Ted Cruz, facing suits on Canadian birth, lawyers up

http://www.mcclatchydc.com ^ | March 1, 2016 | MARIA RECIO

[NKP_Vet]

WASHINGTON Ted Cruz, tagged as "Canadian" by a needling Donald Trump since the GOP race tightened in January, rejects any idea of being ineligible to be U.S. president.

While Trump hasn't followed up on his threat to sue Calgary-born Cruz over what he says is the Texas senator not meeting the constitutional requirement of being a "natural-born citizen," plenty of other people have. Trump has warned that Democrats will disrupt the electoral process by suing if Cruz is the nominee.

And that's caused Cruz a bit of trouble. He has had to lawyer up to fight the more than half-dozen lawsuits around the country, some in federal court, some in state court. A Cook County, Ill., judge tossed one of the suits Tuesday, not over the citizenship issue but over a technicality of how the papers were served.

[Bubba Gump Shrimp]

After posting what I did, I remembered my Dad who had a good friend that he did the whole Pacific Theater with in WW2, from Leyte Gulf to Okinawa.

The guy was German, and that’s why he was sent to the Pacific. Anyways, he wasn’t a citizen but he was enlisted, and even he didn’t get to become Natural Born after the war ended.

My dad told us all how he helped this guy study for his Constitution test, and that the test was all in English. The guy spoke pretty good English my dad said, that wasn’t an issue, it was just a point he made until he died (my dad was outraged that the drivers license test was in other languages and would often mention this to make a point).

Anyways, the guy served, probably got 3 bronze battle stars like my Dad did (same theater, same dates), and still he wasn’t a Natural Born Citizen. He was given a chance to become a Citizen, and after he did, my dad said he was so proud, it was the proudest moment of his life. (I don’t remember the guy, he died when I was pretty young).

The point is, if serving in the military in WW2 didn’t get you to become an Natural Born Citizen, then I’m not going to credit Cruz with being a Natural Born.

[Yosemitest]

I pity you higgmeister, for not believing the words of Thomas Jefferson.

There's NOTHING to THINK ABOUT !
The LAW IS THE LAW !

Someone once asked:

" Do you really think that Thomas Jefferson
or any of the authors of the constitution
would view the bastard offspring of these unfortunate women as Natural Born United States Citizens?"

"Bastard offspring" by definition means the "unfortunate" mother was NOT MARRIED. That statement is IRRELEVANT !

When Ted Cruz was born, his parents were "IN WEDLOCK".

Now for your next IRRELEVANT statement:

"And using your logic wouldn't the children of these bastard offspring be Natural Born Citizens
regardless of the location of their birth
also be Natural Born United States Citizens?
If not then tell me why
using your logic we do not have thousands upon thousands of Natural Born US Citizens who are decedents from these Muslim bastard children?"

AGAIN, that "STRAW MAN" IS IRRELEVANT, when it comes to TED CRUZ being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States ON THE DAY HE WAS BORN !

You should do better research when it comes to Thomas Jefferson.
Read Thomas Jefferson's own BILL on there "Natural Born Citizen" requirements for the CommonWealth of Virginia:

Thomas Jefferson, A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens Of This Commonwealth

May 1779 Virginia Papers 2:476–78

Be it enacted by the General Assembly,

that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth
and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act,
and all who shall hereafter migrate into[Volume 4, Page 488] the same;
and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation,
that they intend to reside therein,
and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants WHERESOEVER BORN,
whose father, if living,
or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth,
or who migrate hither,
their father, if living,
or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen,
or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed CITIZENS of this commonwealth,
until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed:
And all others NOT BEING CITIZENS of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.


The clerk of the court shall enter such oath of record,
and give the person taking the same a certificate thereof,
for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar.
And in order to preserve to the citizens of this commonwealth, that natural right,
which all men have of relinquishing the country, in which birth, or other accident may have thrown them,
and, seeking subsistance and happiness wheresoever they may be able, or may hope to find them:
And to declare unequivocably what circumstances shall be deemed evidence of an intention in any citizen to exercise that right,
it is enacted and declared,
that whensoever any citizen of this commonwealth, shall
by word of mouth in the presence of the court of the county, wherein he resides,
or of the General Court,
or by deed in writing, under his hand and seal, executed in the presence of three witnesses,
and by them proved in either of the said courts,
openly declare to the same court,
that he RELINQUISHES the character of a citizen,
and shall DEPART the commonwealth;
or whensoever he shall WITHOUT such declaration DEPART the commonwealth AND ENTYER INTO THE SERVICE OIF ANY OTHER STATE,
not in enmity with this, or any other of the United States of America,
or do any act whereby he shall become a subject or citizen of such state,
such person shall be considered as having exercised his natural right of EXPATRIATING himself,
and shall be deemed NO CITIZEN of this commonwealth from the time of his departure.

SO there, you have PROOF

that Thomas Jefferson,
or for that matter, ANY of the authors of the constitution,
would view TED CRUZ as a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States,
ON THE DAY HE WAS BORN !

1st United States Congress, 21-26 Senators and 59-65 Representatives

[gnarledmaw]

Great font work, great obfuscation, still too Canadian.

[Yosemitest]

TED CRUIZ IS 100 PERCENT UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, (And there ain't one damn thing you can do to change it !) !

MARK LEVIN explains that Ted Cruz IS a natural born citizen ( 7:30 )
Published on Sep 17, 2013

Here's the supporting article from Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
Like most immigrants, he does a job Americans won't: defending the Constitution.

Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President
August 26, 2013., by Ilya Shapiro

As we head into a potential government shutdown over the funding of Obamacare, the iconoclastic junior senator from Texas - - love him or hate him - - continues to stride across the national stage.
With his presidential aspirations as big as everything in his home state, by now many know what has never been a secret:
Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

(Full disclosure: I'm Canadian myself, with a green card.
Also, Cruz has been a friend since his days representing Texas before the Supreme Court.)

But does that mean that Cruz's presidential ambitions are gummed up with maple syrup
or stuck in snowdrifts altogether different from those plaguing the Iowa caucuses?
Are the birthers now hoist on their own petards,
having been unable to find any proof that President Obama was born outside the United States
but forcing their comrade-in-boots to disqualify himself by releasing his Alberta birth certificate?

No, actually, and it's not even that complicated; you just have to look up the right law.
It boils down to whether Cruz is a "natural born citizen" of the United States,
the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency.
(The Founding Fathers didn't want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.)

What's a "natural born citizen" ?
The Constitution doesn't say,
but the Framers' understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that
the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents - - in a manner regulated by federal law - -
and birth within the nation's territory regardless of parental citizenship.
The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.

There's no ideological debate here:
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson - -
who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases
- - co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain's eligibility.
Recall that McCain --
lately one of Cruz's chief antagonists
- - was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.

In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth - -
as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later ("naturalizes"
or who isn't a citizen at all
- - can be president.

So the one remaining question is
whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth.
That's an easy one.
The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth."
In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens - -
or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere - -
citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.

That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 - - Cruz was born in 1970 - -
someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years,
including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen.
Cruz's mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.

So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there's no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen?
Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961
and so couldn't have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement.
Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn't have mattered whether that birth took place in
Hawaii,
Kenya,
Indonesia,
or anywhere else.
(For those born since 1986, by the way,
the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years,
at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)

In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House,
but his eligibility for that office shouldn't be in doubt.
As Tribe and Olson said about McCain - -
and could've said about
Obama,
or the Mexico-born George Romney,
or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater
- - Cruz "is certainly NOT the hypothetical 'foreigner'
who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief."

Now stuff that in your FEEBLE BRAIN, and STEW ON IT for a long, LONG, LONG TIME !

[ri4dc]

Regarding Madison’s concern that some might erroneously infer, from the 1790 Act, that the foreign-born children of American parents actually “are” (not merely “considered as”) natural born citizens.

Would you be able to articulate for me the distinctions between
actually “are”
and
not merely “considered as”

In a legal sense, in terms of determining a person’s citizenship, I am not wrapping my mind around “considered as” and what does that actually result in.

