Reply to Ted Cruz

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Ted Cruz"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=takoma]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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

You don't know the first thing about the doctrine of standing.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics