alan grayson threatens lawsuit on citizenship grounds if ted cruz is the gop nominee

[TyroneSlothrop]

An 85-year-old Houston lawyer filed suit Thursday asking a federal court in Texas to rule on whether Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) is eligible to be President.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Alan Grayson was on Chris Hayes a few minutes ago - and he doubled down on his lawsuit threat against Cruz.

Leftists usually double down on stupid. How is this news?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's so cute when the slave adherents to George Soros' Democrat Party get their panties in a wad and go all birfer!

Democrats are going Constitution!

Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president

Democrats are going, "Stop him! He's the enemy!" and trying to cloak it in the Constitution, which they have never given shit one about in their lives.

Just think of it as a "living Constitution that changes with the times". You dipshits like that crap.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whether it's Grayson or not, there is no doubt that someone will be filing a lawsuit regarding Cruz's eligibility to be U.S. president.

Let them. Cruz has the written law and plenty of precedent on his side.

neither, sorry, that's why it's a political hot spud, and has been since obama appeared on the scene. there is no precedent.

Oh, really? You know, do you, that there have NEVER been any US citizens married to legal immigrants and giving birth abroad? NEVER?! The courts NEVER deal with such questions?!

I would love to see proof that Ted Cruz is the only US citizen ever born in such circumstances. See to it.

 

[Lakhota]

An 85-year-old Houston lawyer filed suit Thursday asking a federal court in Texas to rule on whether Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) is eligible to be President.

Thank you!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whether it's Grayson or not, there is no doubt that someone will be filing a lawsuit regarding Cruz's eligibility to be U.S. president.

Let them. Cruz has the written law and plenty of precedent on his side.

Except the written law never defines natural born citizen. Nor is the term even used in the any of the 52 volumes of the USC.

And of course, the only time 'natural born citizen' is definitively described by the USSC.......was born in the US to US citizen parents. With the USSC acknowledging that 'there have been doubts' that those born outside the US are natural born citizens.

I would argue that Cruz is natural born. But there's no law nor court ruling that settles the issue without question.

The written law specifies very clearly who is a citizen by birth, and who must be naturalized. If you think your brand-new, "we're so goddamned clever, look what we made up" concept of a third type of citizen will stand legally, then by all means. Put your money where your mouth is and take it to court.

Again, the courts and legal authorities deal with the question of US citizens born abroad all the time. This is not new or unique.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It amazes me that our courts are going to have to waste time and money ruling on something, not because it stands in any real question, but because Americans are so incredibly stupid these days that they have to have everything explained with illustrations.

 

[Rozman]

This from a guy who was on the Ed Schultz radio show almost every day back when Schultz
had something resembling a career.....

That's all I needed to have this response....
Knock yourself out Grayson.....someone need attention it seems...
A way to make yourself relevant...maybe.

 

[washamericom]

An 85-year-old Houston lawyer filed suit Thursday asking a federal court in Texas to rule on whether Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) is eligible to be President.

Thank you!

they won't allow discovery, if the past is any indication. standing has always been a thing.

no judge or media will touch it. it wasn't Bush senior was it ??

 

[Skylar]

The written law specifies very clearly who is a citizen by birth, and who must be naturalized. If you think your brand-new, "we're so goddamned clever, look what we made up" concept of a third type of citizen will stand legally, then by all means. Put your money where your mouth is and take it to court.

If 'citizen at birth' were the standard of the constitution, your claims might have some relevance. Alas, the standard is natural born citizenship. You already know that natural born citizenship is defined no where in the constitution, no where in the the written law, nor is even mentioned in the written law.

Try and pretend otherwise all you wish. None of it actually changes.

Again, the courts and legal authorities deal with the question of US citizens born abroad all the time. This is not new or unique.

Strawman. We're not talking about if someone is a citizen at birth. But if they are a natural born citizen. Which of course you already know.