And I agree, the founders would not have wanted foreign born, with few exceptions, to become Commander In Chief. Anyone whom is a citizen by statute or capable of dual citizenship would not be referred to as “Natural” anything. Citizen, yes. Natural Born Citizen, no. IMHO.

Thank you for the references.

[King of Florida]

Two things:

1. Opinions are like you-know-what—everybody's got one. And because SCOTUS has never addressed the issue, no one can assert that their opinion is the final word on the subject, no matter how many boilerplate HTML-happy posts they spam a thread with.

2. Your posts remind me of the first Church of the Subgenius pamphlet: http://www.subgenius.com/pam1/pamphlet_p1.html

[Yosemitest]

"And because SCOTUS has never addressed the issue"

WRONG.
They HAVE addressed this issue.

"An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":

... The Constitution, federal law, and the historical understanding of the Framers, as well as prior British legal traditions and law, all support this view.
In a recent article in the Harvard Law Review, two former U.S. Solicitor Generals, Paul Clement (who served under President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (who served under President Barack Obama) stated:

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning:
namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth
with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that,
subject to certain residency requirements on the parents,
someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Thus, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would not be eligible to run for president
because the Austrian native had to go through the naturalization process to become a U.S. citizen.

Certainly the Framers of the Constitution held this view of “natural born” citizen.
They had a deep understanding of British common law and applied its precepts, particularly as explained in Blackstone’s Commentaries, throughout the Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama (1888) recognized that
“the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that
its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law,
and are to be read in the light of its history.”

Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States
if the American people make that choice.

One of those precepts of British law was
that children born to British citizens anywhere in the world,
even outside the dominions of the British Empire,
were “natural born” citizens of the Empire
who owed their allegiance to the Crown.
This historical understanding is explained in great detail by the Supreme Court in a well-known 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

The First Congress, which included many of the Framers of the Constitution, codified this view of a natural born citizen.
A mere three years after the Constitution was drafted, they passed the Naturalization Act of 1790,
which specified that the children of U.S. citizens born
“out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”
The modern version of this Act is found at 8 U.S.C. §1401.
It contains a list of all individuals who are considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.”
Paragraph (g) includes:

A person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien,
and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions
for a period or periods totaling not less than five years,
at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years. 

Ted Cruz was born in Canada in 1970;
his mother, who was a U.S. citizen by birth from Delaware, was in her 30s at the time.
She met Cruz’s father, who was born in Cuba, as a student at Rice University.
These facts show that
Cruz’s family background clearly meets the standard set out in the federal statute for being a natural born citizen who did not have to go through any naturalization process to become a citizen.;
That was also the case for Senator Barry Goldwater, who was born in Arizona before it became a state,
and Governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico.

The bottom line is that Senator Cruz meets all three qualifications in the Constitution to be the president of the United States if the American people make that choice.
The same is true of my wife, who was born in Manila.
Her father, whose family had been in America since shortly after the Pilgrims got to Massachusetts,
was temporarily working abroad for an American company—just like Ted Cruz’s father.

My wife is not likely to run for president,
but there is no question that she—like Ted Cruz, Barry Goldwater, George Romney, and John McCain—is eligible to be president
and to swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”


Hans A. von Spakovsky is a a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department lawyer. 
He is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk”(Encounter 2012)
and  “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside 2014).

Also,

"there are certainly many extremely prominent scholars who state
that natural born means both parents must be American Citizens
as stated in Vattel's Law of Nations."

Arizona Court Declares Lawyers Mario Apuzzo and Leo Donofrio Totally Cracked on What Makes a Natural Born Citizen

Now IF the Court had given such a “definition,” it still would’ve merely been non-binding dicta, or side commentary —
as any such determination was clearly non-essential to the matter they were deciding.
Such reasoning might have been convincing to a later Court — or it might not have been.

But the fact is,
they simply didn’t create any such “definition” of “natural born citizen” —
in spite of Apuzzo’s (and Leo Donofrio’s) elaborate twisting of their words to try and make it sound as if they did.

And even if they had — which they didn’t — it would’ve been OVERTURNED 23 years later, in the definitive citizenship case of US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In that case, the Supreme Court told us quite clearly, in not one, but in two different ways, that Wong Kim Ark,
who was born on US soil of two NON-citizen Chinese parents, wasn’t thereby JUST “a citizen” —
he was ALSO “natural born.”

