Skip to comments.
Cruz: Trump can file 'frivolous' lawsuit if he wants
The Hill ^
| February 16, 2016
| Jesse Byrnes
Posted on 02/16/2016 11:46:51 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is pushing back on rival Donald Trump's repeated threats to sue over Cruz's eligibility to run for president.
"Listen, Donald has been litigious for many, many years. He uses lawsuits to try to intimidate people and attack people," Cruz said Tuesday on conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt's show.
"If he wants to file a frivolous lawsuit, he can file a frivolous lawsuit," Cruz added.
Cruz declined to say whether he thought Trump had standing to bring the lawsuit, which the outspoken billionaire businessman and political rival maintains he has.
Trump has repeatedly threatened litigation over Cruz's eligibility, arguing he is not a natural born citizen because he was born in Canada to an American mother.
Supporters of Trump have filed a lawsuit challenging Cruz's eligibility to run for president, while another lawsuit has been filed to determine if Cruz is a natural born citizen.
"I think the lawsuit would be frivolous, and he's not going to prevail. But sadly, whether a lawsuit is frivolous or not has not historically dissuaded Donald Trump from hiring plaintiff lawyers to go to court," Cruz said.
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2016; cruz; gopprimary; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
To: All
"The Republican National Committee is pushing back against Donald J. Trump's claim that the jeers that serenaded him during the presidential debate on Saturday were from an audience stacked with big money donors.
Mr. Trump made the claim on the debate stage as his responses were met with loud boos. He reiterated on Monday in South Carolina that the party was working against him.
"When I walked in it was like my wife was clapping, my kids were clapping, but the whole room was made up of special interests and donors, which is a disgrace from the R.N.C.," Mr. Trump said.
Sean Spicer, a spokesman for the commitee, offered a breakdown of debate attendance on Saturday night to show the relatively small number of donors in the audience. Of the approximately 1,600 people who attended, 300 tickets were given to Republican "grass-roots" activists and elected officials, 600 were divided evenly among the six candidates, and only 10 went to R.N.C. donors.
The remaining tickets, according to Mr. Spicer, went to the South Carolina Republican Party and to CBS, which hosted the debate.".... R.N.C. Disputes Donald Trump's Claim on Debate Being Stacked With Donors
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Trump wants to “eminently domain” Cruz’s house and put up a parking lot!
3
posted on
02/16/2016 11:58:03 PM PST
by
tdscpa
To: Cincinatus' Wife
I've heard Trump's "I'm going to sue" so much that it just makes me gag.
I want him to either put up or shut up.
4
posted on
02/16/2016 11:58:05 PM PST
by
TXSearcher
(Longtime Lurker......now a newbie)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
This man has deep democrat roots.
5
posted on
02/16/2016 11:59:31 PM PST
by
exnavy
(good gun control: two hands, one shot, one kill.)
To: TXSearcher; All
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Trump just settled his 500 million lawsuit against Univision for an undisclosed amount. Chances are Univision is funding his entire campaign.
7
posted on
02/17/2016 12:02:52 AM PST
by
Hugin
("First thing--get yourself a firearm!" Sheriff Ed Galt, Last Man St anding.)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
How many have won against him? Trump says he never settles when people sue him, so they know they have to go all the way if they start.
8
posted on
02/17/2016 12:04:33 AM PST
by
Hugin
("First thing--get yourself a firearm!" Sheriff Ed Galt, Last Man St anding.)
To: Hugin
Sept 2011:
Donald Trump Loses Libel Lawsuit Over Being Called A 'Millionaire'"A New Jersey appeals court has affirmed a lower court's ruling to dismiss a defamation lawsuit brought by Donald Trump against a book author who claimed the real estate magnate/reality TV star isn't really a billionaire. In a ruling issued on Wednesday, the appeals court affirms that Trump hasn't demonstrated that author Timothy O'Brien committed "actual malice" by citing three unnamed sources who estimated the net worth of The Apprentice star to be between $150 million and $250 million.
