Posted on 02/18/2016 5:51:48 AM PST by GregNH
The Law Professor of this article is pointing out that Cruz HAS A CONFLICT OF INTERERST as a senator in confirming a Supreme Court Justice, because of the issue of whether or not Cruz is a NBC will sooner or later make its way to the SCOTUS (assuming Cruz stays in the race).
On the one hand, this is a valid opinion. On the other hand, we elect our judges in Texas. If someone has, say, a pending trial, that person is not barred from voting.
You don’t recuse yourself because of some possible future case before the court. On that basis, nobody could vote. This is nonsense.
I think that is arguable. If the courts can never step in, there is no check/balance on Congress.
At this point in the contest (and it will be similar in the general), there are 50 states, all of which forbid filing a false certification of eligibility. Those laws are not federal laws, they are ballot integrity laws, and they can be enforced by state courts, as those courts see fit. If the feds want to step in and establish uniformity, they can - they can at least try.
So far, the state courts have evaded the issue, leaving the question to be decided on an individual (person) basis, as informed by public discourse.
Where did he “study” law at? Islamic University of Iran?
You can wishful think and hope that these bullshit claims, etc. have no play, but your influence is limited. Some people will continue to believe that Cruz is either outright ineligible (I’m in that group), or will discount his campaign because they fear the risk of litigation over the issue. Both of those will dilute Cruz’s share of the vote, and the ABA piece is, of course, an effort exactly along those lines. At the same time, the ABA piece probably has less effect than Trump beating the drum.
You are describing a character flaw. Cruz's biggest problem is his claim to fame is following the original intent of the Constitution.. Yet, he daily demands an exemption for himself. Liberal lawyers are not going to ignore that hypocrisy. I expect more than a few liberal lawyers and judges to find religion and decide to play 'original intent' upon Cruz.
Yeah, it has been a rough 7 years.
Heh, hence the “admittedly”. Despite the best efforts of everyone, no one has been able to prove Obummer wasn’t born in Hawaii. We can suspect all we want, but so far there’s no proof.
Ted, on the other hand, has released his long-form Canadian birth certificate and “forgot” he was a dual citizen for however-many decades. He’s the true first case for this, in a legal sense.
Terrible legal interpretation, as it clearly only states what certain things ARE. It does not state that certain other things ARE NOT.
If you don’t get the distinction, you’d never make it in a courtroom.
The question of his being eligible for President and being eligible and authorized to execute his duty as an existing Senator is not the question here on advice and consent on an Executive nomination (e.g., for USSC) are not related, and it is disingenuous to try and equate the two here with the USSC replacement nomination and you know it.
For this consideration, there is no legal basis to bring his candidacy into the mix; I’ve already explained that. Whether my opinion carries any weight is also immaterial. Facts, laws and the Constitution are what matters here.
Why you seem to want to protect this author’s assertions is beyond me, frankly. I am voting for Trump in my primary and if Cruz gets the nomination, for him in the general. Regardless, joining this fool author in his BS isn’t a horse I want to ride simply because I may or may not support Cruz for President.
Just because you and I see it as a character flaw, doesn't make the public see him that way, and public perception is reality.
I'm not sure the liberals will rain on his parade. There is a bigger goal at stake here, and that is erosion of nationalist sentiment. We are on our way to becoming a place on the earth that harbors all and varied ethnic and cultural enclaves, pooling resources for the common good. This "NWO creep" is going on all over the planet.
Face it. With Scalia’s death, Ted is a dead man walking.
Some Lib in the lower courts WILL entertain a challenge to his eligibility.
If the SCOTUS is still 4-4 it will deadlock, and the lower court ruling will stand.
If the Libs take a 5-4 majority they will rule that he is more Canadian than Dudley Dooright.
As a practical matter there is just no path forward for Ted any longer.
The only protection I've given the author is that his bullshit piece will persuade some people against Cruz. You can of course disagree with my opinion on that point, but if you persist in misleading about MY position, then civility betrween us will die suddenly, and I'll make a point to make it interesting for the readers. You have been warned.
If Hillry does not end up in Ft. Leavenworth, or checks herself in some posh mental institution, she will fight this 'natural born' Canadian Hispanic Cuban. He is playing with fire...
Then shouldn’t Rubio be forced to recuse himself as well? His eligibility could be questioned, and he may run again or be the vice-presidential nominee.
I, sir, am not the one issuing threats here. I expressed my opinion the two had no relevancy to each other and you said my opinion meant nothing and then proceeded down a 'what if' path and added you felt Cruz was 'ineligible'. Ineligible for what?
I mislead nothing and made no threats.
I know what the author was saying. There is no valid point there. He is a senator, he is eligible to vote on the issue of an appointment.
Frankly, the matter will be moot by the time of the election because it will not be before that court by election day. By the way, recusing oneself from a metter they were involved in and/or one wherein they have a vested current interest does not extend to some potential issue i.e. legislatures vote on tax matters all the time albeit they pay taxes.
I think the author would be better served determining if a candidate for president under indictment can be elected or if the election will toll the statute if she were elected.
Why you seem to want to protect this author's assertions is beyond me, ...
Other than a passing remark, the first one I made in this thread, I have argued AGAINST the author's assertions. If you can;t see that in the ordinary meaning of my expression, then your reading comprehension sucks, or you choose to skip over my words and make baseless accusations.
No matter how you cut it, your conduct toward me is lower than dirt, and now, you and I have parted company, enemies. Nice job, counselor.
I don’t even know who you are, frankly. Nor do I hate you.
My only exasperation was your continuance of this author’s claims and adding supposition about effects on the campaign. None of that applies to Ted’s authorization to advise and consent. You can take that as a personal offense and slight; it was not meant to be so. To me, giving this whole question about confirmation is pointless and it should be treated as such, thus my consternation.
My goal in any of this was solely to convey the author’s assertions are BS and that there is no question about his authority with respect to the task at hand.
I don’t make enemies over things like this. You may, but I reserve my enmity for Democrats and liberals.
Obama claimed to be from Kenya when running for the US Senate. The reason it hasn’t been an issue is that the Media won’t cover it and the courts would not hear the case. (not to mention the convenient demise of key people)
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.