Skip to comments.
Case against Ted Cruz's eligibility to be heard in Illinois on Friday
CNN ^
| 02/18/2016
| Theodore Schliefer
Posted on 02/18/2016 7:26:08 PM PST by GIdget2004
A judge in Illinois on Friday will hear a lawsuit challenging Ted Cruz's eligibility to serve as president, putting questions about the Texas senator's status back into the news the day before the South Carolina primary.
Lawrence Joyce, an Illinois voter who has objected to Cruz's placement on the Illinois primary ballot next month, will have his case heard in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago. Joyce's previous objection, made to the state's Board of Elections, was dismissed on February 1.  Once again, Cruz will have to defend his eligibility to serve as president after Donald Trump revived questions about his birth in Canada. Cruz maintains he is indeed a natural-born citizen since he was born to an American mother, though it has never been tested before in court.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: canadian; cruz; ineligible; repositorycruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-175 next last
To: GIdget2004
Good. Let’s get this resolved early.
To: GIdget2004
A judge in Illinois on Friday will hear a lawsuit challenging Ted Cruz's eligibility to serve as president, putting questions about the Texas senator's status back into the news the day before the South Carolina primary.
LOL, karma for all the lying and sleaze.
3
posted on
02/18/2016 7:28:05 PM PST
by
20yearsofinternet
(Border: Close it. Illegals: Deport. Muslims: Ban 'em. Economy: Liberate it. PC: Kill it. Trump 2016)
To: GIdget2004
4
posted on
02/18/2016 7:28:12 PM PST
by
Behind Liberal Lines
(Obama loves America the way OJ loved Nicole)
To: GIdget2004
A circuit court can rule on a persons eligibility to become POTUS? Or do they just rule on allowing them on the primary ballot in their state?
To: Behind Liberal Lines
I am asking the same thing, is he lying about bringing lawsuits too?
6
posted on
02/18/2016 7:31:13 PM PST
by
dila813
To: GIdget2004
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 5Each 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 saysthat 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 clearthat each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that housemeets 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 disputeor any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rulesbut 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 holdsthat 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 vaguethat 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 knowledgeof 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.
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
!
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 Stateswherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court thathe is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by lawto 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, thatthe right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Provided also, thatno 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.
READ IT VERY CLOSELY.
Constitutional Topic: Citizenship
... Citizenship is mentioned in
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 inalso 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 asEach 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 thatanyone 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 thatbecause 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)
7
posted on
02/18/2016 7:31:22 PM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: GIdget2004
8
posted on
02/18/2016 7:32:26 PM PST
by
DoughtyOne
(Facing Trump nomination inevitability, folks are now openly trying to help Hillary destroy him.)
To: GIdget2004
What a freaking waste of time and money.
/a Trumpster
9
posted on
02/18/2016 7:32:41 PM PST
by
piytar
(http://www.truthrevolt.org/videos/bill-whittle-number-one-bullet)
To: GIdget2004
Am I the only one who sees the irony in a Cook County judge trying to ensure a “fair” election? Where was he eight years ago when there were so many questions about Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility?
10
posted on
02/18/2016 7:32:46 PM PST
by
seanmerc
To: GIdget2004
11
posted on
02/18/2016 7:35:10 PM PST
by
Fester Chugabrew
(Diversity is Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sharing the same jail cell.)
To: seanmerc
Fair question.
Does it excuse the implementation of the law now? Not really.
12
posted on
02/18/2016 7:37:46 PM PST
by
DoughtyOne
(Facing Trump nomination inevitability, folks are now openly trying to help Hillary destroy him.)
To: GIdget2004
What idiocy.
There are a huge number of people technically running for president- with ‘standing’ to challenge his eligibility.
Why won’t just one of them- or a Secretary of State- sue and get this settled for Cruz?
13
posted on
02/18/2016 7:38:03 PM PST
by
mrsmith
(Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
To: 20yearsofinternet
You mean trump? Bring back jobs to America my behind.
14
posted on
02/18/2016 7:38:08 PM PST
by
svcw
(An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject)
To: Bubba Gump Shrimp
This is only about eligibility to be on the ballot in Illinois. We have 51 separate elections for the electors for president counting the District of Columbia. In many states, if you are eligible for the primary you are automatically eligible for the general election but eligibility can be challenged at any time in courts. However challenges that occur after citizens have voted are usually ruled to be untimely.
To: Behind Liberal Lines
I don’t think he needs one. Alabama, NY and Illinois cases aught to be enough to put this to bed so we can get back to winning this blasted election and stopping BurningMan and Hillbama from appointing Zero to Scotus.
16
posted on
02/18/2016 7:40:13 PM PST
by
blueplum
To: 20yearsofinternet
Exactly ..Cruz is already damaged goods ...abandon him Cruz-bots and join the Trump Army ...
17
posted on
02/18/2016 7:40:18 PM PST
by
Neu Pragmatist
(Will Cruz endorse Trump or Jeb? That is the question... Vote Trump)
To: Cboldt; nopardons; onyx; Jane Long; LucyT; WildHighlander57
Didn’t someone say last week that this was dead and moot?
18
posted on
02/18/2016 7:40:26 PM PST
by
hoosiermama
(Make America Great Again by uniting Great Americans!)
To: mrsmith
waiting to see if the courts will ignore this line they did with the several filings on Obama.
To: dila813
No heaven forbid!!!
A poster said on another thread Trump is a man of his word!!!
And I believe!!! </s>
20
posted on
02/18/2016 7:41:30 PM PST
by
pilgrim
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-175 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson