Ted Cruz

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:Concerning the citizenship issue: Cruz is clearly a citizen by birth, but not a native born citizen. The Constitutional term "natural born" citizen has never been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Until that happens, or someone like Cruz sets a precedent by slipping into the Presidency without a legal challenge, whether it means native born or citizen by birth, or even, as suggested last night by Cruz, whether it includes both parents being citizens, is not determined. I don't agree with Trump on many things, but getting a definite ruling on this seems like a good idea for Cruz and all of us.

Cruz won't slip into the Presidency. And no court would touch this with a 100 foot pole. Google "political question doctrine." It's up to the voters to decide whether someone born to a Cuban father in Canada is qualified to be CIC.

Wow, I think the opposite - that this is a question of law for a judge rather than a question of fact for the jury. We shall see.

Please explain how a litigant overcomes the barriers to obtaining jurisdiction, including standing, justiciability, and the political question doctrine. This is a silly distraction but some Americans might actually learn something about the Constitution other than the Second Amendment.

Heck, we have a whole political class that needed Heller to teach them about the Second Amendment. Good luck on "natural born".

Yep. The dissents are very instructive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:Concerning the citizenship issue: Cruz is clearly a citizen by birth, but not a native born citizen. The Constitutional term "natural born" citizen has never been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Until that happens, or someone like Cruz sets a precedent by slipping into the Presidency without a legal challenge, whether it means native born or citizen by birth, or even, as suggested last night by Cruz, whether it includes both parents being citizens, is not determined. I don't agree with Trump on many things, but getting a definite ruling on this seems like a good idea for Cruz and all of us.

Cruz won't slip into the Presidency. And no court would touch this with a 100 foot pole. Google "political question doctrine." It's up to the voters to decide whether someone born to a Cuban father in Canada is qualified to be CIC.

Wow, I think the opposite - that this is a question of law for a judge rather than a question of fact for the jury. We shall see.

Please explain how a litigant overcomes the barriers to obtaining jurisdiction, including standing, justiciability, and the political question doctrine. This is a silly distraction but some Americans might actually learn something about the Constitution other than the Second Amendment.

Every American is impacted by the actions of the President, thus to suggest that any citizen not be allowed standing to bring suit would be a farcical atrocity of justice.

You don't know the first thing about the doctrine of standing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:Concerning the citizenship issue: Cruz is clearly a citizen by birth, but not a native born citizen. The Constitutional term "natural born" citizen has never been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Until that happens, or someone like Cruz sets a precedent by slipping into the Presidency without a legal challenge, whether it means native born or citizen by birth, or even, as suggested last night by Cruz, whether it includes both parents being citizens, is not determined. I don't agree with Trump on many things, but getting a definite ruling on this seems like a good idea for Cruz and all of us.

Cruz won't slip into the Presidency. And no court would touch this with a 100 foot pole. Google "political question doctrine." It's up to the voters to decide whether someone born to a Cuban father in Canada is qualified to be CIC.

Wow, I think the opposite - that this is a question of law for a judge rather than a question of fact for the jury. We shall see.

Please explain how a litigant overcomes the barriers to obtaining jurisdiction, including standing, justiciability, and the political question doctrine. This is a silly distraction but some Americans might actually learn something about the Constitution other than the Second Amendment.

Every American is impacted by the actions of the President, thus to suggest that any citizen not be allowed standing to bring suit would be a farcical atrocity of justice.

You don't know the first thing about the doctrine of standing.

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:

1.) The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.

2.) The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.

3.) The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[1] Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney's fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

Every American citizen is impacted by the actions of the President and could be harmed by adverse actions.

[Anonymous]

Why has Cruz done as well as he's done, compared to say Huckabee or Jindal?

[Anonymous]

Republicans hate Ted Cruz: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/19/the-republican-establishment-really-really-doesnt-like-ted-cruz/

It is an amazing testament to how widely disliked Cruz is by the party establishment that [Iowa Governor] Branstad is willing to go on the record against him this close to the caucuses. ... What's not debatable is the Republican establishment's outright contempt for Cruz. ... [The fact] that Branstad was willing to publicly urge voters to choose anyone but Cruz provides a telling window into the mindset of the party establishment in regards the Texas senator. And that mindset is dislike, pure and simple.

