Posted on 01/17/2016 12:48:44 PM PST by jimbo123
Donald Trump unloaded on Sen. Ted Cruz, saying, "I'd do the public a big favor" by suing Cruz over his eligibility to be president.
-snip-
Stephanopoulos then said, "But you know, the person who sued him probably doesn't have standing, a lot of legal scholars-." Trump interrupted, saying, "That's all right. There will be a lot of people who sue him who do have standing."
"Say you have standing, why don't you file the case," Stephanopoulos asked. Trump responded, "Oh that's an interesting case. Wow that sounds like a very good case. I'd do the public a big favor."
-snip-
Stephanopoulos then asked Trump if he was going to put his money where his mouth is, and Trump said, "Well it's a good idea. Maybe I'll talk to them about it. I'd like to talk to Ted about it, see how he'd feel about it. Cause you know, when I file suits, I file real suits okay."
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Yes, like who. The power is entrenched pretty dang deep.
Apparently Cruz as a brand new Senator coming in and doing his filibuster was good TV but it was a futile battle and has cost him.
I have to agree it’s a vipers nest - which is why I figured DJT would be able to penetrate it - his larger than life steamroller personality is the best shot we have as far as I can tell. Yes, he isn’t perfect but if anyone is going to change DC it would take someone like him.
Attention deficit disorder is painful to watch sometimes. Trump is the poster child. The man is just not right.
RNC has more standing than Trump. They are the once who have to certify the candidates as eligible. They are the ones penalized if the court later determines ineligibility. Trump is only damaged if he looses to Cruz. Or if he chooses he or Rubio as VP and then he and the RNC would be charged for filing fraudulent eligibility papers.
The public has been duped, bigtime.
The only reason the issue isn't conclusive, is that SCOTUS could touch the case prospectively (it won't though) and revers 200 years of rock-solid, perfectly consistent precedent; and turn law on its head to rescue Cruz. Maybe it will happen, they found homo marriage in there after 200 years of it not being in there. But there wasn't 200 years of settled law that found homo marriage in there. There is 200 years of precedent that says Cruz is naturalized. Hundreds of cases - no deviation - none. It doesn't get any more settled than that.
FWIW, old-man Romney qualified because he born in a territory that became a state.
And I agree the issue fades right along with Cruz's prospects.
How can Trump not be damaged if he’s wasting his money campaigning against somebody who is ineligible?
Imagine a 4-year-old girls basketball team playing against a team that has an NBA superstar on it who steals the ball every time they throw it. How can that team not be injured by that?
I wish this were true. We are getting the ‘no one in congress likes Ted’ meme. To me, this is a badge of Honor. Where was Rubio McConnell and other Senators when it came time to shut down the government?
Instead, hacks like McCain and Graham would rather affirmatively surrender the power of the purse.
If Santorum or Carson or some of the other conservative had caught on, that would have been fine. Never happened so Cruz was the most electable conservative.
Trump will disappoint us and tack left soon after he takes out Cruz.
I will vote Trump (at least he is pro-American unlike Hillary! ),but with very low enthusiasm and without illusions.
yes he has dealt with the issue several. Times. He said that a friend wanted an abortion and decided against it. The friend had a beaurifu child who parents found great joy and he realized how wrong abortion was
It is covered in his books as well as in interviews and questions at rallies
I don’t like all the nitpicking around this issue. CLEARLY, as we discussed here n 2007, we need a big national dialogue on this, and I believe we need an amendment to the Constitution on this. For clarity’s sake we need to have a legalese precise definition of natural born citizen. We also need some fine print about what documents prove such a claim.
And any way the amendment comes down, there is absolutely no way that anything Obama has shown would be enough to prove he was natural born.
Trump is spending needless money on Cruz if Cruz is ineligible.
The RNC would only be damaged AFTER they’ve certified Cruz as eligible and he turns out not to be. They can’t get a declaratory judgment any more than Cruz can. There has to be a case (with standing) first. I had thought maybe RNC could have standing but after thinking it through I don’t think they would have standing until AFTER Cruz is the nominee, and that’s too late.
