Posted on 01/23/2016 6:50:32 PM PST by Enlightened1
A Republican attorney in Illinois, a supporter of Ben Carson, on Friday filed a motion with the Illinois State Board of Elections to have Sen. Ted Cruz's name removed from the official Republican primary ballot for the Illinois GOP presidential primary set for March 15.
The legal challenge confirms fellow candidate Donald Trump's argument that the issue of eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution will dog Cruz as the Texas senator pursues the GOP nomination for president, and possibly a subsequent White House bid.
The motion from Lawrence J. Joyce, who makes his living as a pharmacist licensed in his state, notes that Cruz was born on Dec. 22, 1970, in the city of Calgary, in the Canadian province of Alberta, and that Cruz has been a citizen of the United States continuously since birth under § 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401.
But Joyce's motion challenges that Cruz is not a "natural born citizen" under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1, and as a result not eligible to be president.
The 'nightmare scenario'
"I have principally two reasons for doing this," Joyce explained to WND in an email. "First, I think Dr. Carson would make both a better president of the United States and a better nominee of the Republican Party.
"Second, I am terrified that if we don't get this cleared up right now, if Ted Cruz does become the nominee, the Democrats will cherry-pick which court or election board they will petition to have him declared to be ineligible in September or October," Joyce continued.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
If he hasn't already alienated any Cruz supporters that might vote for him in the general, that would certainly do it.
Dude has already got yuuuuge negatives in the polls.
--------------------------------------------------
No. When they wrote NBC, it was with John Jay's suggestion to George Washington in mind. John Jay's letter to George Washington suggesting the NBC requirement is the only historical document directly related to the use of NBC in the Constitution.
Furthermore, James Madison was on the House Committee that wrote the 1795 Act that REPEALS the 1790 Act and removed NBC status from those foreign born to a US citizen parent ever since.
Congress had a chance in 2004 to reinstate NBC status to those foreign born to a US citizen parent, but did not.
LOL - Let Trump be Trump.
I know that if a liberal judge said that, it would be appealed to the Supreme Court, and the current make-up of the court would rule Cruz is eligible. That’s a guarantee.
If the SC refused to hear John McCain's case, what would compel them to hear the more complicated case of Ted Cruz? Please give a reasonable, believable reason why they wouldn't punt to Congress as they did with McCain.
Do you have a citation to what you call the “John McCain case?”
I predict this goes nowhere.
So nice of all the so-called “conservative” birthers to have handed this issue - if issue it be - to the DNC.
The Bottom Line: We Don't Really Know If Cruz Is Eligible to Be President
Yes, this may be one of those instances where Donald Trump is right. While more legal scholars seem to think the court would find Cruz eligible, we can't say for sure because the Supreme Court hasn't taken up the issue. As PolitiFact notes, lawsuits filed in 2008 contesting John McCain's eligibility didn't go anywhere. "We know from the McCain lawsuits, courts don't want to touch this," said Sarah Duggin, a Catholic University law professor who has studied the issue extensively. "It very well may be that the courts would refuse to go near this. There are so many issues."
Further, what was the claim in those law suits that was advanced to seek to argue that John McCain was not a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II's use of that phrase as a prerequisite to be able to be eligible to the presidency. I confess to reading many filings that claimed that the Great Pretender now in the Oval Office was not a natural born citizen within the meaning intended by the Frames in using the phrase in Article II, but I do not recall cases about McCain. Do you have any citations for such cases?
Further still, I don't see any legal authority that would establish that Senator Cruz would come within that definition that is set out in any actual SCOTUS decision. Why do you think that he would be found to meet the requirement? I do not know how you derive that there are "more legal scholars" that think that. Upon examination, the opinions of such scholars do not seem to have a sound basis.
Frankly, i can’t figure out why more Cruz supporters are not mad at him for using us. I’ve been supporting and rooting for him for years. I voted for him in his senate race and was delighted.
When he renounced his Canadian citizenship, I remember thinking how odd it was. Here is a sitting Senator from Texas and he hadn’t already DONE that? Why? He didn’t know about it? Ok, I said. It’s a little late, but ok.
Since then, like most Texans I assumed he had already handled any possible “birther” issues that may come up later if he ran for president. Wrong.
Then here a few weeks ago and this comes up again? I start reading all the “experts” who have doubts about his eligibility and all I can think of is, “WHY has he not already taken care of this?” He is the only person to blame. Ted Cruz and Ted Cruz alone is responsible for not clearing this up already! It’s selfish, and we’ve all been used as tools to further his political ambitions.
Someone... Anyone... Please tell me why it’s okay that Ted Cruz did not already get this issue definitively straightened out before now? It’s a simple question that no one can answer. What right does he have to ask me to vote for him, knowing that he is willing to put our country through a constitutional crisis because, for whatever stupid reason, he hasn’t taken care of this?
I don't know. I'm not a birther or a non-birther and just ran across that one yesterday. This subject hasn't been on my radar, even with obama, so if you start asking complicated questions, my eyes will glaze over.
Further, what was the claim in those law suits that was advanced to seek to argue that John McCain was not a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II's use of that phrase as a prerequisite to be able to be eligible to the presidency. I confess to reading many filings that claimed that the Great Pretender now in the Oval Office was not a natural born citizen within the meaning intended by the Frames in using the phrase in Article II, but I do not recall cases about McCain. Do you have any citations for such cases?
I don't know. And No.
