Posted on 02/20/2016 3:40:26 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
An Illinois judge on Friday said she would decide next month whether she had jurisdiction over a voter's complaint that Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz should not be on the state's primary ballot because he was born in Canada. Lawrence Joyce, a lawyer and pharmacist, filed a complaint in January with the Illinois State Board of Elections saying that under the U.S. Constitution, the Texas senator cannot run for president since he is not a "natural born" citizen. Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta of a Cuban father and an American mother.
The Board rejected Joyce's complaint - saying Cruz became a natural-born citizen at the moment of his birth because of his mother's citizenship - so he petitioned the Cook County Circuit Court to review that decision.
Circuit Court Judge Maureen Ward Kirby said she was not sure she had jurisdiction, and set a March 1 hearing for arguments on whether to dismiss the complaint.
The complaint comes in the wake of repeated attacks on Cruz about his eligibility by New York businessman and presidential rival Donald Trump....
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
‘Circuit Court Judge Maureen Ward Kirby said she was not sure she had jurisdiction’
But, a ‘donation’ would help her decide../s
Who cares. Cruz is done anyway. His Presidential ambitions are totally over.
That’s what they keep saying about Trump, too.
Normally I would think this would be tied up in the courts for years, but it should end after Cruz drops out (probably just after super Tuesday).
You just KNEW they’d get to her, didn’t you ?
If Cruz is found ineligible to run for POTUS and since the obozo’s Hawaiian birth cert is a known forgery and can and has been proved, what will a Cruz disqualification do to the obozo presidency? imho, Liberal judges won’t want to touch the Cruz question.
Actually, even if this in state court...
(this comment is preliminary, I do not have time to fully research this)
there may be quite a bit more jurisdiction that may be commonly supposed
not only are states the primary sovereign governments in USA, but there is always the 10th Amendment recognizing this governing principle. And, more specifically, states start out as controlling the ballots and the time, place, and manner of their voting. There have been Congressional intrusions into this general state power, including the civil rights act of 1964 etc. So, a question would be whether Congress has taken away state jurisdiction in this case, or not. Offhand (only), I can’t think of any such Congressional action (but I will happily stand corrected, if anyone has one.)
Furthermore, the election of presidents is a two-stage process. People do NOT vote for the president. They vote instead for STATE ELECTORS to the Electoral College. How such electors are selected and the rules by which their activities are governed are generally meant to be matters of state authority (again absent something to contrary?). This was another constitutional recognition of the superior sovereignty of the states over that of the limited federal government.
Again I have to apologize I haven’t time to research all this and will stand corrected if anyone has better specific info.
Anyway, offhand it would appear that the proper state court would have jurisdiction. Now then, whether the judge wishes to rule and how, remains an open question. We’ve seen a couple dozen (?) instances where (mostly federal) courts have refused to carry out their constitutional function in re the Obama fiasco. If she wants to duck, she can, we’ve seen that in spades.
One thing she could do is simply order that state of Illinois Electors may not vote for candidate X or Y in the Electoral College. Then, the electors could vote for whomever else they choose (or maybe she might instruct that they vote for the next=highest=vote=getting candidate in her state?) Or she could...what? The specific remedies would not seem to have been well developed given the paucity of non-qualified candidates (until recently) running for the office?
I am open on this, and don’t have much of any agenda right now. Indeed, I need to sign off for awhile to do some work here so....have at it!
All the best,
fhc
I though that judges study hard in law school so that they can be handsomely paid for knowing such things?
She has no “sTANDING”.
Liberal judges will ‘touch’ it alright. They will distinguish Obozo’s case from Cruz. They will decide it against Cruz on the basis that eligibility requires being born on U.S. soil and leave it at that. Now, that says nothing about the fraudulent Obozo BC, which will be deemed irrelevant to deciding the Cruz case on jus soli.