[Anonymous]

I bet they do! How many would lose their jobs under a President Cruz. So would many of you

[Anonymous]

The Establishment's hatred of Cruz has nothing at all to do with ideology and everything to do with his personality.

The same cannot be said for Trump who does depart from GOP orthodoxy on many issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:Concerning the citizenship issue: Cruz is clearly a citizen by birth, but not a native born citizen. The Constitutional term "natural born" citizen has never been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Until that happens, or someone like Cruz sets a precedent by slipping into the Presidency without a legal challenge, whether it means native born or citizen by birth, or even, as suggested last night by Cruz, whether it includes both parents being citizens, is not determined. I don't agree with Trump on many things, but getting a definite ruling on this seems like a good idea for Cruz and all of us.

Cruz won't slip into the Presidency. And no court would touch this with a 100 foot pole. Google "political question doctrine." It's up to the voters to decide whether someone born to a Cuban father in Canada is qualified to be CIC.

Wow, I think the opposite - that this is a question of law for a judge rather than a question of fact for the jury. We shall see.

Please explain how a litigant overcomes the barriers to obtaining jurisdiction, including standing, justiciability, and the political question doctrine. This is a silly distraction but some Americans might actually learn something about the Constitution other than the Second Amendment.

Every American is impacted by the actions of the President, thus to suggest that any citizen not be allowed standing to bring suit would be a farcical atrocity of justice.

You don't know the first thing about the doctrine of standing.

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:

1.) The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.

2.) The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.

3.) The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[1] Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney's fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

Every American citizen is impacted by the actions of the President and could be harmed by adverse actions.

Wow, you can cut and paste from Wikipedia. How very impressive.

[Anonymous]

Palin endorsement of Trump is a major blow to Cruz's claim to the Radical right wing Tea Party voters. He may start to deflate rapidly now, like Ben Carson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Palin endorsement of Trump is a major blow to Cruz's claim to the Radical right wing Tea Party voters. He may start to deflate rapidly now, like Ben Carson.

+100 palin is big with evangelist and tea partiers. The governor of Iowa(big time establishment republican guy) just came out against Cruz, but did not endorse anyone. Cruz attacked him by calling him something like an establishment republican who lives on off special interest handout. The reporters quickly asked Cruz if he would support Farm subsidies and ethanol fuel programs. Cruz did not answer. Cruz is being attacked by both the tea partiers and the establishment republicans. This will hurt him.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Palin endorsement of Trump is a major blow to Cruz's claim to the Radical right wing Tea Party voters. He may start to deflate rapidly now, like Ben Carson.

+100 palin is big with evangelist and tea partiers. The governor of Iowa(big time establishment republican guy) just came out against Cruz, but did not endorse anyone. Cruz attacked him by calling him something like an establishment republican who lives on off special interest handout. The reporters quickly asked Cruz if he would support Farm subsidies and ethanol fuel programs. Cruz did not answer. Cruz is being attacked by both the tea partiers and the establishment republicans. This will hurt him.

Palin did not attack Cruz. She mentioned liking several candidates other than Trump and noted that she had supported some in previous races. Cruz was one of these, and he responded to her endorsement of Trump by saying he still has high regard for her and is grateful for the help she gave him in his Senate primary.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Palin endorsement of Trump is a major blow to Cruz's claim to the Radical right wing Tea Party voters. He may start to deflate rapidly now, like Ben Carson.

+100 palin is big with evangelist and tea partiers. The governor of Iowa(big time establishment republican guy) just came out against Cruz, but did not endorse anyone. Cruz attacked him by calling him something like an establishment republican who lives on off special interest handout. The reporters quickly asked Cruz if he would support Farm subsidies and ethanol fuel programs. Cruz did not answer. Cruz is being attacked by both the tea partiers and the establishment republicans. This will hurt him.

