a family of three quarters Irish and one quarter Italian descent.
Eleanor Darragh, mother of Ted Cruz, was raised in Delaware, graduated from a Catholic High School (1952) in the U.S., as well as Rice University (1956),
so clearly she meets the residency requirements.

Source

In 1957, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) decided to get out of Cuba by applying to the University of Texas.
Upon being admitted, he adds, he got a four-year student visa at the U.S. Consulate in Havana.

"Since he liked to eat seven days a week, he worked seven days a week, and he paid his way through the University of Texas," Ted Cruz says of his father, "and then ended up getting a job and eventually going on to start a small business and to work towards the American dream."

Only he did that in Canada, where Ted was born.
His father went there after having earlier obtained political asylum in the U.S. when his student visa ran out.
He then got a green card, he says, and married Ted's mother, an American citizen.
The two of them moved to Canada to work in the oil industry.

"I worked in Canada for eight years," Rafael Cruz says. "And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen."

The elder Cruz says he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he finally became a U.S. citizen in 2005 —
48 years after leaving Cuba.
Why did he take so long to do it?
"I don't know. I guess laziness, or — I don't know," he says.

So there is the law for the time Ted Cruz was born,
AND HOW Ted Cruz's PARENTS fulfilled ALL those requirements of the law that time, for Ted Cruz to be a "Natural Born Citizen".
Ted Cruz did NOT NEED a Court and a Judge to "Nationalize" him.

[Yosemitest]

WRONG DUMMY !

As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Also, pay particular attention to U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...

As I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:

" ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly says
that Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
that Congress considers invalid.


Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clear
that each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that house
meets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.

If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.

Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate dispute
or any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rules
but it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.

Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."

NOTE: nonjusticiable political question

Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
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.

Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
What is the root word of "Naturalization" ?

"Naturalize" !
"admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized),
from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;
in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Related: Naturalizing.

Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !


The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it !

United States Congress, "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,
That any Alien being a free white person,
who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States
wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that
he is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law
to support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. 


And the children of such person so naturalized,
dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,
shall be considered as natural born Citizens: 
Provided, that
the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: 
Provided also, that
no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,
except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !



1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

Finally, read the latest from links provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

READ IT VERY CLOSELY.

Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

... Citizenship is mentioned in
Article 1, Section 2,
Article 1, Section 3,
Article 1, Section 8,
Article 2, Section 1,
and in the 14th Amendment
and several subsequent amendments.

If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen?
Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
But even this does not get specific enough.
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation in
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment;
the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4,
also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"


• Anyone born inside the United States *
  * There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
  This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
  
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
  
• A final, historical condition:
  a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as
Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402),
Alaska (8 USC 1404),
Hawaii (8 USC 1405),
the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406),
and Guam (8 USC 1407).
Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.
For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
In 8 USC 1403, the law states that
anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
was "declared" to be a United States citizen.
Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that
because McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
he was not actually qualified to be president.
However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):
"a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

U.S. Nationals

A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.
U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.

(Continued)

[Dstorm]

I don’t think anything about you, your a noob troll. I just point out to others in case they don’t read your history that you post fake outrage. If your going to post your hatred of Cruz at least be honest.

[Dstorm]

You are a Trump Troll and you post fake outrage, and that’s a fact Jack.