Reports: Chicago court to hear case to knock Cruz off White House ballot

[IDemo]

Source: USA Today

A judge in Cook County Circuit Court will hear testimony Friday in a lawsuit filed by an Illinois voter that alleges Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz should not be allowed to run for president, CNN and ABC are reporting.

Lawrence Joyce, an Illinois voter who has objected to Cruz's placement on the Illinois primary ballot next month, will have his case heard in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago. Joyce's previous objection, made to the state's Board of Elections, was dismissed on February 1.

Joyce challenges Cruz's right to be president in the wake of questions put forth by GOP rival Donald Trump about being born in Canada, according to CNN.

Cruz maintains he is a natural-born citizen since his mother is American-born.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/18/reports-chicago-court-hear-case-knock-cruz-off-white-house-ballot/80586608/

[mpcamb]

1. Then they'd be stuck with Trump.

[elleng]

3. or rubio

[mpcamb]

6. I think he's kind of a weak link.

In no way can anyone pretend he's presidential timber.

[elleng]

7. yes but

NONE of them are!!!

[Grins]

55. Yes; stuck with Trump, but..

...Cruz would be gone! There's something to say for that. I'd rather have Trump and vomit every day for years, than Cruz. Being an ambulatory ego trip I'm betting Cruz would not run again for Senate where he has no seniority and is truly hated.

As for Rubio, the petitioner should include him as well. Rubio does not meet the Constitutional requirements for president. In that regard he is worse off than Cruz who had at least one American parent.

[elleng]

56. Rubio is eligible, DOES meet the Constitutional requirements

as he was born in the U.S. (from what I can tell.) His parents' citizenship is irrelevant.

[Cassiopeia]

5. As scary as that is,

Trump would be better than Cruz.

A Cruz Theocracy is worse than Trumps racism. Cruz's Theocracy includes the racism, but goes so much further.

[mpcamb]

8. 'Trump would be better than Cruz. '

Who'd be more beatable?
( not sure what to hope for)

[Cassiopeia]

11. Who would be the least scary loss.

I'll take a Hillary over them, but I'll take a Trump over a Cruz if we lose.

Hopefully we'll have a Bernie that makes the whole discussion moot.

[mpcamb]

45. Amen

Bernie!

[2naSalit]

16. I suspect

that the RNC is waiting for the flame out for any of the top three so they can try to promote jeb! at the convention as the only hope the party has to avoid total implosion... that's why I think he's not ending his campaign.

Regardless of how Trump does in the primaries, plan B is that Rubio and Cruz flame out at each other and up against the donald. When the dust settles I think the RNC and their overlords intend to hold up jeb! as all that's left so run with it, they plan to try and steal the election to make sure anyway.

[HooptieWagon]

29. I read that Jeb is almost out of money.

[2naSalit]

30. Doesn't mean he has to drop out...

it will give him his vacation and keep him, hopefully out of trouble until it's time to come out again.

[mpcamb]

46. ' Jeb ... almost out of money.'

I don't think the Bush oil buddies would let that happen if Jeb winds up as candidate-by-default.

[elleng]

2. Good.

This may (or may not) succeed, for procedural reasons, but I hope to continue to see similar challenges to cruz.

[Cassiopeia]

12. Cruz is my biggest fear.

Kasich is my second.

Trump falls to third.

All the others I fear their cabinet choices far more than I fear them directly.

[elleng]

13. cruz is a HUGE fear,

a real demagogue.

Kasich doing some awful things in ohio (not as bad as wisconsin! Imagine THAT!

Trump, imo, is inCAPABLE. I can't imagine how an 'administration' under him would work.

[Cassiopeia]

17. I could easily see Trump

spending his 4 years being Trump and ignoring everyone. He would sign off on anything that would increase his wealth and try his best to ignore international matters.

Then I could see him stepping out after 4 years. There's no immediate money in presidentin' and presidentin' IS hard. I honestly think he would realize the mistake running was around the end of Feb 2017 if he were to win. He likes jetting off into the wild blue yonder to party for no reason too much to be tied down by the demands of security, let alone the responsibility.

[elleng]

19. I agree at some point he'll recognize 'running' was a MISTAKE.

FUN FUN FUN!

[Cassiopeia]

20. We'll see how it shakes out.

He might run third party to help out his bestie HRC if she squeaks out a primary win.

I don't think Trump has much love for a theocracy over a oligarchy myself.

[Jon Ace]

25. Which worries me about who his potential running mate would be...

...like Palin...

[2naSalit]

31. Nah, he can't stand her...

she's just another paid flame bait prop who has a very short shelf life on the trail, as in disposable.

[Cassiopeia]

35. No way.

You could clearly see he was embarrassed by her on their one joint event. He's running a silly show, but she's an erector set missing every screw in the box and he knows it.

I doubt we'll see her associated with his campaign on an official basis ever again. His ego is too big to allow Palin to have any part of his insane platform.

[llmart]

57. That didn't bother W very much......

he didn't do any "presidentin" either and was always on vacation, cutting brush, drunk, falling off of couches, etc. etc. etc.

[Cassiopeia]

58. Bush was happy sitting at the ranch

Trump likes to be in the limelight.

[seaotter]

4. Interesting. Seems the issue of standing is covered here.

[Yavin4]

9. What if the lower courts rule against him, and he takes it to the SCOTUS

and gets a 4-4 ruling there?

[Cassiopeia]

14. IL primary is March 15th

It's unlikely the SCOTUS could even decide to consider the case before that date.

Hell, I'll be surprised if the lower courts even rule before Mar 15th.

[elleng]

15. if lower court(s) rule AGAINST him

and get a 4-4: 'lower' court decision AGAINST him prevails, and cruz LOSES, as he SHOULD!

[mnhtnbb]

21. Can't you just feel the karma coming on this?

After all the obstructionism and posturing by Cruz and his Republican buddies NOT to vote on a justice to be named
by Obama....and he gets a 4-4 decision?

[elleng]

22. SUCH karma,

and even better would (have) been, the 'originalist' deciding: 'Sorry, buddy, you lose, the Founders WROTE it this way!!!'

I'll settle for the 'likely' karma, 4-4!!!

[JustAnotherGen]

52. I love your beautiful mind!

You gave me a happy today!

[elleng]

53. Glad to help, Gen!

[former9thward]

60. Despite your hopes it would be 8-0 for Cruz.

The law is settled and the SC already decided this issue in Rogers v. Bellei (1971).

[elleng]

61. The Supreme Court has NOT decided this issue.

'Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequent to that citizenship.

The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. In 1964, he received a letter informing him that his citizenship had been revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Bellei


The OP concerns:
Reports: Chicago court to hear case to knock Cruz off White House ballot [View all]

Source: USA Today

A judge in Cook County Circuit Court will hear testimony Friday in a lawsuit filed by an Illinois voter that alleges Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz should not be allowed to run for president, CNN and ABC are reporting.

This issue has NOT been adjudicated, and it is the opinion of scholars that cruz is NOT eligible to serve as President.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

[former9thward]

63. It IS settled.

See, I can shout too. In Rogers the SC said the definition of naturalization is up to Congress to decide. Congress has decided it and Cruz is eligble under the law. Don't like it -- get Congress to change the law.

[elleng]

64. It is NOT decided,

for purposes of determining eligibility to serve as President. Please read the article I attached.

The definition of naturalization is up to Congress for OTHER reasons, but NOT for determining who is eligible to serve as President. THAT definition of NATURAL BORN is set out in the Constitution, and cannot be changed by Congress. Presumably it could be changed by resorting to the procedures for amending the Constitution.

[former9thward]

65. Wrong again.

It IS settled. NATURAL BORN is NOT defined in my copy of the Constitution Article II, Section 1. (Maybe you have an edited version with YOUR definitions of words but that won't hold up in court). Article I, Section 8 give Congress the power to determine naturalization.

[elleng]

66. Are you an attorney?

'The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen .?.?. shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. .?.?. [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

[former9thward]

67. Take it up with Congress.

And Madison gave Congress the power to define it in the Constitution. I would like to see it go the SC and see the birthers heads explode.