If he was “natural born,” and he was “a citizen,”
then it is inescapable that the Court found young Mr. Wong to be a natural born citizen.


The 6 Justices who agreed on the majority opinion (against only 2 dissenters) also discussed the implications of such status for Presidential eligibility.
So they in fact found
that Wong Kim Ark would be legally eligible to run for President upon meeting the other qualifications — reaching the age of 35, and 14 years’ residence.

Mr. Wong, who lived most of his life as a simple Chinese cook in Chinatown, never ran for President, of course.
And in the highly racial America of his day Wong almost certainly could not have been elected if he had tried.

But according to the United States Supreme Court, legally speaking,
Mr. Wong DID HAVE the legal qualification to eventually run for, and serve as, President of the United States —
if the People should have decided that he was the right person for the job.

There’s much deeper we could go into the issue, of course.
I haven’t found the time to refute Mr. Apuzzo’s bogus “two citizen parents” claims in the full, absolute detail that I would like to.
There is an awful lot of refutation here, here, and here,
though.

It would be nice to put ALL of the pieces together in one place.
However, for those who don’t mind a bit of digging, the references given above are a good start.

But never mind — a court in the State of Arizona the day before yesterday quite clearly and authoritatively refuted Mr. Apuzzo for me.
The court smacked down Apuzzo’s and Donofrio’s claims in no uncertain terms.

Judge Richard Gordon DISMISSED the ballot-challenge case of Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party.
And he did so “WITH PREJUDICE,” which means
“This case has been fully heard and judged on its merits
and we’re done with it —
don’t attempt to darken my door with this same accusation ever again.”

Note that again:
Apuzzo’s claim has been officially tried in a court of law, on its merits, and found to be totally cracked.
And the ruling struggled to stretch barely past two pages into three.
That is NOT a lot of discussion,
which indicates that this was not anything even REMOTELY resembling a “close call.”


The pertinent language in Judge Gordon’s ruling is as follows:

“Plaintiff claims that
President Obama cannot stand for reelection [in the State of Arizona] because he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution… Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution,
Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931),
and this precedent fully supports
that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution
and thus qualified to hold the office of President.
See United States v. Wong Kim Ark
, 169 U.S. 649, 702-03 (1898) (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV); Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana,
916 N.E.2d 678, 684-88 (Ind. App. 2010) (addressing the precise issue).
Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.“

So your statement that "natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !

[Yosemitest]

Since's Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump's mother Mary was born in Scotland,

DO YOU BELIEVE that Trump is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen" ?

... Donald's Certificate of Birth Registration for New York City ... shows he was born to Fred C. Trump and Mary McLeod on June 14, 1946.
It is signed by the same doctor from Jamaica Hospital.

... Mary as a housewife who was born in Scotland.

[DoodleDawg]

If any judge Cruz goes in front of will try following the Constitution Ted Cruz will not be eligible to serve as president.

Ted Cruz will never go before a judge because all these lawsuits will be thrown out. None of the litigants have standing to sue.

[MayflowerMadam]

Shameful, deceitful man not to have taken care of this issue before running for President. You can tell by his demeanor that he believes he’s above everyone else on God’s green earth. Maybe this will knock him down a peg or two. He thinks he special — when he’s just an interloper.

[Yosemitest]

Since's Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump's mother Mary was born in Scotland,

DO YOU BELIEVE that Trump is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen" ?

... Donald's Certificate of Birth Registration for New York City ... shows he was born to Fred C. Trump and Mary McLeod on June 14, 1946.
It is signed by the same doctor from Jamaica Hospital.

... Mary as a housewife who was born in Scotland.

[Fresh Wind]

It doesn’t matter how many times you copy, paste, and post that, nor does it matter how many different fonts you use, or how many silly graphics you insert, the fact is that Trump’s mother became a naturalized US citizen four years before Trump was born.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/03/281157/

[Yosemitest]

You REFUSED to answer that question !

[MayflowerMadam]

Idiot. She became a U.S. citizen four years before DJT was born.

