General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWith a divided SCOTUS, Ted Cruz could be a NBC in some states while not in others, and it's legal.
Let's say The Donald brings a case against Cruz in multiple Circuits. The 5th declares Ted is a natural born citizen and the 6th declares he is not a natural born citizen.
These two cases come before the SCOTUS and a 4-4 ruling comes down in both cases.
That means that in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi he would be a natural born citizen while in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee he would NOT be a natural born citizen. For all other states, it would depend upon the circuit court rulings.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
mgmaggiemg
(869 posts)for bull dozing cruz....
elleng
(130,972 posts)we hope won't happen!
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Its not up to State Law
Am I missing some thing
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)These are federal courts and divided rulings at the SCOTUS ruling simply affirm the lower court ruling while setting no precedent, so it is completely possible for the law to differ strikingly, even in a completely contradictory manner, in two different federal circuits where completely different rulings are handed down on the same legal subject.
onenote
(42,714 posts)and which four do you think would conclude he is?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
onenote
(42,714 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)My head is beginning to reel.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)that would be where the obstruction of an Obama nominee would originate
unblock
(52,253 posts)this is only an open question if cruz appears to win the election.
however, the states' secretaries of states certify the winner based on the prevailing interpretation in their circuit. this may or may not be enough to cost cruz the election right there. it's an open question only if cruz still appears to be the winner.
if enough electors end up voting for cruz in the electoral college, the house counts the votes. in theory, the house could decide that cruz is ineligible and deem them invalid votes, but that's pretty hard to imagine, especially given that republicans are pretty much a lock on continued control of the house.
so it would perhaps be left to some random citizen mounting a legal challenge to the legitimacy of a cruz presidency after he's been sworn in. if the court remains 4-4, again, the status quo wouldn't be overturned, so cruz would stay. or, to add a sinister twist to the story, the court decides 5-4 to keep cruz, with the deciding vote coming from a recent cruz appointee to replace scalia....
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)So in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, Cruz's name cannot legally be placed on the ballot.
unblock
(52,253 posts)first question is can cruz's name legally be placed on the ballot.
second question is whether they would prevent or allow it pending appeal. they might very well say "we think he's ineligible but we'll allow it pending appeal"
third question is whether the supreme court can decide the case (or make clear they're not hearing the case) before the primary; or, if they decide after it, how does the supreme court change the election results.
as a practical matter, i think if *any* court determines he's ineligible, then his candidacy is toast. even if overturned, this would cost him too many votes.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)As a legal matter, Donald Trump does not have standing to bring such lawsuits and every one of them will be thrown out due to that lack of standing.
unblock
(52,253 posts)if so, that shouldn't be too hard to find....
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)This is demonstrated by the over 140 cases brought against Barack Obama, all of which were dismissed due to a lack of standing.
unblock
(52,253 posts)that doesn't seem like the right result.
or is it perhaps only enforceable by the house when it counts the electoral votes or the conceivably the chief justice when he refuses to swear him in??
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The voters in primaries get first crack, then the voters in the general election. Some of the electors can also determine the political question and the firewall is the Congress when they count the electoral votes. If a single member of the House and a single member of he Senate submit a written objection to counting electoral votes for a candidate due to their not being a natural born citizen, the committee adjorns to the separate houses. If 218 members of the House and 51 Senators vote that the person is not a natural born citizen, then they are not and the election gets throw to the House where 26 votes elects the president. Each state delegation in the house gets a single vote.
unblock
(52,253 posts)no matter what the circumstances of his birth or citizenship.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The Democrat and two other candidates who were on the ballot in at least one state would be the candidates the House would have to choose from.
unblock
(52,253 posts)therefore it would never get to the "thrown into the house" stage.
in any event, as was the case in 2000, i believe they were always going to make the republican president one way or another.
i've always maintained that in 2000, they would have found a way to make let the republican house decide it, e.g., by the republican-controlled state of florida simply refusing to certify a winner or by refusing to send electors to the electoral college.
in this case, the republican house would simply refuse to let any facts get in the way of seeing a republican in the white house.
former9thward
(32,023 posts)Not allowed. And in the matter of Cruz it would not be 4-4, it would be 8-0 that he is a natural citizen. It is settled law no matter how much people want to beat a dead horse.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Trump sues to keep Cruz off the ballot in every state. Each case gets brought up to the level of the Circuit court of appeals. Obviously, each case in each state within each circuit gets rolled into a single case for that circuit, but that's as far as it goes with a divided SCOTUS.
ON EDIT: As a matter of legal argument, there is nobody in the United States who has standing to bring a lawsuit over the natural born status of any candidate for the presidency or even against an elected president as demonstrated by over 140 such cases brought against Barack Obama, all of which were dismissed over a lack of standing.
former9thward
(32,023 posts)No candidate in the Democratic primary challenged Obama and neither McCain or Romney challenged him in the general election. But again, you can't do what your scenario proposes. All of those cases would be transferred and heard in one circuit. Those are the rules.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)We'd have to see if they actually have standing. I would argue they do not.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Aren't the primaries run by the state party, so they can nominate whoever they choose by whatever rules they want? If that person turns out to be noneligible, the party gets a lot of egg on their face when they try to put him on the general election ballot. But I don't see how The Donald has a case here.
Just as any controversy in the Iowa Democratic caucuses would never be adjudicated by a court since it is a private party dispute.
ETA: To summarize what I mean: the GOP nominating process doesn't necessarily need to have anything to do with eligibility for president.
OldHippieChick
(2,434 posts)It seems those of us schooled in same are unable to agree, so would make an excellent question for the bar. Would love to see the essay answers.
