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 ...
Talking about Rubio.
“You can be born a citizen without being a natural born citizen. They are called an ANCHOR BABY
Talking about Rubio. “
Yep.
I’m certain there’s some clandestine strategery for the Cubanadian and the Anchor Baby being in this race...I’m just not exactly sure what it is.
As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used "natural born" to encompass such children. These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were "natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever." [See British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.]
--On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen"
“Your article references German and French definitions”
My “article” references Supreme Court cases.
You defer to Harvard, I’ll defer to the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
>>>”I’ll defer to the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
You’re view of them, yes.
That’s what we’re both doing.
“That’s what we’re both doing.”
Except, if I’m wrong, no harm, no foul. If you’re wrong, you’ve helped in the destruction of a once great republic. Carry on. Elect your foreigners.
Your cite in one case also supports jus sanguinis as well as jus soli:
“...those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
I think the conclusions of the author obviously are not supported by his cases, and contradict your position.
>>”Except, if I’m wrong, no harm, no foul.”
If I’m understanding your position correctly, you would disqualify a good candidate from running for president. If this is done erroneously, then it is harmful.
thanks for your reply.
RE: A natural born citizen has no choice.
By what authoritative definition?
“you would disqualify a good candidate from running for president.”
I would never disqualify a good candidate. I just don’t consider someone that is not a Natural Born Citizen to be a good candidate. Maybe it’s just me.
“By what authoritative definition?”
The Constitution of the United States. Also, common sense.
“RE: A natural born citizen has no choice.
By what authoritative definition?”
Are you asserting a Natural Born Citizen has a choice of citizenship??
>>>” I would never disqualify a good candidate. I just don’t consider someone that is not a Natural Born Citizen to be a good candidate.
I was replying to your statement: “if I’m wrong, no harm, no foul.”
If you are wrong about what natural born means then...
The ruling was consistent with other state election board and judicial rulings on Obama.
Anyone who qualifies under 8USC 1401 as a Citizen of the United States at Birth has also been considered to be a natural born citizen.
The Illinois Board said: The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth,†the board said, explaining Cruz met the criteria because he did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth.
When the subject was Obama, the typical ruling was like this:
H. Brook Paige v. James Condos, Secretary of State of Vermont and President Barack Obama: Robert R. Bent, Presiding Judge
While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattels treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens has constitutional significance or that his use of parents in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression natural born citizen is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.—Vermont Superior Court, November 14, 2012
You have not answered that. I know what the cases say, quoting them to me tells me nothing about how you judge the difference between thorough and perfunctory judicial rulings.
.
nonsense.
Total nonsense.
Being born where your parents went to work is a common thing, and that is why the term natural born was used in the constitution.
It simply means one born a citizen, regardless of where your mother happened to be at the time of your birth.
That was also Vattel’s position.
Perhaps your reading comprehension is too weak to understand what he was saying.
.
.
Cruz definitely is a natural born citizen.
It matters little whether you have the cognition, or honor to understand it.
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.