The courts have yet to definitively answer the question of whether or not someone born abroad is a natural born citizen. The only time that the USSC actually addressed the issue, they found that 'there have been doubts' that those born abroad to US citizens were natural born citizens.

And you already know all of this. Which might explain why you're offering us a strawman. Ignore as you will. Its not the legal issues magically disappear because you want to play pretend.

IF you're using a 'living constitution' model, then the definition of natural born citizen is something that current law can influence. If you're using an 'originalist' model (ie, jurisrudence of original intent), then you have to go with the Founder's take on natural born citizenship. And as the 1790 Naturalization Act makes ludicrous clear, natural born status is something that had to be *extended* to those born abroad.

And even then, the status they were afforded was 'shall be considered as' a natural born citizen. With both Madison and British Common Law, the lens through which the terms of the constitution are most rationally gleaned to paraphrase the Supreme Court......indicate that allegiance follows place of birth.

Cruz strongly favors originalism. Pick your favorite.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The written law specifies very clearly who is a citizen by birth, and who must be naturalized. If you think your brand-new, "we're so goddamned clever, look what we made up" concept of a third type of citizen will stand legally, then by all means. Put your money where your mouth is and take it to court.

If 'citizen at birth' were the standard of the constitution, your claims might have some relevance. Alas, the standard is natural born citizenship. You already know that natural born citizenship is defined no where in the constitution, no where in the the written law, nor is even mentioned in the written law.

Try and pretend otherwise all you wish. None of it actually changes.

Again, the courts and legal authorities deal with the question of US citizens born abroad all the time. This is not new or unique.

Strawman. We're not talking about if someone is a citizen at birth. But if they are a natural born citizen. Which of course you already know.

The courts have yet to definitively answer the question of whether or not someone born abroad is a natural born citizen. The only time that the USSC actually addressed the issue, they found that 'there have been doubts' that those born abroad to US citizens were natural born citizens.

And you already know all of this. Which might explain why you're offering us a strawman. Ignore as you will. Its not the legal issues magically disappear because you want to play pretend.

IF you're using a 'living constitution' model, then the definition of natural born citizen is something that current law can influence. If you're using an 'originalist' model (ie, jurisrudence of original intent), then you have to go with the Founder's take on natural born citizenship. And as the 1790 Naturalization Act makes ludicrous clear, natural born status is something that had to be *extended* to those born abroad.

And even then, the status they were afforded was 'shall be considered as' a natural born citizen. With both Madison and British Common Law, the lens through which the terms of the constitution are most rationally gleaned to paraphrase the Supreme Court......indicate that allegiance follows place of birth.

Cruz strongly favors originalism. Pick your favorite.

Too bad I don't answer people who crunch multiple posts into one.

 

[HappyJoy]

The written law specifies very clearly who is a citizen by birth, and who must be naturalized. If you think your brand-new, "we're so goddamned clever, look what we made up" concept of a third type of citizen will stand legally, then by all means. Put your money where your mouth is and take it to court.

If 'citizen at birth' were the standard of the constitution, your claims might have some relevance. Alas, the standard is natural born citizenship. You already know that natural born citizenship is defined no where in the constitution, no where in the the written law, nor is even mentioned in the written law.

Try and pretend otherwise all you wish. None of it actually changes.

Again, the courts and legal authorities deal with the question of US citizens born abroad all the time. This is not new or unique.

Strawman. We're not talking about if someone is a citizen at birth. But if they are a natural born citizen. Which of course you already know.

The courts have yet to definitively answer the question of whether or not someone born abroad is a natural born citizen. The only time that the USSC actually addressed the issue, they found that 'there have been doubts' that those born abroad to US citizens were natural born citizens.

And you already know all of this. Which might explain why you're offering us a strawman. Ignore as you will. Its not the legal issues magically disappear because you want to play pretend.