[elleng]

68. This will have to be decided finally by the Supreme Court.

This is not a 'birther' issue, and it is folly to suggest it is. This is a foundational legal issue.

'Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power to naturalize an alien — that is, Congress may remove an alien’s legal disabilities, such as not being allowed to vote. But Article II of the Constitution expressly adopts the legal status of the natural-born citizen and requires that a president possess that status. However we feel about allowing naturalized immigrants to reach for the stars, the Constitution must be amended before one of them can attain the office of president. Congress simply does not have the power to convert someone born outside the United States into a natural-born citizen.'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

[former9thward]

69. Totally birther.

And it makes as much legal sense as did the crap against Obama. Embrace it. You own it.

[elleng]

70. I'm happy to acknowledge that, as cruz was CLEARLY not born in the United States,

and to the contrary Barack Obama WAS, the issue is whether such a person as cruz is eligible to serve as President.

[MADem]

27. Then the lower court ruling stands. nt

[elljay]

34. It is different than you may think

I am not a Constitutional lawyer, though I am an attorney and have studied Constitutional Law This issue doesn't break the way you may be expecting across liberal/conservative lines. As Laurence Tribe pointed out, an originalist, a believer in a "dead" Constitution (meaning basically that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the views of its authors) is more likely to find Cruz not a natural born citizen than a loose constructionist, a believer in a "living" Constitutionalist (meaning the Constitution can be reinterpreted as society evolves). In other words, Scalia would have been more likely to find Cruz ineligible than Ginsburg. I was actually looking forward to Scalia getting this case to see how contorted his decision would be. I don't think Kennedy is 100% in the dead Constitution school so I don't think there would be a 4-4 tie. I also don't think that Alito, Thomas, and Roberts will want to disqualify their party's candidate. The main value of such a suit, IMHO, would be to leave the question up in the air during the election in the hopes of dissuading Republicans from voting for a potentially ineligible candidate. This election is looking like one for the history books!

[Volaris]

43. Then the lower court ruling stands as it was decided, AND ALSO sets no legal precedent.

As soon as a 9th SC Justice arrives on the bench, the case can be brought again. At least, this is my understanding. If incorrect, I'm sure someone here will remedy my ignorance (in a good way...its why I come here=)).

[johnfunk]

10. GOP cannibalizing itself! This should be entertaining…

[COLGATE4]

18. I don't see where Mr. Joyce can possibly assert any

standing that would let his case proceed. This will be thrown out.

[elleng]

23. Prolly will be

Best chance for 'standing,' imo, = trump.

[COLGATE4]

24. Yep. I don't think Trump actually has the balls to do

it himself. He loves screaming 'suit, suit' but rarely follows through. He may get an idiot surrogate to do it.Maybe Carson?

[elleng]

26. Maybe.

He DOES need a good lawyer to take the case, they're available and he can afford it.

Carson? mebbe. Rubio? Not exactly a trump puppet.

[COLGATE4]

28. Rubio might just be stupid (or crazy) enough to do it

if he thought there was some real advantage in it for him - like VP?

[elleng]

33. Could be, I guess.

Imagine a trump/rubio ticket? ADMINISTRATION??? mg:

[2naSalit]

32. ...

[LonePirate]

36. Is it wrong of me to want Cruz to win in order to lengthen the Republican in-fighting?

Of course, if he loses, the chances grow that he will not be the Repub nominee. Either outcome is a win for those of us on the left.

[JohnnyRingo]

37. Actually, he may not be a "natural born citizen".

He's likely a naturalized citizen. His mother was an American, sure, but she was voting in Canada giving her dual citizenship at best and was probably a Canadian citizen.

I understand there are documents that could have been filed upon his birth that would have declared him American, but such status is unclear. I wonder if we can send him back, not that the Canadians have done anything to me.

[elleng]

38. He ISN'T a 'natural born citizen.'

He's ineligible to serve as POTUS, tho he is (likely) a U.S. citizen, 'naturalized' as you've suggested.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. Yes, "instantly naturalized" at birth via his mother's citizenship, but NOT "natural born". . nt

[Ilsa]

71. Unless she gave up her US citizenship

to vote in Canada.
It'll be interesting to see if she effectively renounced her US citizenship to become Canadian.

