Posted on 01/19/2016 12:05:02 PM PST by Faith Presses On
(snip)
The problem is not, as some commentators have claimed, a legal doctrine known as "standing" -- a rule that requires that a person who comes to court must have a proper legal interest at stake in the litigation. Rather, the biggest barrier is a principle of judicial restraint known as "the political question doctrine."
A key idea underlying this doctrine is that the Constitution itself, in its text or spirit, sometimes takes a certain sort of constitutional question away from ordinary courts and makes some other decision-maker the real judge -- a special court for a special question. In a presidential impeachment, for example, the Senate, and only the Senate, is the real court. Senators are the judges and jurors -- the deciders of fact and law -- under the Constitution itself.
(snip)
Now return to Cruz. Here, too, his eligibility -- whether his birth certificate is good enough -- is in certain situations an issue not best decided in an ordinary courtroom. Under the structure of the Constitution, and in keeping with American traditions stretching back to the founding, the proper court to judge Cruz's eligibility is, first and foremost, the court of public opinion. Anyone who thinks that Cruz is not eligible is free to vote against him.
(snip)
A sober court should think twice -- thrice! -- before jumping in. True, unlike our soldier scenario, the Congress has not yet weighed in, so there is no res judicata issue. But unless Congress itself enters the lawsuit and asks the court to keep Cruz's name off the ballot...the court should butt out and deny the official the permission she seeks...If he wins, Congress can decide what to do, and Congress is the proper judge here.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.reuters.com ...
It doesn’t work that way. Constitutional issues are not voted on. They are determined in the courts. I don’t see this one getting there because it is moot.
Indeed. This is the ultimate political question - the states get to vote on Cruz’s eligibility directly in the electoral college. No court is going to issue an injunction preventing Cruz from assuming office if he is elected.
Cruz citizenship case will be tried by Reince Priebus, Karl Rove and Justice Roberts just in time for them to rule Cruz ineligible and have his delegates stripped at the convention and handed over to Jeb.
” and Justice Roberts...”
Good thing Ted recommended Roberts to GWB for confirmation as Chief Justice!!
I LIKE....
This may be the dumbest article ever written. It doesn’t work that way. Egad.
Unlike Obama’s fake birth certificate, of which none may dare speak
From Wikipedia:
In American Constitutional law, the political question doctrine is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political question. Legal questions are deemed to be justiciable, while political questions are nonjusticiable.[1] One scholar explained:
The political question doctrine holds that 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 vague that 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 knowledge of 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question
No no and no again.
You don’t vote on Constitutional law. How ridiculous.
And we better hope we never do.
What our laws mean is not decided by popular vote.
What if the candidate is only 30 years old, would you still make that statement?
Is the Constitution so completely irrelevant now that we say it's whatever the States certify?
How about if a State voted in and certified slavery, is that how we roll now?
People do not seem to grasp the fact that the Democrats will use any controversy to tie up Cruz. Trump is right Cruz should get into court ASAP.
Amar, a Yale Law professor, is a presumably a smart guy, so one must assume that the blatant lie he spins in the first paragraph is intentional:
“All thanks to a 1952 congressional statute that conferred natural-born birthright citizenship on various foreign-born children of American citizens.”
He knows d**m well that said statute makes no mention whatsoever of “natural born” anything. So sick of these people trying to subvert our Constitution by every means available to them.
Listen, I don’t know how you ever expect to get an agenda enacted if you can’t move the goal posts when you have to...
/s
Exactly, we're a Republic, not a democracy......but Franklin was right when he said "if you can keep it"
“Cruz citizenship case should be tried in court of public opinion”
Some court rewriting the constitution will not change anyones mind, and will only cause anger towards Cruz, or any other candidate who seeks such preferential treatment.
See gay marriage, abortion, obamacare for confirmation.
Heh, do I get the wet noodle treatment now?
Constitutional requirement to hold the office of president is ‘natural born’. Either you are or you are not ‘natural born’. Cruz is NOT ‘natural born’, and he knows it!
I am not a lawyer, nor do I need a law degree to know what ‘natural born’, means. I have decided to call it a birthright, circumstances of birth. There is none who can make Cruz natural born.
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.