Posted on 01/15/2016 7:38:46 AM PST by Lockbox
Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz should be disqualified from the race because he isn’t a “natural-born citizen,†a fellow Texan claims in a “birther†challenge filed against the senator in a U.S. court.
This matter requires an amendment. It is immensely important. that it has been an issue for three elections in a row now is evidence enough of that.
No. To have standing in Federal court, you must show that you would suffer a particular harm specific to you. In this case, since the "harm" alleged would be generalized to the public at large, or to all Republicans, you could not get standing as an individual voter. I am not sure who could actually get standing in Federal court - Congress probably, perhaps the electoral college, or possibly another presidential candidate. In state court that would be a different issue, and could vary from state to state depending upon the specific election laws.
Of course, one of the peculiar aspects of how we elect our president makes it very difficult to adjudicate this topic. That is because you don't actually vote for president. In the primary you vote for delegates who are pledged to vote to nominate a specific person; in the general, you vote for electors pledged to vote for your candidate. But in neither case are you actually voting directly for the candidate.
‘That [Senate] Resolution [denieed Cruz] is meaningless.’
Wishful thinking. I’m sorry, I really hate to see this unfair attack against a party leader.
People are getting really angry in support of Cruz over this ... so ... just to let you know ...
What I like about Cruz ...
Cruz: ‘We Need Quite A Few Constitutional Amendments’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3381654/posts
“Ted Cruz: Trump Will Let Deported Immigrants Back In, I Won’t”
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3379878/posts
Cruz Against Big Ethanol
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3381754/posts
Top of the food chain in the legal community and legislative experience.
Okay, eveyrone? I don’t hate Cruz. Now ...
Low information voters will be confused as heck about Cruz’ eligibility unless he can really decimate Professor Laurence Tribe and his ilk.
Cruz is the best debator we have, a brilliant constitutional scholar. If he can’t do it, no one can.
The difference is that Cruz is an attorney and Donald isn't - and Cruz knows that you have to have an actual case or controversy to get into court. There have to be two opposing sides making an argument, and one side has to show a real harm. Federal courts don't take cases just to make advisory opinions.
Or maybe Donald's high-powered attorneys (you know, the same ones that told him Cruz was eligible) already told him that, and he just keeps saying something he knows isn't true to keep the issue alive. If Donald really wanted to settle this HE could try to sue Cruz over this - then there would be a controversy with two sides that the court might take. But I don't think he wants this settled.
I agree at a constitutional level. But then we get into the swamp of process, which frankly baffles me most of the time:
[Back during Obama’s Certifigate Debate ...]
Why Pelosi Signed Two Certificates of Nomination
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2585683/posts
How thoughtful of you to insert words into my statement.
I said, “That Resolution is meaningless”, clearly referring to a resolution which exists, i.e. the resolution regarding McCain. That resolution is meaningless, as would any such resolution be.
Likely the only way to get at this is via the secretary of state of each state. They certify ballot eligibility.
My hunch is that the courts will ultimately stay away from eligibility by citing its political nature, and by citing the unique status of the Electoral College, which is under the control of the states.
Gee I haven’t seen them.
Trumpinator,
How did you come up with that definition of “natural born”?
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution sets the natural born standard, but, to my knowledge, does not define it.
Trumpinator,
How did you come up with that definition of “natural born�
I already stated I think Cruz is eligible to be president but I am not a legal scholar and it is smart for Trump to hit Cruz on this. Politics ain’t beanbag.
I agree. Somehow though I think it won’tproceed because if the courts rule against Cruz then people might begin to look at Barky more closely and ValJar cannot have that.
This is what the DIE HARD Cruz fans don't seem to understand. This will cast DOUBT with a certain percentage of voters, NO MATTER what the outcome.
It's akin to an honest citizen arrested for a crime he DIDN'T commit. Once arrested, DOUBT about his honesty, among the public, has now been cast to some degree or another.
This is what the Dems and the GOPe have done over and over to Cruz during his short tenure in the Senate.
It's called "compromising the candidate" and diminishing him with the voters.
Dirty politics?... YES, but unfortunately part of the game.
This bears repeating, as there is a lot of misinformation circulating on this point, for which Trump's "advice" to Cruz is fanning the flames of confusion.
If Donald really wanted to settle this HE could try to sue Cruz over this - then there would be a controversy with two sides that the court might take. But I don't think he wants this settled.
I'm guessing Trump's attorneys are of the view with the majority of legal scholars on this point (both now and when this issue came up back in the Geo. Romney days): that notwithstanding some SCOTUS cases that support a credible eligibility challenge, at the end of the day the Court is likely to uphold a Cruz candidacy. The last thing Trump wants is to file the cruise missile and miss. He gets enough mileage out of leaving the issue unsettled.
‘How thoughtful of you to insert words into my statement.’
I merely quoted to you and responded.
Please don’t try to drag me into the ‘cage fight’ mindset that Mitch McConnel orchestrated.
I don’t think so. The Court, by leaving it to the political branches, has essentially confirmed by omission, the decision of the people in the electors they chose.
trump has done a masterful job of making a big deal over something the Courts have decided is a little deal, and not really their business. He is disgusting. But I suspect that most of the folks who question his eligibility aren’t voting for him, so the net effect will likely be modest.
Wouldn’t the harm be that you voted for a guy that is not eligible to be elected president, hence fraud. I do not say that as Trump supporter. Just playing devils advocate here.
In this, we are in complete disagreement.
Most of the framers were NBCs but not all of them. some of them were born in Europe, Britain primarily. As such, they recognized that not all of them were NBCs so they gave themselves a clause. From this clause, we can discern that they felt that someone not born in the country was not a natural born citizen.
We have to look elsewhere for a more complete understanding of their definition but, in the case of Ted Cruz, it isn't necessary.
No. What harm could you show that applied to you as an individual? Also, let's say you could be right and you could sue as an individual - until the election was over and you see who won, how could you prove harm? If you voted for someone that was ineligible, but he/she lost anyway, what harm have you suffered? So in addition to the issue of standing, you also have the issue of ripeness - that the issue cannot be adjudicated because the alleged harm is predicated on future events coming to pass. Unless you can show that the harm is very serious and that there are no remedies that could be applied after the fact, the courts are not going to preemptively get involved.
By the way, fraud is not a factor. What you have here is a difference in the interpretation of a Constitutional clause. If Ted was hiding the details of his birth, and they only came to light after the election, that could be fraud. But in this case, the facts are out there for the public to judge. In fact, if this ever gets to the courts, that is probably how the courts will handle it - the facts are public, and it is up to the voters to determine if they think Cruz is eligible, and vote accordingly. If they were to elect Cruz (thus indicating they agreed he was eligible), the courts would not overturn the judgment of the electorate on a political question such as this.
Yes. Good answer.
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.