[rocktivity]

39. He was born to a mother who never renounced her U.S. citizenship

This is no better than what the people who sued Obama did.


rocktivity

[captainarizona]

40. cruz mother not an american citizen after registering to vote in canada

Also for senate constitution says citizen but president natural born citizen and constitutional amendment not a congressional law would be needed and any 1790 law was changed in1795 from natural born citizen to citizen. Cruz should run for prime minister ofcanada.

[Miles Archer]

44. TRUST ME...whether we end up with Hillary or Bernie, you DO NOT WANT Cruz on the ballot.

Rubio: A bright, shiny pull-toy. I do believe he will be forgiven for "MarcoBot," in fact, I feel he's already been forgiven.

Trump: Could run out his string of luck as a reality show mogul playing President, and yes, he could also win.

Bush: If he got the nomination, every square inch of George W. Bush's record will be back on display, and well as Jeb's own record.

But Cruz? He's crazy, delusional, pure walking evil, and while many Republicans loathe him, enough of them love him, too.

[greymattermom]

47. so what were the laws about voting and dual citizenship at the time?

To me it all depends on whether his mother was an American citizen. If you become a Canadian, which you need to do to vote, what did the US do about your American citizenship? Is it renounced automatically? Is there any record of it? What was the law then?

[Corey_Baker08]

48. So What Would Happen If The SCOTUS Took Up The Case?

[Myrina]

49. The issue is bubbling up in Indiana too ...

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/18/cruz-rubio-presidential-candidacies-face-citizenship-challenges-indiana/80560572/


I'm at my 'free articles' limit so I can't post any snippets.

[leftynyc]

50. Allow me

snip
Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are facing challenges alleging they don’t qualify for the Indiana primary ballot because they aren’t “natural born citizens.”

The Indiana Election Commission is scheduled to take up those challenges Friday, along with the question of whether U.S. Senate candidate Todd Young submitted enough signatures to qualify for the May 3 primary ballot.

Most legal scholars agree that Cruz and Rubio meet the U.S. Constitution’s eligibility requirement. Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father, while Rubio was born in Florida to Cuban immigrants.

But Richard Carter, an 85-year-old from Madison who usually votes in Republican primaries, argues in a one-page letter to the Indiana secretary of state that Cruz and Rubio don't meet the Constitution’s “natural born” requirement.



As far as I know and having watched these cases involving Pres Obama, they're likely to be thrown out due to neither of those filing having standing to sue (meaning they would be damaged somehow if they were on the ballot). I think only one of the other candidates could make this work.

[Justice]

51. GOP wants Cruz out, he is biggest fear. What if lower courts rule 4 Cruz; goes to SC to a 4-4 tie?

Lower court ruling stands - Cruz is in.

THAT would be biggest nightmare for GOP.

[AngryAmish]

54. Canadian. Anchor. Baby.

I just love kicking Cruz when he is down.

[24601]

59. I already know who wins this...the law firms!

[elleng]

62. That is surely true!

[rusty fender]

72. It's going nowhere

Although I love the infighting, Cruz is eligible to run for POT US

[IDemo]

73. A well known expert has settled the issue

Orly Taitz "Consistent" in Claiming Ted Cruz Can't Be President for Same Reason as Obama

Since we've poked a stick at "Queen of the Birfers" Orly Taitz over the years due to her quixotic quest to have Barack Obama declared ineligible to be president (because his birthplace was not where she wills it to be), it is only fair that we point out the Rancho Santa Margarita lawyer/dentist/real estate saleslady/Putin love child is consistent when it comes to Ted Cruz. That is, she vows to file her legal funny papers against the declared Republican presidential hopeful should he become the nominee on grounds he is not a natural born U.S. citizen.



http://www.ocweekly.com/news/orly-taitz-consistent-in-claiming-ted-cruz-cant-be-president-for-same-reason-as-obama-6459806