One more comment:
I do recall an old case which discussed this. If this case has been overruled (and its possible) then I hope someone with more research time can post the change for us? I am really Up Against it for time now here, thanks. But in the hope to at least get this process started, here is the case I remembered:
“,,,,,By the constitution of the United States, the electors for president and vicepresident in each state are appointed by the state in such manner as its legislature may direct; their number is equal to the whole number of senators and represen tatives to which the state is entitled in congress; no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector; and the electors meet and vote within the state, and thence certify and transmit their votes to the seat of government of the United States. The only rights and duties, expressly vested by the constitution in the national government, with regard to the appointment or the votes of presidential electors, are by those provisions which authorize congress to determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes, and which direct that the certificates of their votes shall be opened by the president of the senate in the presence of the w o houses of congress, and the votes shall then be counted. Const. art. 2, § 1; Amend. art. 12. The sole function of the presidential electors is to cast, certify, and transmit the vote of the state for president and vice-president of the nation. Although the electors are appointed and act under and pursuant to the constitution of the United States, they are no more officers or agents of the United States than are the members of the state legislatures when acting as electors of federal senators, or the people of the states when acting as electors of representatives in congress. Const. art. 1, §§ 2, 3. In accord with the provisions of the constitution, congress has determined the time as of which the humber of electors shall be ascertained, and the days on which they shall be appointed and shall meet and vote in the states, and on which their votes shall be counted in congress; has provided for the filling by each state, in such manner as its legislature may prescribe, of vacancies in its college of electors; and has regulated the manner of certifying and transmitting their votes to the seat of the national government, and the course of proceeding in there opening and counting them. Rev. St. §§ 131-143; Acts Feb 3, 1887, (24 St. p. 373, c. 90;) Oct. 19, 1888, (25 St. p. 613, c. 1216.) Congress has never undertaken to interfere with the manner of appointing electors, or, where (according to the now general usage) the mode of appointment prescribed by the law of the state is election by the people, to regulate the conduct of such election, or to punish any fraud in voting for electors, but has left these matters to the control of the states. Sections 5511 and 5514 of the Revised Statutes, referred to in the order of the circuit court, were, as observed by this cort in Coy’s Case, 127 U. S. 731, 751, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1263, made for the security and protection of elections held for representatives or delegates in congress, and do not impair or restrict the power of the state to punish fraudulent voting in the choice of its electors. The question whether the state has concurrent power with the United States to punish fraudulent voting for representatives in congress is not presented by the record before us. It may be that it has. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 871. But, even if the state has no such power in regard to votes for representatives in congress, it clearly has such power in regard to votes for presidential electors, unaffected by anything in the constitution and laws of the United States; and the including, in one indictment and sentence, of illegal voting, both for a representative in congress and for presidential electors, does not go to the jurisdiction of the state court, but is, at the worst, mere error, which cannot be inquired into by writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Crouch, 112 U. S. 178, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 96; In re Coy, 127 U. S. 756-759, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1263. Judgment reversed, and case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.” (In re Green, or Fitzerald v. Green... 10 S. Ct. 586; 33 L. Ed. 951; 134 US 377 (1890).
The state decides who get to be its electors...
Have fun! (and if there’s better more recent law, fine...I am happy to be corrected!!! This will at least get the discussion started for us? Best I can do right now, there it is, Illinois Rules!?)
Normally I would think this would be tied up in the courts for years, but it should end after Cruz drops out (probably just after super Tuesday).
____________________________________________
Cruz and Rubio are Trump’s answered prayer. As these two slug it out for number 2, Trump just keeps on marching, piling up state wins and delegates. If you look at the per cent of voters for Cruz and Rubio, together they are close to or exceed Trump’s numbers, but there isn’t a snowball in hell’s chance the two will get together because each believe the WH is their divine destiny.
understood. (see post 31 for a starter on an answer, awaiting if anyone can improve on it since its old like you say) thanks!
the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as “natural born,” stating that “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#History
It's not what they "want to," it's what the Constitution commands:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." (U.S. Const., Art. VI).
Literally every day that courts are in session, state courts decide whether or not state laws are constitutional under the federal Constitution; and their decisions stand unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court reverses them. So they are often worth much more than the paper they are printed on.
Federal courts held that no one but Hillary (in the primary) and McCain (in the general election) had standing to challenge Obama's eligibility. But state courts do not always follow federal rules re standing; many states hold that any voter has standing to challenge a candidate's eligibility. Both Georgia and Indiana held full hearings on Obama's eligibility, and both found him to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Hot potato!
Jurisdiction.
Hot potato!
Standing.
Hot potato!
Apparently you mistakenly think that a Cook COUNTY Circuit Court has jurisdiction over a federal Constitutional issue.
There are reasons why this NBC question has never been addressed that clarifies regarding POTUS. It hasn’t just been ignored for 200+ years, its been avoided by the Federal Courts, like the possum avoids the axe handle.
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.