Further still, I don't see any legal authority that would establish that Senator Cruz would come within that definition that is set out in any actual SCOTUS decision. Why do you think that he would be found to meet the requirement? I do not know how you derive that there are "more legal scholars" that think that. Upon examination, the opinions of such scholars do not seem to have a sound basis.
Eyes. Glazing. Over. :-)
Look, all i want to know is how everyone can be sure that the situation described in this Illinois lawsuit will not and CANNOT happen. We're dealing with democrats who already tried to hijack the 2000 election and may have been successful if those FL FReepers hadn't started banging on the door, insisting the democrats count the hanging chads in the open instead of hiding behind a closed door.
And even worse, we're dealing with Rinse Pre-whatever, who already wouldn't say that Cruz was eligible. And 49 of Ted's Senator-colleagues who apparently don't like him enough to endorse him. And all the corrupt RINOs in the House and media who would love to have Yeb as their president. So, someone tell me a concrete reason why you KNOW this scenario cannot happen. Because the only solution I see is to make sure Trump beats him and this scene-from-hell doesn't have a chance to develop. From the article:
"I am terrified that if we don't get this cleared up right now, if Ted Cruz does become the nominee, the Democrats will cherry-pick which court or election board they will petition to have him declared to be ineligible in September or October," Joyce continued.Again, it's important you understand that I'm not approaching this from a standpoint of "Is he eligible or not?" What people don't seem to understand is...What WE think just doesn't matter."The result could be that the Democrats may chalk up a string of three or four or five victories [in their election board petitions] in a row, potentially forcing Cruz to resign the nomination (if for no other reason than that fund raising would quickly dry up)," Joyce explained.
"Then Mr. [Karl] Rove and company would hand-pick his replacement as the nominee," he concluded.
Joyce argued that in his nightmare scenario, should Cruz be forced to withdraw as the GOP presidential nominee, the party's vice presidential nominee would not automatically become the presidential nominee.
Under the circumstances of a nominee withdrawing, he said, GOP party bosses could make a replacement choice that Joyce would find objectionable, including the possibility of nominating Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Chris Christie or Rep. Paul Ryan, all of whom Joyce named as likely Cruz replacements in this scenario.
ALL that matters is the legal battle that will play out if Cruz were to win the primary. That's it. Because is there really anyone here who thinks the democrats would not file lawsuits?
And if y'all agree with me that they WILL, why am I the only one around here who is placing the responsibility for this in Ted Cruz's lap? HE is accountable for his campaign issues, not me, or you, or Donald Trump, or liberal lawyers. Just him. He's the only one who had the ability to solve his own birth status discrepancies.
If you feel like it, I’d love to have feedback from a cruz person on 71 and 72.
If you feel like it, I’d love to have feedback from a cruz person on 71 and 72. Thanks.
I don’t see how Senator Cruz can solve the issue since a request by him for a declaratory judgment would be dismissed, I believe. Our courts do not give advisory opinions on such matters. As for the Illinois lawsuit: the indication to me so far is that Lawrence Joyce has deliberately settled and taken residence in Illinois because of its procedures which seem to allow resident voters there to file “objections” to a candidate’s being placed on a ballot. Most of the “objections” seem to be addressed to invalidity of signatures collected to get on the ballot in particular counties and cities and precincts. Whether that right will granted to give Joyce standing to have a right by state law to object to a candidate’s meeting the requirements set out in Article II for presidential eligibility will be up to, initially, local election boards, with appeals therefrom to Clerks of county courts so far as I can tell. It will be interesting to see what happens.
"Second, I am terrified that if we don't get this cleared up right now, if Ted Cruz does become the nominee, the Democrats will cherry-pick which court or election board they will petition to have him declared to be ineligible in September or October," Joyce continued.
It's sad that he states only partisan political reasons for his challenge.
At the Constitutional Convention, John Jay, who later co-authored the Federalist Papers and became the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, suggested to George Washington that a strong check was needed against the possibility that anyone with divided loyalties could ever attain the office of Commander-in-Chief. And so, the natural born citizen requirement for the presidency was added to the Constitution, without debate. And this was in a convention in which virtually EVERYTHING was debated, ad finitum. This was simply not even debatable to the framers, because the wisdom of it was so obvious.
Those who advocate the further weakening of the original meaning of this absolute requirement - which is two citizen parents, with the child being born on our soil - are not only weakening the Constitution, they are potentially weakening our national security, in a way that could prove to be disastrous to the republic. The office of the presidency of the United States remains the most powerful position in the world, militarily. That much power in the hands of someone with attachments to a foreign nation is extremely dangerous, to put it mildly.
Has the Barack Hussein Obama mal-administration taught us nothing?
Tell me, why did the birthers not make this argument until AFTER Obama was elected? The "two citizen parents" argumet made no appearance on FR until December 8, 2008.
Yet, the whole world was aware that Obama's father was a Kenyan and he had only one citizen parent. Given there are probably several million lawyers, experienced jurists, political consultants and observers, not to mention self-appointed constitutional experts, why did NOBODY broach the "two-citizen-parent" requirement until AFTER Obama's election?
Could it be because everybody who actually knew the rules knew better...???
I saw lots of people discussing this from the first days Obama began running for the highest office in the land.
Fox News said last night that McConnell refused to take up a vote ensuring Cruz’ eligibility the way the Senate did for McCain and Romney. So it’s the establishment keeping him down.
The establishment and party bosses despise Cruz. There’s an old phrase, you’re either with the establishment or you’re against the establishment.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/california-lawsuit-questions-mccain-s-eligibility-for-presidency/10006
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.