Anything to spread FUD. It’s the Demonorat way.
How many judges will the Trumpites seek out? If none will co-operate, will Trumpites go for direct action to rid King Donald of this meddlesome candidate?
That’s called ‘going nowhere fast’ isn’t it?
The US Constitution does not envision the activity called "running for President", and it sets no limits on who may or may not engage in that activity.
hard to imagine why she would think she lacks jurisdiction
Technically the judge is correct with regards to making any decision with regards to Sen Cruz naturalization status. According to the Constitution, the is EXCLUSIVELY a federal matter (Article 1 Section 8).
The issue is with regards to the State ballot of elections. The judge would have authority over the state ballot. However, to deny a candidate an otherwise qualified entry on that ballot and based exclusively on a citizenship determination would be beyond the jurisdiction of a state court.
‘Circuit Court Judge Maureen Ward Kirby said she was not sure she had jurisdiction’
But, a ‘donation’ would help her decide../s
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).
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?
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!?)
Hot potato!
Jurisdiction.
Hot potato!
Standing.
Hot potato!
Maybe we need a more decisive person...like a judge