Discussion for article #244714
Cruz disqualifies entire Republican field!
2 Likes
Wow, we all know Cruz has poor judgment, but I thought he was supposed to have a high I.Q. This is the best legal argument he can give.
5 Likes
This is an old trick that some unethical debaters use. You extrapolate an extreme argument that your opponent could possibly make and refute it. Mr. Cruz is probably eligible to be president, but he is simply lying when he says or implies that it is settled law.
5 Likes
This is all utter, fucking insanity.
I salute those who watched the latest installment of NaziCon so the rest of us wouldnât have to.
3 Likes
Yes, but what else is he going to say? Its the necessary statement to make, not only for political reasons, but if somehow he did end up being challenged in court, its the position he wants to have always had.
The thing is, the more I think about it, the less convinced I am that this would actually ever be heard by the SCOTUS. The issue of standing and the fact that states get to choose who gets on their own ballots sort of makes it difficult to see who the plaintiff and defendants would be.
I think it would actually have to be âreverseâ situationâŚwhere a state refuses to allow Cruz on the ballot, and he has to sue the state, and then pushes it into federal court.
3 Likes
Its a straight up constitutional issue. If these idiots push itâŚand the factions within willâŚit belongs nowhere else but SCOTUS ultimately. It is interpretation of the Câs explicit language and intent and subject to the Supremacy Clause without doubt. Its bizarre how its happening and ironic and all that but i think it is poised to go all the way. HeckâŚtrump would pay for people to file the lawsuitsâŚbut probably doesnt even need to.
You raise a standing issue in the last paragraph, but i dont think it is dependant upon Cruz proving he is damaged and had standing. Any citizen had arguable standing if the issue is whether POTUS elect was eligible in the first place.
A smug fascist turd debating a big mouth fascist turd. According to Cruzâs own avowed âoriginalistâ view of the Constitution, his eligibility to run for president is questionable. Legal experts, including his former Harvard law professor, not only say it is not âsettled lawâ as Cruz claims, but that under an âoriginalistâsâ interpretation, the Constitution would prohibit him from being president because he was not born on American soil - and Congress would have no constitutional power to change that requirement. Love to see somebody challenge the legality of his candidacy so Scalia has to rule against him - or look like a hypocrite along with Cruz.
1 Like
If this gets to the current Supreme Court, there will be another 5-4 decision in Cruzâs favor. And we know which 5 of those bought and paid for rubber stamps will vote for him.
Itâs time for Term Limits for Federal Judges.
Itâs very simple: Natural born = born on US land or US territory (NO EXCEPTIONS)
Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and Canadian-American mom who was registered and voting in Canadian elections at that time. Canada is NOT US land.
Teddy boy Cruz promotes himself as being a âstrict constitutionalistâ so especially under his own long held views, he is ineligible.
Try this:
Cruz is born in IRAN to a Cuban father and an American mother. Do we really want the Taliban to be qualified to run for the White House? If we allow Cruz to run, it sets a very-very dangerous precedent!
Cruz was born in Canada. End of story - he is not qualified to run for the white house!
With his duel citizenship, he should also NOT be qualified for a black badge (Top Secret Clearance) or allowed into Senate meetings where top secret matters are discussed.
Cruz would NOT pass an FBI background check to work for defense contractors - he therefore should not be qualified to run for President OR to be Vice President!
As a kid, I couldnât wait for the Sunday newspaper so I could enjoy the comics section (aka the funnies section). As an adult, I have the same excitement about the Republican debates.
Thereâs is symmetry in the universe.
1 Like
Damn, this just gets better every day. Trump was on morning bro and was highly offended by cruzâs attack on his mother.
I agree that its a straight up interpretation question that only the SCOTUS can give a definitive answer. I just am having a hard time seeing it get to them.
For example, with the standing questionâŚwhen does any American have standing? Now, when he is just a candidate? Or after he receives the nomination? Or after the election, assuming he wins, when Congress does the EC routine? Or right before he is sworn in?
Take the example of right after he receives the nomination. Such a lawsuit would most probably come from the DemocratsâŚand I have a hard time (Bush v. Gore being put aside) seeing SCOTUS weighing in on what would be a political as well as a Constitutional matter. If they rule that he is ineligibleâŚthe GOP has no candidate. It would be throwing the election to DemsâŚand this SCOTUS is not going to do that.
If you do it after an election but before the EC talliesâŚwho is going to be the target of the suit? And again, it becomes as much a political as a constitutional one thenâŚa ruling against Cruz would be basically saying the entire election is invalid. THEN what? (Not to mention that at that point, Cruz has the backing of 50 states who thought he was eligible enough to get on their ballots). This seems to be sort of the scenario you are implyingâŚand I just donât see this Court plunging the country into that sort of chaos.
Its hard to define standing now, because what is the actual harm done to any specific individual? He isnât the nominee and who gets on the ballots is not only a state issueâŚits a state AND party issue.
Additionally, numerous suits were attempted to stop Obama from running, and every one of them was dismissed because of lack of standing. We can say it was because of lack of causeâŚbut doesnât a court have to actually hear the case before determining there is no cause, that Obama was indeed born in the US? Yet none were. So the precedent to deny this sort of thing a day in the courts seems to already be in place.
Trump, and this grates my every nerve to say this, is probably correctâŚthe right thing to happen is for Cruz to seek a judgement now. But there is absolutely no upside for Cruz in doing that, so it wonât happen. And given that it wonât happen, combined with the various scenarios aboveâŚthe only path I see to getting this litigated would be Cruz suing a state for refusing to put him on the ballot specifically because they say he is unqualified by not being a ânatural bornâ citizen. And I think the chances of that happening are very small.
Referencing Bush v Gore, it is easier to see a Supreme Court taking the Cruz case (four justices signing on for certiorari) if he were a Democrat with the politics of Bernie Sanders. Isnât a 5-4 decision either way a plausible outcome with four justices being justices and four justices being hacks and Chief Justice Roberts (who is too smart to be a hack)(a la ACA and maybe even finding a way to wound voting rights in the process) trying to decide whether his corporatist loyalties outweigh the historical judicial opprobrium that would be afforded âhisâ court?