Posted on 03/31/2016 12:18:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
WASHINGTON – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed Sen. Ted Cruz’s slot on the state presidential ballot Thursday, siding with a lower-court ruling that declared the senator is a natural-born citizen.
The court turned away an appeal from Pittsburgh resident Carmon Elliott, who had sued to boot Cruz from the state’s April 26 primary. Elliott had claimed that Cruz’s birth in Canada excluded him from natural-born citizenship — a constitutional requirement for the presidency.
Cruz, who has faced multiple lawsuits on his citizenship status, was born in Canada to an American mother in 1970. He and his lawyers have argued that his mother’s citizenship made him natural born, regardless of the location of his birth.
A Commonwealth Court judge first ruled against Elliott’s lawsuit March 10, declaring that a natural-born citizen “includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.”
Elliott then appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, which issued an order Thursday denying his appeal.
At least six other lawsuits against Cruz have been dismissed, though federal cases are pending in Texas and Alabama. Most of the cases that have been tossed so far have been dismissed on procedural grounds, excepting Elliott’s original lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
Trump has nothing to do with Cruz’s eligibility.
What’s phoney about anyone voting there that wants to?
If Cruz folks choose not to vote, what can I do about it.
If a guy is handing out $1000.00 on a sidewalk corner and I decide not to go and get $1000.00, does that make it phoney?
I suggest you look at any night’s totals and match them with the day’s vote. You’ll find every vote accounted for.
Your post was the fraud.
Well that settles it!
Except that the ruling is essentially just affirming another ruling that was based on legal arguments from sources which are known by experts in the field to be spurious and/or just plain wrong.
“Judge Dan Pellegrini relied on articles rather than law and precedent.”
If that is true, it would be a shame.
PER CURIAM DECIDED: March 31, 2016 AND NOW , this 31st day of March, 2016, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby AFFIRMED .Victor Williams’s pro se Notice to Intervene as Appellant is DENIED . Appellant’s Application for Oral Argument is DENIED
So once again we see that the matter is a political hot potato in which there will be no effort to decide the merits.
It will be interesting to see if Mr. Elliot tries to go to the SCOTUS and, if he does, what results.
Didn't Trump warn us about all the lawsuits Cruz would face about this issue?
I wonder who got the ball rolling in each state where a lawsuit was filed?
In 2014, the Pa SC deemed it unconstitutional (in PA) to open school board meetings with prayer .... violating the US Constitution's First Amendment right to not be prohibited the free exercise thereof
That's the whole point.
On its merits, Ted Cruz is not eligible to be the President of the United states.
However, there is no judge - especially at the state level - who is going to overturn the apple cart and rule ineligible a leading presidential candidate, well into the primaries, and who has been a sitting Senator. This decision is political more than anything else.
It really is irrelevant what SCOTUS says. No one believes them anyway. They will throw it back to the lower courts unless there are a majority of courts that rule him ineligible.
Can anyone tell us how many courts have ruled Cruz ineligible?
Quick, someone get Donald some smelling salts.
Thanks for that. I will use it if there is ever a case against Trump thrown out. Of Course if it involved Donald Trump all would be righteous wouldn't it (......sounds of harps being played in background with a choir singing, accompanied by a very bright light in the distance........)
“Trump has nothing to do with Cruz’s eligibility.”
He also had nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility but he didn’t shut up about that either.
I am voting for Trump or Cruz and since my primary is over, I wish the rest of you good luck.
Here is Pellegrini’s ruling
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2755257/PA-TedCruzruling.pdf
He relied on law and precedent only in regard to determining if the case is justiciable.
In regard to “natural born citizen” he relies on articles: “A ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Within the Meaning of the Constitution” by Breckinridge Long, “Who can be President of the United States, the Unresolved Enigma” by Charles Gordon, “Qualifications for President and the ‘Natural Born’ Citizenship Eligibility Requirement” by Jack Maskell, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’” by Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, “Why senator John McCain cannot Be President” by Gabriel Chin, and “Is Gov. George Romney Eligible To Be President” by Isidor Blum.
These articles are not law and precedent.
Bingo! (Although I think it’s arguable whether or not Cruz is eligible on the merits.)
I really wish my fellow Trumsters would just drop this issue. It’s is not going anywhere, is a distraction, and makes us look like nutjobs. IT IS NOT HELPING!
It’s also a non-issue. No way Cruz becomes the nominee. He can’t get to the required number of delegates by vote, and the nominee from a brokered convention will be some GOPe puke.
PS After that, a lot of us will simply never vote for a GOPe puke again!
Oh, so Cruz’s eligibility issue is of concern only to Trump voters?
I found this...
http://northamericanlawcenter.org/ted-cruz-is-in-the-u-s-senate-illegally/#.Vv09Kk9jln8
Just shows the ignorant state of our judiciary. Cruz’s birth records and his mother’s records are sealed. It is said that she renounced her American citizenship. How can any court declare Cruz eligible in direct violation of the Constitution? Because it is a political game set up by the Democrats and supported by the Republican establishment. Ignoring the constitution will have DIRE CONSEQUENCES.
Nah, others are concerned about it, too. I was just speaking about/to the Trumpsters...
I do NOT consider ignoring the Constitution a non-issue! How utterly despicable!
Maybe the blustering carnival barker needs to sue himself and become the 8th LOSER.
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.