Personally I think they spent all the money on their traffic reporter.
Posted on 02/26/2016 6:47:22 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
HARRISBURG, Pa. - Court challenges seeking to knock Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich off the Pennsylvania primary ballot have been scheduled for hearings in March.
The challenge to Kasich was filed by a Marco Rubio activist and will be heard March 9. It questions the signatures collected to get Kasich on the April 26 ballot.
Two Cruz challenges will be heard March 10. One was filed by Carmon Elliott, a Pittsburgh Republican, who says Cruz isn't qualified to run for president because he was born in Canada. The other challenges the signatures collected to put Cruz on the ballot. "I learned in grade school on what is a natural born citizen," Elliott said.
While Cruz was born in Canada, his mother is an American citizen, making him a U.S. citizen, too.
Elliott argues that the criterion isn't enough to become a U.S. president.
(Excerpt) Read more at wpxi.com ...
If Cruz does win the nomination it would be nice to have this settled in advance.
Big If.
No standing on the Cruz issue. Which isn’t right but....
These challenges are basically nuisance crap to consume opposition resources playing defense. They evidently feel that Kasich, as a neighboring governor with high name recognition, is a threat as well. I'm guessing this is also the Rubio camp.
If little Marco loses in Florida by the margin predicted, these challenges will be moot.
No, the article goes on to quote WPXI’s “legal expert” that this case likely does not have standing, but a similar one in Texas might.
Well, I doubt that Elliot suggests that Cruz is not a citizen at present. So, my request would be that Elliot show the mechanism by which he became a citizen as proof that he required naturalization. Since he did not need to go through any process to become a citizen, and was one from birth, Elliot has a lot of nothing to show. Rack this one up with the others.
If I get your drift, there is no standing to sue on the signature requirement either. If there is, what is the difference between the issues (petition signatures, vs. qualifications)?
Very weird (non sequitur) answer on that, too, that the court in Texas may have jurisdiction because Cruz is a senator from Texas.
The fact of the matter is, if Cruz doesn’t have a CRBA or an American passport- which he hasn’t produced to date, he is not a NBC. He needs to apply for naturalization. Apparently Cruz’s father admitted that before returning to the U.S. and before little Rafael was born, his mother applied for Canadian citizenship. THIS HAS TO BE VETTED!
Additionally case law cuts squarely against Cruz. None of his rebuttals or responses have argued against the relevant SCOTUS precedents, even when those precedents have been cited in opposition to Cruz's name being on the ballot.
I dunno about the signature requirement. Most of the obama birth lawsuits were thrown out for standing from what I recall.
You and I cannot challenge their qualifications unless we are running for the same office.
Probably a good thing overall as it would allow activists to clog the courts. A bad thing in some cases.
In order to get on the ballot, a person has to meet several requirements. One of these, in some states, is gathering signatures of supporters. Another, in all states, is to be eligible for the office sought.
What is inconsistent on the part of the courts is that they are willing to entertain a remedy for one criteria (signatures), but not another (qualification to hold office). The "standing" rationale says that no voter is affected if a name wrongly appears. That answer doesn't distinguish WHY the name wrongly appears, just that ineligible names on the ballot are a harm with no right to a remedy, unless you are an opponent on the ballot; or that the venue to remedy the harm is electors and Congress, not the courts.
You can bet that if the GOP doesn't check this, and in the now unlikely scenario that Cruz is the candidate (or the VP candidate), the Dems will initiate a full Court press.
How do you know that it the matter has yet to be heard?
Probably because the signature requirement is controlled locally and is a requirement to be put on the ballot. Local laws
Eligibility under the US Citizen NBC requirement is a Federal issue.
Because from a layman point of view these types of cases have been brought numerous times and they have always been thrown out for lack of standing.
The only cases which proceed are those which argue a different legal issue.
Only other candidates can sue on the citizenship question.
Pennsylvania: One of the central divisions of the
Northeastern Communist Block USA.
That’s all anyone needs to know.
All the cases that concerned the fraud now in the Oval Office were brought after he was elected. That is different from a case brought at the state level under the laws of a state at the point where a candidate has just been placed on the ballot and the complaining party filed under state laws providing for challenges to placing a candidate on the ballot. So far in this cycle there are reports of several such ballot challenge filings. In the Illinois case the opinion of the ballot commission, conclusory as it was, found that there was standing. I believe the same is true with a ballot challenge filed in New York although the ballot commission ducked and said that an actual court would have to decide.
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.