IF you're using a 'living constitution' model, then the definition of natural born citizen is something that current law can influence. If you're using an 'originalist' model (ie, jurisrudence of original intent), then you have to go with the Founder's take on natural born citizenship. And as the 1790 Naturalization Act makes ludicrous clear, natural born status is something that had to be *extended* to those born abroad.

And even then, the status they were afforded was 'shall be considered as' a natural born citizen. With both Madison and British Common Law, the lens through which the terms of the constitution are most rationally gleaned to paraphrase the Supreme Court......indicate that allegiance follows place of birth.

Cruz strongly favors originalism. Pick your favorite.

Too bad I don't answer people who crunch multiple posts into one.

Two bad Skylar didn't 'crunch multiple posts into one' but merely broke down a single post of yours. Now that we got that out of the way, please, Governor, continue....

 

[Skylar]

The written law specifies very clearly who is a citizen by birth, and who must be naturalized. If you think your brand-new, "we're so goddamned clever, look what we made up" concept of a third type of citizen will stand legally, then by all means. Put your money where your mouth is and take it to court.

If 'citizen at birth' were the standard of the constitution, your claims might have some relevance. Alas, the standard is natural born citizenship. You already know that natural born citizenship is defined no where in the constitution, no where in the the written law, nor is even mentioned in the written law.

Try and pretend otherwise all you wish. None of it actually changes.

Again, the courts and legal authorities deal with the question of US citizens born abroad all the time. This is not new or unique.

Strawman. We're not talking about if someone is a citizen at birth. But if they are a natural born citizen. Which of course you already know.

The courts have yet to definitively answer the question of whether or not someone born abroad is a natural born citizen. The only time that the USSC actually addressed the issue, they found that 'there have been doubts' that those born abroad to US citizens were natural born citizens.

And you already know all of this. Which might explain why you're offering us a strawman. Ignore as you will. Its not the legal issues magically disappear because you want to play pretend.

IF you're using a 'living constitution' model, then the definition of natural born citizen is something that current law can influence. If you're using an 'originalist' model (ie, jurisrudence of original intent), then you have to go with the Founder's take on natural born citizenship. And as the 1790 Naturalization Act makes ludicrous clear, natural born status is something that had to be *extended* to those born abroad.

And even then, the status they were afforded was 'shall be considered as' a natural born citizen. With both Madison and British Common Law, the lens through which the terms of the constitution are most rationally gleaned to paraphrase the Supreme Court......indicate that allegiance follows place of birth.

Cruz strongly favors originalism. Pick your favorite.

Too bad I don't answer people who crunch multiple posts into one.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have had to run.

 

[Skylar]

The written law specifies very clearly who is a citizen by birth, and who must be naturalized. If you think your brand-new, "we're so goddamned clever, look what we made up" concept of a third type of citizen will stand legally, then by all means. Put your money where your mouth is and take it to court.

If 'citizen at birth' were the standard of the constitution, your claims might have some relevance. Alas, the standard is natural born citizenship. You already know that natural born citizenship is defined no where in the constitution, no where in the the written law, nor is even mentioned in the written law.

Try and pretend otherwise all you wish. None of it actually changes.

Again, the courts and legal authorities deal with the question of US citizens born abroad all the time. This is not new or unique.

Strawman. We're not talking about if someone is a citizen at birth. But if they are a natural born citizen. Which of course you already know.

The courts have yet to definitively answer the question of whether or not someone born abroad is a natural born citizen. The only time that the USSC actually addressed the issue, they found that 'there have been doubts' that those born abroad to US citizens were natural born citizens.

And you already know all of this. Which might explain why you're offering us a strawman. Ignore as you will. Its not the legal issues magically disappear because you want to play pretend.

IF you're using a 'living constitution' model, then the definition of natural born citizen is something that current law can influence. If you're using an 'originalist' model (ie, jurisrudence of original intent), then you have to go with the Founder's take on natural born citizenship. And as the 1790 Naturalization Act makes ludicrous clear, natural born status is something that had to be *extended* to those born abroad.

And even then, the status they were afforded was 'shall be considered as' a natural born citizen. With both Madison and British Common Law, the lens through which the terms of the constitution are most rationally gleaned to paraphrase the Supreme Court......indicate that allegiance follows place of birth.

Cruz strongly favors originalism. Pick your favorite.

Too bad I don't answer people who crunch multiple posts into one.

Two bad Skylar didn't 'crunch multiple posts into one' but merely broke down a single post of yours. Now that we got that out of the way, please, Governor, continue....

Laughing......any excuse to flee, apparently.

 

[washamericom]

It amazes me that our courts are going to have to waste time and money ruling on something, not because it stands in any real question, but because Americans are so incredibly stupid these days that they have to have everything explained with illustrations.

i like those schoolhouse rock political educational cartoons.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The written law specifies very clearly who is a citizen by birth, and who must be naturalized. If you think your brand-new, "we're so goddamned clever, look what we made up" concept of a third type of citizen will stand legally, then by all means. Put your money where your mouth is and take it to court.

If 'citizen at birth' were the standard of the constitution, your claims might have some relevance. Alas, the standard is natural born citizenship. You already know that natural born citizenship is defined no where in the constitution, no where in the the written law, nor is even mentioned in the written law.

Try and pretend otherwise all you wish. None of it actually changes.

Again, the courts and legal authorities deal with the question of US citizens born abroad all the time. This is not new or unique.

Strawman. We're not talking about if someone is a citizen at birth. But if they are a natural born citizen. Which of course you already know.

The courts have yet to definitively answer the question of whether or not someone born abroad is a natural born citizen. The only time that the USSC actually addressed the issue, they found that 'there have been doubts' that those born abroad to US citizens were natural born citizens.

And you already know all of this. Which might explain why you're offering us a strawman. Ignore as you will. Its not the legal issues magically disappear because you want to play pretend.

IF you're using a 'living constitution' model, then the definition of natural born citizen is something that current law can influence. If you're using an 'originalist' model (ie, jurisrudence of original intent), then you have to go with the Founder's take on natural born citizenship. And as the 1790 Naturalization Act makes ludicrous clear, natural born status is something that had to be *extended* to those born abroad.

And even then, the status they were afforded was 'shall be considered as' a natural born citizen. With both Madison and British Common Law, the lens through which the terms of the constitution are most rationally gleaned to paraphrase the Supreme Court......indicate that allegiance follows place of birth.

Cruz strongly favors originalism. Pick your favorite.

Too bad I don't answer people who crunch multiple posts into one.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have had to run.

Whatever gives you an illusion of victory. When you're less lazy, give me a call.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The written law specifies very clearly who is a citizen by birth, and who must be naturalized. If you think your brand-new, "we're so goddamned clever, look what we made up" concept of a third type of citizen will stand legally, then by all means. Put your money where your mouth is and take it to court.

If 'citizen at birth' were the standard of the constitution, your claims might have some relevance. Alas, the standard is natural born citizenship. You already know that natural born citizenship is defined no where in the constitution, no where in the the written law, nor is even mentioned in the written law.

Try and pretend otherwise all you wish. None of it actually changes.

Again, the courts and legal authorities deal with the question of US citizens born abroad all the time. This is not new or unique.

Strawman. We're not talking about if someone is a citizen at birth. But if they are a natural born citizen. Which of course you already know.

The courts have yet to definitively answer the question of whether or not someone born abroad is a natural born citizen. The only time that the USSC actually addressed the issue, they found that 'there have been doubts' that those born abroad to US citizens were natural born citizens.

And you already know all of this. Which might explain why you're offering us a strawman. Ignore as you will. Its not the legal issues magically disappear because you want to play pretend.