Palin did not attack Cruz. She mentioned liking several candidates other than Trump and noted that she had supported some in previous races. Cruz was one of these, and he responded to her endorsement of Trump by saying he still has high regard for her and is grateful for the help she gave him in his Senate primary.

Iowa's governor encouraged people not to vote for Cruz.

[Anonymous]

While Cruz has the better of the argument on "natural born citizen", it is an overstatement to claim the issue is settled, because as far as I know it hasn't even been litigated. I agree with posters upthread that any judicial challenge to a Cruz election would almost certainly be dismissed as a political question, and given the strength of the Cruz argument I cannot imagine a Supreme Court setting aside a presidential election on that ground as a practical matter. I mean think about how that could play out: Cruz wins, the Supreme Court says he is ineligible, and Cruz says fine, Court, try to make that stick. No way a federal court risks that on these facts. (Standing is a red herring, I think, not-being-ruled-by-an-ineligible-President is almost certainly sufficient to create standing.)

Having said that, there is sufficient uncertainty that Trump's attack that the Dems will challenge him is clever and is drawing blood. People don't want to deal with that, even if the risk is actually rather small, and for good reason. I don't understand the Trump-as-dummy sense here, his campaign has been tactically brilliant and moved him from joke to likely nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While Cruz has the better of the argument on "natural born citizen", it is an overstatement to claim the issue is settled, because as far as I know it hasn't even been litigated. I agree with posters upthread that any judicial challenge to a Cruz election would almost certainly be dismissed as a political question, and given the strength of the Cruz argument I cannot imagine a Supreme Court setting aside a presidential election on that ground as a practical matter. I mean think about how that could play out: Cruz wins, the Supreme Court says he is ineligible, and Cruz says fine, Court, try to make that stick. No way a federal court risks that on these facts. (Standing is a red herring, I think, not-being-ruled-by-an-ineligible-President is almost certainly sufficient to create standing.)

Having said that, there is sufficient uncertainty that Trump's attack that the Dems will challenge him is clever and is drawing blood. People don't want to deal with that, even if the risk is actually rather small, and for good reason. I don't understand the Trump-as-dummy sense here, his campaign has been tactically brilliant and moved him from joke to likely nominee.

Wasn't the Donald's mother born in Scotland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While Cruz has the better of the argument on "natural born citizen", it is an overstatement to claim the issue is settled, because as far as I know it hasn't even been litigated. I agree with posters upthread that any judicial challenge to a Cruz election would almost certainly be dismissed as a political question, and given the strength of the Cruz argument I cannot imagine a Supreme Court setting aside a presidential election on that ground as a practical matter. I mean think about how that could play out: Cruz wins, the Supreme Court says he is ineligible, and Cruz says fine, Court, try to make that stick. No way a federal court risks that on these facts. (Standing is a red herring, I think, not-being-ruled-by-an-ineligible-President is almost certainly sufficient to create standing.)

Having said that, there is sufficient uncertainty that Trump's attack that the Dems will challenge him is clever and is drawing blood. People don't want to deal with that, even if the risk is actually rather small, and for good reason. I don't understand the Trump-as-dummy sense here, his campaign has been tactically brilliant and moved him from joke to likely nominee.

He doesn't have the "better of the argument." He is a citizen, and nobody disputes that. What makes him different is that he was not born on the soil of the US or any of its territories or possessions. That means he is not a natural born citizen. The context of "natural born" was clear at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, that it was to be someone born on the soil of the country. Nobody disputes Trump, because he was born in the US, and his mother's citizenship is irrelevant, his father was an American citizen. The question of citizenship requirement also came up with John McCain - it was satisfied in his case because his parents were US citizens and he was born in the Panama Canal Zone during a time that it was a US territory. Same goes for Barry Goldwater, he was born in Arizona before statehood - still a US territory. The challenge has come up many times before, and it is a legitimate Constitutional question, the precedent has been that it has to be US soil, territories or possessions. Cruz's Canadian birth is a serious and legitimate issue.