Trump has standing already because he is spending money against Cruz. Money is injury.
You mean George Romney did, since he was allowed to run for president even though he was born in Mexico, and John McCain did, even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
It’s interesting what you say about him being a fraud from Day 1. My husband never liked him and always called him slimy. Then two days ago he mentioned Uriah Heep. That forced the other shoe to fall and I realized that I was ignoring my own instincts. He’s very smart, and yes, a good debater but he’s insincere in the way a car salesman is insincere. He’s a phony but unlike Holly Golightly, not a good phony.
It is to the Cruz-birthers, too.
But this eligibility issue in the nature of Cruz has a 90% chance of winning. It's more like a 99% chance of losing. Unless, of course, we decide to not follow the constitution.
The people are stupid enough to ask it be changed or overlooked to allow Cruz. The government will accommodate the will of the people in that regard. Just remember that half of them are Democrats.
I'd like to talk to Ted about it, see how he'd feel about it. 'Cause you know, when I file suits, I file real suits.Poor, Ted. I bet Trump has it written down in stone long before he ever mentions something casually.
Cut those advisers loose and find your way, Ted, before they take you and your cred down for the long count.
He is a Canadian, Cuban and not American until 15 months ago.
Crazy. He’s been an American since his birth.
I could have four legal passports from four different countries inside of one month but I am still an American. Having conferred citizenship elsewhere doesn’t take away from your USA citizenship.
Thanks. I read Wehner’s article which criticizes Trump for evolving positions among other things. If you question a persons motives for changing position I can see how that’s is problematic. I know for me my position on immigration has gotten much tougher recently as I’ve learned more about what’s going on around the rest of the country. It’s not a big local issue where I live.
Good analysis
“FWIW, old-man Romney qualified because he born in a territory that became a state.”
You mean Goldwater.
George Romney was born in Mexico, to US citizen parents. Before it became a big issue, he dropped out. But there was an outside legal research opinion, read into the congressional Record that he did NOT qualify—born outside the US, not to diplomats.
That would be the Cruz case, as well. (But it was only an opinion, not a court opinion.)
If you consider the law already accepts a man to *self identify* as a woman, it's not that far of a leap for it to allow someone to self identify as a natural born citizen.
I agree with you Mr. Choldt. Unfortunately, Obama’s appointees, Sotomayor and Kagan have already refused to recuse themselves when participating in the “Rule of Four”, deciding which cases could be heard. Alito Thomas and Scalia would be very much a minority. This court may restructure our Constitution in ways we can’t predict. They have already prevented certiorari in the Kerchner/Apuzzo challenge to Obama’s eligibility. Had they recused themselves, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would have been sufficient to hear what amounted to a confirmation of Minor v. Happersett.
Today, many, including Cruz, Obama, and both political parties (only one Republican, Nathan Deal of Georgia, publicly raised the fact of Obama’s eligibility. Deal was responded to with an IRS reexamination of a decade of filings, followed by ethics charges. That is likely why no one else dared. Perhaps the only response to the rewriting of the Constitution is what Mark Levine, who seems already to have joined the anti-constitutionalists, provided an answer, the use of Article V to reverse amendments. It was sad to see Mark misuse and misquote, lie about the 14th Amendment. But his use of Article V seems a valid last resort where corruption is so deep.
There is no law requiring Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves. Today you must vote yes “in order to find out what was in the bill”. Kagan and Sotomayor would have lost their lifetime appointments, and millions of dollars in salary and benefits if Obama, who never claimed to be a natural born citizen, had been ruled ineligible.
Lest anyone forget, here is the Supreme Court’s never amended definition of who are natural born citizens, Minor v. Happerset, 88 U.S. 162:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Thanks for the correction. Senility, it’s not when you forget where the car keys are. It’s when you forget what they are for.
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.