Posted on 02/16/2016 5:09:18 PM PST by SeekAndFind
If Republican presidential front-runner and business mogul Donald Trump wants to sue Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), over his eligibility to run for president, he's going to have to do so within days.
Wait any longer, and it might be too late to matter.
In a lengthy Facebook post Trump wrote Monday, the GOP front-runner called Cruz "the single biggest liar I've ever come across" and "a totally unstable individual."
Then Trump threatened to file a lawsuit against Cruz claiming he is ineligible to run for president because he was born in Canada.
Legal experts said Trump must act quickly if he's serious.
"It could be that Super Tuesday will end the race, and if he doesn't do it before Super Tuesday then the race is effectively over," Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told Business Insider. "If he's going to challenge Cruz's eligibility, he should do so soon."
Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California at Irvine, agreed, telling Business Insider in an email that, "The longer he waits, the more likely a court would say he's waited too long."
ted cruzAP Photo/John BazemoreTed Cruz.
Although most legal experts believe that Cruz is eligible for the presidency because his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth, federal courts have never ruled on a presidential candidate's eligibility based on the Constitution's "natural-born" citizen requirement.
The potential Trump lawsuit wouldn't be the first challenging the eligibility of a candidate, however.
Winkler said Trump will need to prove that he is being "injured" by Cruz being in the race in order to show he has "standing" to sue. He added that courts have ruled that candidates would be injured -- which would involve losing votes and/or money -- because of an ineligible candidate.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
You are the one who keeps wanting to inject additional categories, after you insist that there are only two, "at birth" or "naturalized."
I have no objection to there being additional categories, by the way, and I mentioned to you that there are SCOTUS cases that appear to be subdividing those two categories. I have in mind a case (Rogers v. Bellei) that adds a category of naturalized citizen that lies outside of the 14th amendment class of "naturalized in the US."
What I do object to is resort to secondary and tertiary authority that purports to accurately state the rule of the primary authority. Skip the middleman, go straight to the primary authority.
>>>”See the constitution, Art IV, Sec. 2, 14th amendment.
And the constitutional convention was an act of what body?
Are you a cookie? Goodbye. Plonk.
Hence your “act of congress” distinction is meaningless here.
It means “by law.” The constitution is the supreme law and it was... created and ratified by the congress of the time, The Confederation Congress. That’s how it became law, legally, by congress.
CItizen is a legal category, determined by law, laws are determined by congress.
ROTFL. Well, I must admit I learned something today.
Article VII - RatificationThe Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
The constitution is what is referred to as an "organic" document. It isn't created by Congress. Congress doesn't even exist before the constitution is ratified.
At any rate, I posted just to mock you, because I just don't think you are serious, and I really want nothing to do with you. At all. Talk to me all you want, it'll be like talking to the wall.
For your view of history to be correct, there would have to be no congress before the constitution, or for the convention and ratification to have been extra-legal, outside the current law and congress.
That was not the case.
Well, you’ve got that all figured out...
“:^)
LOL
I would characterze it as thorough for a state election board ruling but not nearly as thorough as court rulings tend to be.
There were several Illinois Election Board challenges to Obama:
Freeman v Obama
Jackson v Obama
Martin v Obama
The Cruz ruling was not substantially different with regard to thoroughness.
But if you compare those to, say, the Mississippi eligibility challenge that was heard in federal court by U.S. District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate, the judge wrote an 85 page opinion.
Do you reach that point of view on word or page count? I have an opinion of the ruling, based on its content, but rather than disclose my point of view, I'd like to find out how you distinguish between a "thorough" consideration of the argument, and a perfunctory one.
“if this logic is true”
Do Not attempt to use logic with Cruzers. They want to deprive him of his rightful Canadian citizenship.
“I spoke to a Japanese once and was told that being born of a Japanese mother does not make one a natural born Japanese.”
Wow. Just like USA.
“: either born a citizen “
You can be born a citizen without being a natural born citizen. They are called an ANCHOR BABY
“Cruz is a CITIZEN AT BIRTH. He got his American passport without having to go through the naturalization process. Therefore, he IS a natural born American citizen.”
There is a difference between a citizen at birth, and a natural born citizen. There are dual citizens, like Cruz. He had choice of citizenship. A natural born citizen has no choice.
>>You can be born a citizen without being a natural born citizen. They are called an ANCHOR BABY
Ok. How many categories of ‘born a citizen’ do *you* have?
Cruz called his bluff. Now Trump just looks like a paper tiger in an empty suit.
“Ok. How many categories of ‘born a citizen’ do *you* have?”
A natural born citizen has citizen parents and born on US soil. There are thousands and thousands of citizens that are not natural born citizens.
Being born outside of the country is a presumption that CITIZENSHIP IS NOT DESIRED for the child. An act of Congress ALLOWS FOR A CHANGE WITHOUT NATURALIZATION. BUT! An act of Congress was and IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT.
So, again, we have three categories of citizens: natural-born, un-natural-born and naturalized.
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.