IF you're using a 'living constitution' model, then the definition of natural born citizen is something that current law can influence. If you're using an 'originalist' model (ie, jurisrudence of original intent), then you have to go with the Founder's take on natural born citizenship. And as the 1790 Naturalization Act makes ludicrous clear, natural born status is something that had to be *extended* to those born abroad.

And even then, the status they were afforded was 'shall be considered as' a natural born citizen. With both Madison and British Common Law, the lens through which the terms of the constitution are most rationally gleaned to paraphrase the Supreme Court......indicate that allegiance follows place of birth.

Cruz strongly favors originalism. Pick your favorite.

Too bad I don't answer people who crunch multiple posts into one.

Two bad Skylar didn't 'crunch multiple posts into one' but merely broke down a single post of yours. Now that we got that out of the way, please, Governor, continue....

Laughing......any excuse to flee, apparently.

I'm also willing to wait until you and your girlfriend are finished pumping each other.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It amazes me that our courts are going to have to waste time and money ruling on something, not because it stands in any real question, but because Americans are so incredibly stupid these days that they have to have everything explained with illustrations.

i like those schoolhouse rock political educational cartoons.

I'm glad you admit that you're viewing government like a child and need to be instructed as one.

I still resent having the Supreme Court's time wasted doing the childish instruction, though.

 

[washamericom]

It amazes me that our courts are going to have to waste time and money ruling on something, not because it stands in any real question, but because Americans are so incredibly stupid these days that they have to have everything explained with illustrations.

i like those schoolhouse rock political educational cartoons.

I'm glad you admit that you're viewing government like a child and need to be instructed as one.

I still resent having the Supreme Court's time wasted doing the childish instruction, though.

the government isn't too young, it's too big.

our government is the global warming of institutions, too many conflicting ideals, blaming the wrong elements, in business for themselves.

 

[Skylar]

The written law specifies very clearly who is a citizen by birth, and who must be naturalized. If you think your brand-new, "we're so goddamned clever, look what we made up" concept of a third type of citizen will stand legally, then by all means. Put your money where your mouth is and take it to court.

If 'citizen at birth' were the standard of the constitution, your claims might have some relevance. Alas, the standard is natural born citizenship. You already know that natural born citizenship is defined no where in the constitution, no where in the the written law, nor is even mentioned in the written law.

Try and pretend otherwise all you wish. None of it actually changes.

Again, the courts and legal authorities deal with the question of US citizens born abroad all the time. This is not new or unique.

Strawman. We're not talking about if someone is a citizen at birth. But if they are a natural born citizen. Which of course you already know.

The courts have yet to definitively answer the question of whether or not someone born abroad is a natural born citizen. The only time that the USSC actually addressed the issue, they found that 'there have been doubts' that those born abroad to US citizens were natural born citizens.

And you already know all of this. Which might explain why you're offering us a strawman. Ignore as you will. Its not the legal issues magically disappear because you want to play pretend.

IF you're using a 'living constitution' model, then the definition of natural born citizen is something that current law can influence. If you're using an 'originalist' model (ie, jurisrudence of original intent), then you have to go with the Founder's take on natural born citizenship. And as the 1790 Naturalization Act makes ludicrous clear, natural born status is something that had to be *extended* to those born abroad.

And even then, the status they were afforded was 'shall be considered as' a natural born citizen. With both Madison and British Common Law, the lens through which the terms of the constitution are most rationally gleaned to paraphrase the Supreme Court......indicate that allegiance follows place of birth.

Cruz strongly favors originalism. Pick your favorite.

Too bad I don't answer people who crunch multiple posts into one.

If your argument had merit, you wouldn't have had to run.

Whatever gives you an illusion of victory. When you're less lazy, give me a call.

We were having a factual discussion of legal terms, the US law, and standards of constitutional interpretation. I refuted your argument and presented one you couldn't refute.

You ran. And now you refuse to discuss the topic.

You can 'call' it anything you like. We both know what happened. And anyone reading this thread knows what happened. When and if you ever muster the courage to return to the discussion, feel free.