Posted on 02/02/2016 4:36:59 PM PST by 11th Commandment
On the same day he won the Republican Iowa caucus, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas got a favorable decision from the Illinois Board of Elections, which ruled that he met the citizenship criteria to appear on the state's primary ballot.
Two objectors, Lawrence Joyce and William Graham, had challenged Cruz's presidential bid with the board, contending that his name should not appear on the March 15 ballot because his candidacy did not comply with Article II of the Constitution.
In response to the filings, Cruz's lawyers relied on Supreme Court precedent, legal history and articles from noted constitutional scholars to defend the view that he is in fact "natural born" within the meaning in the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
Under Ted Cruz's own logic, he's ineligible for the White House
Not as good as a court ruling.
Does the board of election even have a background in law?
We need a court ruling first. Then put in place processes that automatically check eligibility.
Well, there you go, every anchor baby and Winston Churchill is eligible.
NO.
I was just responding to the Trumpbots.
I like the slogan, and I like this post! :-)
CRUZ OR LOSE!
Conservative, Showman, or Rino.
Those are your choices.
I'm game, I'll vote for the candidate that the left will have absolutely no issues with. Now, which one (or ones, if I have a choice) are you recommending?
I’m sue trump supporters are relieved to discover this. /s
“The left will bring up the issue again during the campaign.”
Let them.
Are you going to weenie out, because you’re afraid of an illegitimate issue being presented?
So, this ridiculous issue is a reason to vote for Trump?
I have known longer than since Cruz took his first breath on Canadian soil what the ‘original intent’ of the founding fathers meant when they specifically used the words ‘natural born’.
I was born on German soil, to two American citizens, and I am NOT natural born. Take your stupid spam and stuff it!!!
Are you a constitutional attorney?
Didn’t think so.
I’d like to hear from somebody who is.
Whoever here is trying to dispense legal advice without a license is committing the crime of practicing law without a license.
It wasn’t heard by SCOTUS because 2008 was a coup. Those who the courts would have to acknowledge as having “standing” were threatened out of pursuing it.
Long, long story.
I pinged an awesome attorney who also is a wonderful teacher...ask away
Taking the checks and balances seriously does NOT make a person a fool. Somebody saying that Congress passing a law settles its Constitutionality is a fool.
I’m talking about a constitutional attorney.
I’m an attorney, too, by the way.
I guess that settles it.
Congress passed a non-binding resolution declaring that John McCain was eligible. It was a signal to the courts about their position on the matter, but it didn’t legally resolve anything.
Yes, I believe Cruz is eligible.
Quite a few Royals have American mothers.
That was tongue in cheek. :-)
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.