Lying by omission, Honey, is still lying.

[King of Florida]

WRONG.

They HAVE addressed this issue.

No, the Court has not. You are merely presenting the argument of others based upon two cases in which the natural-born-citizen clause was not even at issue. Whether the Court would actually be persuaded by the argument that these two cases control the application of the clause is an entirely different matter.

Admit it now: the Court has never directly addressed or been directly confronted with the meaning of "a natural born Citizen" for the purposes of presidential eligibility under article two, section one of the Constitution. Correct?

Answer yes or no, without any further bloated HTML spam. Yes or no, Mr. Yosemitest?

YES OR NO?

[Fresh Wind]

Your question was posed to another FReeper, not me.

I was responding to the fact that you deliberately ignored a key piece of evidence in attempting to make the case that Trump’s and Cruz’s citizenship situations are equivalent.

[Yosemitest]

THE COURTR HAS ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP of a person born OUTSIDE the United States to ONE U.S..CItizen and the ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT !

It boils down to whether Cruz is a "natural born citizen" of the United States,
the only class of people constitutionally eligible for the presidency.
(The Founding Fathers didn't want their newly independent nation to be taken over by foreigners on the sly.)

What's a "natural born citizen" ?
The Constitution doesn't say,
but the Framers' understanding, combined with statutes enacted by the First Congress, indicate that
the phrase means both birth abroad to American parents - - in a manner regulated by federal law - -
and birth within the nation's territory regardless of parental citizenship.
The Supreme Court
has confirmed that definition
on multiple occasions
in various contexts.

There's no ideological debate here:
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and former solicitor general Ted Olson - -
who were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore among other cases
- - co-authored a memorandum in March 2008 detailing the above legal explanation in the context of John McCain's eligibility.
Recall that McCain --
lately one of Cruz's chief antagonists
- - was born to U.S. citizen parents serving on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.

In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth - -
as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later ("naturalizes"
or who isn't a citizen at all
- - can be president.

So the one remaining question is
whether Ted Cruz was a citizen at birth.
That's an easy one.
The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth."
In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens - -
or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere - -
citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.

That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 - - Cruz was born in 1970 - -
someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years,
including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen.
Cruz's mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.

So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there's no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen?
Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961
and so couldn't have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement.
Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn't have mattered whether that birth took place in
Hawaii,
Kenya,
Indonesia,
or anywhere else.
(For those born since 1986, by the way,
the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years,
at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)

In short, it may be politically advantageous for Ted Cruz to renounce his Canadian citizenship before making a run at the White House,
but his eligibility for that office shouldn't be in doubt.
As Tribe and Olson said about McCain - -
and could've said about
Obama,
or the Mexico-born George Romney,
or the Arizona-territory-born Barry Goldwater
- - Cruz "is certainly NOT the hypothetical 'foreigner'
who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief."

[Yosemitest]

Then I ask you DIRECTLY:

Since's Donald "EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE USE" Trump's mother Mary was born in Scotland,
DO YOU BELIEVE that Trump is NOT a "Natural Born Citizen" ?

[Fresh Wind]

I do not believe that Trump is not a natural born citizen.

As for Cruz, I’m not convinced either way. Well researched and well argued cases have been made here at FR on both sides of the question, with no consensus.

I would like nothing more that to see the question addressed in court and put to rest once and for all.

But Cruz apparently doesn’t agree. He doesn’t want any of the challenges to be argued in court on their merits.

If Cruz ends up being the nominee, you can be sure the Rats will file suit in any number of venues, and you can also be sure they will find sympathetic “legislate-from-the-bench” judges to do their dirty work.

The post-nomination Rat challenges may all be tossed out, or some may work their way up through the court hierarchy, perhaps to eventually reach the Supreme Court (and we know that’s a problem right now).

But to the Rats, victory doesn’t necessarily mean that nominee Cruz will be ruled ineligible, though of course they would love to see that. But they will settle for keeping the eligibility cloud hanging over Cruz’s head as long as possible.

This reply is not spam. Please don’t reply with spam.

[freeangel]

LOL Just as Cruz implored Trump last night-—Take some deep breaths and count to 10. Cruz is just fine