Trump filed the $5 billion lawsuit in 2009 over O'Brien's book, TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald. The lawsuit was rejected in 2009 by a New Jersey superior judge. Trump then appealed the judgment on the theory that relying on anonymous sources could rise to the actual malice standard needed for public figures to prevail in a libel suit.
But a New Jersey appeals court doesn't see the logic here. According to the decision:......"
In deposition: Trump: I'm worth whatever I feel
To: Hugin
You have no way of knowing what "settlement" was reached. You are suggesting Trump walked away with a huuuge amount of cash - that is completely your assumption.
Donald Trump, Univision Settle $500 Million Miss Universe Lawsuit
....."Details of the settlement were not disclosed.....
I have known Univision's president and CEO, Randy Falco, for more than 20 years, and I'm glad we are able to put these differences behind us," Trump said.
Falco said: "I have known Donald Trump for many years in both a personal and professional capacity, and we are pleased to settle this matter and move forward."..
To: Cincinatus' Wife
That’s not a lawsuit against Trump though. Businesses get sued all the time, and most of them settle long before it gets to court. Trump doesn’t. He fights, win or lose. Not to say he won’t take a favorable settlement when he sues someone.
11
posted on
02/17/2016 12:18:34 AM PST
by
Hugin
("First thing--get yourself a firearm!" Sheriff Ed Galt, Last Man St anding.)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
It wouldn't be the FIRST TYIME the courts told Trump he was WRONG !
But Donald
"EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump KNOWS the courts will NOT hear it !
As far as the United States Constitution, pay particular attention to
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power ... To make ALL Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,
and ALL other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Also, pay particular attention to
U.S. Constitution - Article I, section 5Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ...
As
I have commented on before and supported with links, in the article
Akhil Reed Amar, author of
CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote:
" ... The Constitution's 12th Amendment clearly saysthat Congress counts the electoral votes at a special session;
and thus Congress is constitutionally authorized to refuse to count any electoral votes
that Congress considers invalid.
Elsewhere, Article I, section 5 of the Constitution makes clearthat each house of Congress may "judge" whether a would-be member of that housemeets the constitutional eligibility rules for that house.
Suppose Mr. Smith wants to go to Washington as a senator.
He wins election in his home state.
But the Constitution says a senator must be 30 years old.
If a dispute arises about Smith's age, about whether there a proper birth certificate and what it says,
the Constitution clearly says the Senate is "the judge" of Smith's birth certificate dispute.
Similarly, for presidential elections the Constitution's structure makes Congress the judge of any birth certificate disputeor any other issue of presidential eligibility.
Congress cannot fabricate new presidential eligibility rulesbut it is the judge of the eligibility rules prescribed in the Constitution.
Thus, ordinary courts should butt out, now and forever.
They have no proper role here, because the Constitution itself makes Congress the special judge.
In legal jargon, the issue is a "nonjusticiable political question."
NOTE:
nonjusticiable political question Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable. [Huhn, Wilson R. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. 2016.]
One scholar explained: The political question doctrine holdsthat some questions, in their nature, are fundamentally political, and not legal,
and if a question is fundamentally political ... then the court will refuse to hear that case.
It will claim that it doesn't have jurisdiction.
And it will leave that question to some other aspect of the political process to settle out. - - John E. Finn, professor of government, 2006 [2]
A ruling of nonjusticiability will ultimately prohibit the issue that is bringing the case before the court from being able to be heard in a court of law.
In the typical case where there is a finding of nonjusticiability due to the political question doctrine,the issue presented before the court is usually so specific
that the Constitution gives ALL power to one of the coordinate political branches,
or at the opposite end of the spectrum, the issue presented is so vaguethat the United States Constitution does not even consider it.
A court can only decide issues based on law.
The Constitution dictates the different legal responsibilities of each respective branch of government.
If there is an issue where the court does not have the Constitution as a guide, there are no legal criteria to use.
When there are no specific constitutional duties involved, the issue is to be decided through the democratic process.
The court will not engage in political disputes.
A constitutional dispute that requires knowledgeof a non-legal character
or the use of techniques not suitable for a court or explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress, or the President of the United States,
is a political question, which judges customarily refuse to address.
Now, let's take a close look at the word "NATURALIZATION", its history, and FROM WHERE it was derived .
What is the root word of
"Naturalization" ?
"Naturalize" ! "admit (an alien) to rights of a citizen," 1550s (implied in naturalized), from natural (adj.) in its etymological sense of "by birth" + -ize;in some instances from Middle French naturaliser, from natural.
Of things, from 1620s; of plants or animals, from 1796.
Not only could the Founding Father define
"natural born citizen", BUT ...
THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
The Naturalization Act of 1790, let's read it
!
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,That any Alien being a free white person,who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,
may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the Stateswherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court thathe is a person of good character,
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by lawto support the Constitution of the United States,
which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer,
and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon;
and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
And the children of such person so naturalized,dwelling within the United States,
being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization,
shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, thatthe right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:
Provided also, thatno person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid,except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Take a look at the original one WRITTEN BY our FOUNDING FATHERS,
and VERIFY IT FOR YOURSELF in the list of NAMES of the members of our FIRST CONGRESS !

1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives
Finally, read the latest from links provided by the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States.
READ IT VERY CLOSELY.
Constitutional Topic: Citizenship
... Citizenship is mentioned in
If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must.
To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States.
To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born.
Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen?
Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
But even this does not get specific enough.
As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
The Constitution authorizes the Congress to create clarifying legislation inalso allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization,
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution.
Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
- Anyone born inside the United States *
* There is an exception in the law - - the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition:
a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such asEach of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date,
and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date.For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952).
Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States.Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama.
In 8 USC 1403, the law states thatanyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen,
was "declared" to be a United States citizen.Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized thatbecause McCain was born in the Canal Zone,
he was not actually qualified to be president.
However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply.
McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c):"a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States
and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."
Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain - - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
U.S. Nationals
A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen.
National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition.
A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen.
U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen.
U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born.
(Continued)
12
posted on
02/17/2016 12:20:55 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Trump had a very solid case. Univision clearly broke a valid contract. Of course I don’t know how much Trump got, but it must have been substantial. I would assume at least half of what he sued for.
13
posted on
02/17/2016 12:21:19 AM PST
by
Hugin
("First thing--get yourself a firearm!" Sheriff Ed Galt, Last Man St anding.)
To: Yosemitest; Hugin
Imagine lawsuit crazy Trump with so many government departments’ legal staffs at his beck and call.
Talk about hog heaven.
He’ll be able to sue to his hreat’s content anything and anyone who looks at him sideways...
and we’ll foot the bill.
Talk about scary.
Comment #15 Removed by Moderator
To: Hugin
....”1/2” of what he sued for...
That is a huuuge assumption, based on no information.
To: Cincinatus' Wife
Not as much as your assumption that he didn’t. He had a slam dunk case, and clearly what he got he was happy with.
17
posted on
02/17/2016 12:39:08 AM PST
by
Hugin
("First thing--get yourself a firearm!" Sheriff Ed Galt, Last Man St anding.)
To: Hugin
Believe what you wish, but you have nothing on which to base your claim, that Trump is financing his campaign on a settlement from Univision.
To: Cincinatus' Wife
“That is a huuuge assumption, based on no information.”
You don’t know either, lol. Trump had an airtite case. They broke the contract. Period.
19
posted on
02/17/2016 12:43:56 AM PST
by
flaglady47
(TRUMP ROCKS)
To: flaglady47
I never said I knew or suggested a settlement amount.
I advised caution.
That’s the difference.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson