CDZ The Cruz Question

[Elvis Obama]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

Odds are it won't be confirmed or validated unless and until Mr. Cruz actually wins the Presidential election for that is the only point at which his eligibility to be President would actually matter. Though I'm not an attorney, it's my understanding that courts don't generally rule on the legality of events that have not transpired because until an event occurs, nobody is in the position of having been wronged. Though laws may be penned with an eye toward proactivity and proscription, interpreting the nature and extent of a law's application is nearly 100% reactive.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

Odds are it won't be confirmed or validated unless and until Mr. Cruz actually wins the Presidential election for that is the only point at which his eligibility to be President would actually matter. Though I'm not an attorney, it's my understanding that courts don't generally rule on the legality of events that have not transpired because until an event occurs, nobody is in the position of having been wronged. Though laws may be penned with an eye toward proactivity and proscription, interpreting the nature and extent of a law's application is nearly 100% reactive.

That's a little bit late, isn't it? If we elect him president, then decide he's not eligible, what then? The VP becomes president?

Whose responsibility is it to determine that the candidates on the ballot qualify for the office they are seeking? How is it possible that the answer appears to be, nobody is responsible.

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

Odds are it won't be confirmed or validated unless and until Mr. Cruz actually wins the Presidential election for that is the only point at which his eligibility to be President would actually matter. Though I'm not an attorney, it's my understanding that courts don't generally rule on the legality of events that have not transpired because until an event occurs, nobody is in the position of having been wronged. Though laws may be penned with an eye toward proactivity and proscription, interpreting the nature and extent of a law's application is nearly 100% reactive.

That's a little bit late, isn't it? If we elect him president, then decide he's not eligible, what then? The VP becomes president?

Whose responsibility is it to determine that the candidates on the ballot qualify for the office they are seeking? How is it possible that the answer appears to be, nobody is responsible.

Red:
Well, no. That's the nature of current legal theory and practice. If you want to introduce a new branch (?) or theory of law, by all means, do so, but under the current one, someone has to have be able to show having been "wronged" in order to bring suit or criminal charges.

As goes Mr. Cruz's potential ineligibility to serve as President, it seems that any of the other Republican candidates might be able to bring suit now that Mr. Trump has won some delegate votes. Maybe one of them will challenge him in court. It seems that Mr. Trump is the one who should/would do so, and if he feels he has a legit case for doing so, he should file suit.


Blue:
I don't know how that would or should play out. Quite simply there's no precedent for exactly the situation under discussion. On one hand, Mr. Cruz's VP shouldn't be the President either seeing as people have not for a long time voted directly for Vice President. Upon the 12th Amendment's ratification, we vote for President and get whomever accompanies him/her on the ticket as Vice President. If it's determined that the President wasn't eligible to hold the office, it would seem to me then the VP also wasn't eligible to run with him/her. On the other hand, perhaps the person on the ticket as Vice President could ascend to the Presidency.

Perhaps the separate election of President and Vice President as originally provided for in the Constitution was meant, in part, to deal with exactly this problem? Whether it was or not, there's little doubt that the 12th Amendment was devised and implemented for political purposes.

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote.


Green:
State and District boards/departments of elections presumably have the responsibility of which you ask, and presumably they validate the eligibility of individuals whose names are submitted for inclusion in the respective states' primary and general elections. Whether they actually do so or don't, I cannot say. Then again, it may be that the Federal Elections Commission plays a role, or doesn't, with regard to the responsibility to validate and actually doing do, or it may share/delegate some of either to the states. Again, I'm not sure.

In light of that presumed responsibility, and cycling back to the question of raising a legal challenge to one's, namely Mr. Cruz's in the current situation, eligibility to serve as President, it's unclear to me whether a person bringing the legal challenge would have to name the candidate or the boards of elections as the defendants. Perhaps such a plaintiff would have to bring multiple suits -- some against the election boards for dereliction of duty and one against the candidate for "God only knows what?" I don't know. What about jurisdiction? If it be that the defendants are state boards of elections, one may have to file suit in state court. If one is just suing Mr. Cruz, federal court may have jurisdiction, but then again, it may be that one must file in all 50 states.

Suffice to say, I think there are quite a few uncertainties in the matter and those uncertainties are likely why Mr. Trump has been all talk and no action on the "birther" issue. I suspect he's trying to create doubt and uncertainty as a basis for folks choosing him over Mr. Cruz.

Disclosure:
I don't want to see either Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz become President, so the legal fairness is all that matters to me as far as the "birther" issue goes. It's largely irrelevant to me which of them "wins" or "loses" on the matter. I just find the issue intellectually intriguing.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

Odds are it won't be confirmed or validated unless and until Mr. Cruz actually wins the Presidential election for that is the only point at which his eligibility to be President would actually matter. Though I'm not an attorney, it's my understanding that courts don't generally rule on the legality of events that have not transpired because until an event occurs, nobody is in the position of having been wronged. Though laws may be penned with an eye toward proactivity and proscription, interpreting the nature and extent of a law's application is nearly 100% reactive.

That's a little bit late, isn't it? If we elect him president, then decide he's not eligible, what then? The VP becomes president?

Whose responsibility is it to determine that the candidates on the ballot qualify for the office they are seeking? How is it possible that the answer appears to be, nobody is responsible.

Red:
Well, no. That's the nature of current legal theory and practice. If you want to introduce a new branch (?) or theory of law, by all means, do so, but under the current one, someone has to have be able to show having been "wronged" in order to bring suit or criminal charges.

As goes Mr. Cruz's potential ineligibility to serve as President, it seems that any of the other Republican candidates might be able to bring suit now that Mr. Trump has won some delegate votes. Maybe one of them will challenge him in court. It seems that Mr. Trump is the one who should/would do so, and if he feels he has a legit case for doing so, he should file suit.


Blue:
I don't know how that would or should play out. Quite simply there's no precedent for exactly the situation under discussion. On one hand, Mr. Cruz's VP shouldn't be the President either seeing as people have not for a long time voted directly for Vice President. Upon the 12th Amendment's ratification, we vote for President and get whomever accompanies him/her on the ticket as Vice President. If it's determined that the President wasn't eligible to hold the office, it would seem to me then the VP also wasn't eligible to run with him/her. On the other hand, perhaps the person on the ticket as Vice President could ascend to the Presidency.

Perhaps the separate election of President and Vice President as originally provided for in the Constitution was meant, in part, to deal with exactly this problem? Whether it was or not, there's little doubt that the 12th Amendment was devised and implemented for political purposes.

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote.


Green:
State and District boards/departments of elections presumably have the responsibility of which you ask, and presumably they validate the eligibility of individuals whose names are submitted for inclusion in the respective states' primary and general elections. Whether they actually do so or don't, I cannot say. Then again, it may be that the Federal Elections Commission plays a role, or doesn't, with regard to the responsibility to validate and actually doing do, or it may share/delegate some of either to the states. Again, I'm not sure.

In light of that presumed responsibility, and cycling back to the question of raising a legal challenge to one's, namely Mr. Cruz's in the current situation, eligibility to serve as President, it's unclear to me whether a person bringing the legal challenge would have to name the candidate or the boards of elections as the defendants. Perhaps such a plaintiff would have to bring multiple suits -- some against the election boards for dereliction of duty and one against the candidate for "God only knows what?" I don't know. What about jurisdiction? If it be that the defendants are state boards of elections, one may have to file suit in state court. If one is just suing Mr. Cruz, federal court may have jurisdiction, but then again, it may be that one must file in all 50 states.

Suffice to say, I think there are quite a few uncertainties in the matter and those uncertainties are likely why Mr. Trump has been all talk and no action on the "birther" issue. I suspect he's trying to create doubt and uncertainty as a basis for folks choosing him over Mr. Cruz.

Disclosure:
I don't want to see either Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz become President, so the legal fairness is all that matters to me as far as the "birther" issue goes. It's largely irrelevant to me which of them "wins" or "loses" on the matter. I just find the issue intellectually intriguing.

It seems to me that the rules should not apply to taking the oath of office, but to being placed on the ballot. Waiting as long as you suggest, until a "crime" has been committed, is a violation of the trust of the voters.

I have no idea how this is supposed to work. I have never given any thought to who determines eligibility, because I am not aware of any analogous situations. McCain was clearly eligible, though questions were raised. The Obama birther nonsense was... nonsense. Laurence Tribe, former law professor to Obama, Chief Justice Roberts and to the Cruzer himself, has stated that this is not a settled matter. If Cruz fades, this becomes a non-issue, but the further along we go, and the more people who vote for him, the more we risk a true constitutional crisis over this matter. If we elect him president, then determine his eligibility, we are courting disaster.

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

Odds are it won't be confirmed or validated unless and until Mr. Cruz actually wins the Presidential election for that is the only point at which his eligibility to be President would actually matter. Though I'm not an attorney, it's my understanding that courts don't generally rule on the legality of events that have not transpired because until an event occurs, nobody is in the position of having been wronged. Though laws may be penned with an eye toward proactivity and proscription, interpreting the nature and extent of a law's application is nearly 100% reactive.

That's a little bit late, isn't it? If we elect him president, then decide he's not eligible, what then? The VP becomes president?

Whose responsibility is it to determine that the candidates on the ballot qualify for the office they are seeking? How is it possible that the answer appears to be, nobody is responsible.

Red:
Well, no. That's the nature of current legal theory and practice. If you want to introduce a new branch (?) or theory of law, by all means, do so, but under the current one, someone has to have be able to show having been "wronged" in order to bring suit or criminal charges.

As goes Mr. Cruz's potential ineligibility to serve as President, it seems that any of the other Republican candidates might be able to bring suit now that Mr. Trump has won some delegate votes. Maybe one of them will challenge him in court. It seems that Mr. Trump is the one who should/would do so, and if he feels he has a legit case for doing so, he should file suit.


Blue:
I don't know how that would or should play out. Quite simply there's no precedent for exactly the situation under discussion. On one hand, Mr. Cruz's VP shouldn't be the President either seeing as people have not for a long time voted directly for Vice President. Upon the 12th Amendment's ratification, we vote for President and get whomever accompanies him/her on the ticket as Vice President. If it's determined that the President wasn't eligible to hold the office, it would seem to me then the VP also wasn't eligible to run with him/her. On the other hand, perhaps the person on the ticket as Vice President could ascend to the Presidency.

Perhaps the separate election of President and Vice President as originally provided for in the Constitution was meant, in part, to deal with exactly this problem? Whether it was or not, there's little doubt that the 12th Amendment was devised and implemented for political purposes.

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote.


Green:
State and District boards/departments of elections presumably have the responsibility of which you ask, and presumably they validate the eligibility of individuals whose names are submitted for inclusion in the respective states' primary and general elections. Whether they actually do so or don't, I cannot say. Then again, it may be that the Federal Elections Commission plays a role, or doesn't, with regard to the responsibility to validate and actually doing do, or it may share/delegate some of either to the states. Again, I'm not sure.

In light of that presumed responsibility, and cycling back to the question of raising a legal challenge to one's, namely Mr. Cruz's in the current situation, eligibility to serve as President, it's unclear to me whether a person bringing the legal challenge would have to name the candidate or the boards of elections as the defendants. Perhaps such a plaintiff would have to bring multiple suits -- some against the election boards for dereliction of duty and one against the candidate for "God only knows what?" I don't know. What about jurisdiction? If it be that the defendants are state boards of elections, one may have to file suit in state court. If one is just suing Mr. Cruz, federal court may have jurisdiction, but then again, it may be that one must file in all 50 states.

Suffice to say, I think there are quite a few uncertainties in the matter and those uncertainties are likely why Mr. Trump has been all talk and no action on the "birther" issue. I suspect he's trying to create doubt and uncertainty as a basis for folks choosing him over Mr. Cruz.

Disclosure:
I don't want to see either Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz become President, so the legal fairness is all that matters to me as far as the "birther" issue goes. It's largely irrelevant to me which of them "wins" or "loses" on the matter. I just find the issue intellectually intriguing.

It seems to me that the rules should not apply to taking the oath of office, but to being placed on the ballot. Waiting as long as you suggest, until a "crime" has been committed, is a violation of the trust of the voters.

I have no idea how this is supposed to work. I have never given any thought to who determines eligibility, because I am not aware of any analogous situations. McCain was clearly eligible, though questions were raised. The Obama birther nonsense was... nonsense. Laurence Tribe, former law professor to Obama, Chief Justice Roberts and to the Cruzer himself, has stated that this is not a settled matter. If Cruz fades, this becomes a non-issue, but the further along we go, and the more people who vote for him, the more we risk a true constitutional crisis over this matter. If we elect him president, then determine his eligibility, we are courting disaster.

There are several analogous situations in Presidential election history.

I don't think it'll be a Constitutional crisis so much as an election crisis.

Red:
I'm not suggesting that we do wait that long. I'm saying that legal theory, AFAIK, requires something happen before a case/suit be brought. Mr. Cruz has already acquired delegates, so if there's a case to made, and it be so that he isn't eligible to be President, the "wrong" has already occurred: Mr. Cruz has obtained delegates that, if he's not eligible, rightfully belong to someone who is eligible.

It seems to me that if one is of high integrity in espousing one's belief that Mr. Cruz isn't lawfully eligible to be President, the time to have brought the suit would have been right after the Iowa caucus for that was the earliest instance at which the alleged wrong was done. Waiting longer seems like using the law opportunistically rather than "in good faith." Right or wrong, I don't cotton well to folks who take stances and bring suits (or any sort) out of opportunity rather than strong ethical and legal conviction that a wrong need be righted; I just don't believe in "gaming" things, our legal system, that way.

What's Mr. Trump going to do? Wait until it's clear that he could win the Republican nomination were Mr. Cruz's delegates his or some small share of them were his as might happen if a court divided them among the other candidates? He might do that, but that is just downright "shady" IMO.

 

[oldsoul]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

This has already been covered, dozens of times. McCain was born in Panama (eligible), Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona, before it was a state (eligible). Need I go on? Cruz was born in Toronto, his mother was a US citizen at that ime (was born here I believe), case closed, Cruz is a natural born citizen by US statue.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

This has already been covered, dozens of times. McCain was born in Panama (eligible), Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona, before it was a state (eligible). Need I go on? Cruz was born in Toronto, his mother was a US citizen at that ime (was born here I believe), case closed, Cruz is a natural born citizen by US statue.

Well, with all due respect, when you tell me it's settled and Laurence Tribe says it isn't, I tend to lean towards Mr. Tribe's interpretation.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

Odds are it won't be confirmed or validated unless and until Mr. Cruz actually wins the Presidential election for that is the only point at which his eligibility to be President would actually matter. Though I'm not an attorney, it's my understanding that courts don't generally rule on the legality of events that have not transpired because until an event occurs, nobody is in the position of having been wronged. Though laws may be penned with an eye toward proactivity and proscription, interpreting the nature and extent of a law's application is nearly 100% reactive.

That's a little bit late, isn't it? If we elect him president, then decide he's not eligible, what then? The VP becomes president?

Whose responsibility is it to determine that the candidates on the ballot qualify for the office they are seeking? How is it possible that the answer appears to be, nobody is responsible.

Red:
Well, no. That's the nature of current legal theory and practice. If you want to introduce a new branch (?) or theory of law, by all means, do so, but under the current one, someone has to have be able to show having been "wronged" in order to bring suit or criminal charges.

As goes Mr. Cruz's potential ineligibility to serve as President, it seems that any of the other Republican candidates might be able to bring suit now that Mr. Trump has won some delegate votes. Maybe one of them will challenge him in court. It seems that Mr. Trump is the one who should/would do so, and if he feels he has a legit case for doing so, he should file suit.


Blue:
I don't know how that would or should play out. Quite simply there's no precedent for exactly the situation under discussion. On one hand, Mr. Cruz's VP shouldn't be the President either seeing as people have not for a long time voted directly for Vice President. Upon the 12th Amendment's ratification, we vote for President and get whomever accompanies him/her on the ticket as Vice President. If it's determined that the President wasn't eligible to hold the office, it would seem to me then the VP also wasn't eligible to run with him/her. On the other hand, perhaps the person on the ticket as Vice President could ascend to the Presidency.

Perhaps the separate election of President and Vice President as originally provided for in the Constitution was meant, in part, to deal with exactly this problem? Whether it was or not, there's little doubt that the 12th Amendment was devised and implemented for political purposes.

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote.


Green:
State and District boards/departments of elections presumably have the responsibility of which you ask, and presumably they validate the eligibility of individuals whose names are submitted for inclusion in the respective states' primary and general elections. Whether they actually do so or don't, I cannot say. Then again, it may be that the Federal Elections Commission plays a role, or doesn't, with regard to the responsibility to validate and actually doing do, or it may share/delegate some of either to the states. Again, I'm not sure.

In light of that presumed responsibility, and cycling back to the question of raising a legal challenge to one's, namely Mr. Cruz's in the current situation, eligibility to serve as President, it's unclear to me whether a person bringing the legal challenge would have to name the candidate or the boards of elections as the defendants. Perhaps such a plaintiff would have to bring multiple suits -- some against the election boards for dereliction of duty and one against the candidate for "God only knows what?" I don't know. What about jurisdiction? If it be that the defendants are state boards of elections, one may have to file suit in state court. If one is just suing Mr. Cruz, federal court may have jurisdiction, but then again, it may be that one must file in all 50 states.

Suffice to say, I think there are quite a few uncertainties in the matter and those uncertainties are likely why Mr. Trump has been all talk and no action on the "birther" issue. I suspect he's trying to create doubt and uncertainty as a basis for folks choosing him over Mr. Cruz.

Disclosure:
I don't want to see either Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz become President, so the legal fairness is all that matters to me as far as the "birther" issue goes. It's largely irrelevant to me which of them "wins" or "loses" on the matter. I just find the issue intellectually intriguing.

It seems to me that the rules should not apply to taking the oath of office, but to being placed on the ballot. Waiting as long as you suggest, until a "crime" has been committed, is a violation of the trust of the voters.

I have no idea how this is supposed to work. I have never given any thought to who determines eligibility, because I am not aware of any analogous situations. McCain was clearly eligible, though questions were raised. The Obama birther nonsense was... nonsense. Laurence Tribe, former law professor to Obama, Chief Justice Roberts and to the Cruzer himself, has stated that this is not a settled matter. If Cruz fades, this becomes a non-issue, but the further along we go, and the more people who vote for him, the more we risk a true constitutional crisis over this matter. If we elect him president, then determine his eligibility, we are courting disaster.

There are several analogous situations in Presidential election history.

I don't think it'll be a Constitutional crisis so much as an election crisis.

Red:
I'm not suggesting that we do wait that long. I'm saying that legal theory, AFAIK, requires something happen before a case/suit be brought. Mr. Cruz has already acquired delegates, so if there's a case to made, and it be so that he isn't eligible to be President, the "wrong" has already occurred: Mr. Cruz has obtained delegates that, if he's not eligible, rightfully belong to someone who is eligible.

It seems to me that if one is of high integrity in espousing one's belief that Mr. Cruz isn't lawfully eligible to be President, the time to have brought the suit would have been right after the Iowa caucus for that was the earliest instance at which the alleged wrong was done. Waiting longer seems like using the law opportunistically rather than "in good faith." Right or wrong, I don't cotton well to folks who take stances and bring suits (or any sort) out of opportunity rather than strong ethical and legal conviction that a wrong need be righted; I just don't believe in "gaming" things, our legal system, that way.

What's Mr. Trump going to do? Wait until it's clear that he could win the Republican nomination were Mr. Cruz's delegates his or some small share of them were his as might happen if a court divided them among the other candidates? He might do that, but that is just downright "shady" IMO.

The only situation which is truly analogous is the George Romney case, where he was born in Mexico. Otherwise it's just campaign smear rumors, although the Goldwater situation was an interesting one. The onus has to be on someone though, to make sure people are qualified before they're allowed on a ballot. I find it hard to believe that Cruz isn't losing some support from people who are scared of his uncertain status.

Leaving it up to competing candidates to challenge the eligibility of other candidates seems a messy way to do it. There may be all kind of calculations that prevent candidates from taking that action.

We're talking about the potential disenfranchisement of a lot of voters. We're talking about undermining the integrity of the electoral process. I just find it amazing that this has been allowed to drag out this long.

 

[oldsoul]

Laurence Tribe

He doesn't seem to have the only opinion on the matter:
Ted Cruz’s Presidential Eligibility
Ted Cruz: Is He or Isn’t He Eligible to be President?
Even some in the same school as him disagree:
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
Even he seems to disagree with himself:
A March 2008 paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency (Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The quote appears about half way down the page in paragragh three discussing whether or not Sen. McCain was eligable based on him being born in Panama to US citizens.
So, I guess your arguement holds no water.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Laurence Tribe

He doesn't seem to have the only opinion on the matter:
Ted Cruz’s Presidential Eligibility
Ted Cruz: Is He or Isn’t He Eligible to be President?
Even some in the same school as him disagree:
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
Even he seems to disagree with himself:
A March 2008 paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency (Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The quote appears about half way down the page in paragragh three discussing whether or not Sen. McCain was eligable based on him being born in Panama to US citizens.
So, I guess your arguement holds no water.

My argument? I was unaware of having made one. I have asked questions, not made statements, except for respecting the opinion of professor Tribe over yours. Sorry, but I still do.

The multiplicity of opinions is precisely the problem. I'm not interested in opinions, I think a determination should be made by... someone. Who is supposed to make this determination? I have no idea. So far no one has said that they have any idea either. No one, apparently, which I find shocking. A candidate's eligibility should be determined by someone before votes are cast.

The further along in this process we get, without a determination being made, the greater the mess could be, should it be determined that Cruz is not eligible. Cruz is the one who should be insisting that this be cleared up. Leaving things undetermined can only cost him support. The fact that he is not insisting on a definitive determination from... whomever is supposed to make such a determination, is very telling, imo. If he as were confident in the decision as he claims to be, he would seek to clear this up. I think the calculus is that the further along this gets, the more delegates Cruz racks up, the less likely such a decision is to go against him.

 

[oldsoul]

Laurence Tribe

He doesn't seem to have the only opinion on the matter:
Ted Cruz’s Presidential Eligibility
Ted Cruz: Is He or Isn’t He Eligible to be President?
Even some in the same school as him disagree:
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
Even he seems to disagree with himself:
A March 2008 paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency (Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The quote appears about half way down the page in paragragh three discussing whether or not Sen. McCain was eligable based on him being born in Panama to US citizens.
So, I guess your arguement holds no water.

My argument? I was unaware of having made one. I have asked questions, not made statements, except for respecting the opinion of professor Tribe over yours. Sorry, but I still do.

The multiplicity of opinions is precisely the problem. I'm not interested in opinions, I think a determination should be made by... someone. Who is supposed to make this determination? I have no idea. So far no one has said that they have any idea either. No one, apparently, which I find shocking. A candidate's eligibility should be determined by someone before votes are cast.

The further along in this process we get, without a determination being made, the greater the mess could be, should it be determined that Cruz is not eligible. Cruz is the one who should be insisting that this be cleared up. Leaving things undetermined can only cost him support. The fact that he is not insisting on a definitive determination from... whomever is supposed to make such a determination, is very telling, imo. If he as were confident in the decision as he claims to be, he would seek to clear this up. I think the calculus is that the further along this gets, the more delegates Cruz racks up, the less likely such a decision is to go against him.

Accually, your implyed arguement is that Mr. Tribe says it is so, therefore it must be.
IMO, the "person" (or rather persons) that have the jurisdiction to make this detemination is the Supreme Court. Now, as the Court has not, up to now, made a direct determination on this, we must therefore, use past court rulings to determine what a reasonable assumption would be as to what the ruling would be. This is what Sen. Cruz has done, IMO. He has looked at such cases as Goldwater, Romney, and McCain, and being a practiced constitutional laywer, has made a determination as to what he beleives the court would say in this specific case. Now, you may disagree with him, but I would take the word of someone with his record before the Court over most anyone elses.

 

[Holos]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

OP,

I believe you are right about the necessary qualifications for being a candidate, according to the Constitution as you have mentioned, beside, perhaps, residency. The eligibility for the electorate is indeed very simple and accessible.

I am positive these are checked, as it is so easy to do so, even if not done by the standard procedure (paperwork and whatnot). Nevermind the discussion of corruption for now (some people avoiding the bureaucracy to achieve similar or same results), since what we are dealing with in the topic of this thread is less so politically oriented and more so behaviorally determined. That is, politics endeavors to take into account entire populations, not simply singular individuals, even if these are representing populations. Politicians themselves, even while standing behind their posts with their suit, tie and appointments still have the right to say whatever they like, even if that is not really exercising politics. The situation is analogous to an office worker in front of a computer who multitasks with a game while also doing its appointed service of filing data.

In political terms, Ted Cruz is evidently eligible (I haven't checked myself, but I am sure someone has as we are dealing with a somewhat long and established tradition), but there is nothing wrong with ostentating and advertising the possibility of his ineligibility, even if that other person is a respectable politician themselves.

The reason why it is hanging is because it is like the head knuckling (a mock statement) of a big brother and not actually a demonstration, application or enhancement of law. It is not relevant to political matters, but could be relevant to personal matters.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Laurence Tribe

He doesn't seem to have the only opinion on the matter:
Ted Cruz’s Presidential Eligibility
Ted Cruz: Is He or Isn’t He Eligible to be President?
Even some in the same school as him disagree:
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
Even he seems to disagree with himself:
A March 2008 paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency (Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The quote appears about half way down the page in paragragh three discussing whether or not Sen. McCain was eligable based on him being born in Panama to US citizens.
So, I guess your arguement holds no water.

My argument? I was unaware of having made one. I have asked questions, not made statements, except for respecting the opinion of professor Tribe over yours. Sorry, but I still do.

The multiplicity of opinions is precisely the problem. I'm not interested in opinions, I think a determination should be made by... someone. Who is supposed to make this determination? I have no idea. So far no one has said that they have any idea either. No one, apparently, which I find shocking. A candidate's eligibility should be determined by someone before votes are cast.

The further along in this process we get, without a determination being made, the greater the mess could be, should it be determined that Cruz is not eligible. Cruz is the one who should be insisting that this be cleared up. Leaving things undetermined can only cost him support. The fact that he is not insisting on a definitive determination from... whomever is supposed to make such a determination, is very telling, imo. If he as were confident in the decision as he claims to be, he would seek to clear this up. I think the calculus is that the further along this gets, the more delegates Cruz racks up, the less likely such a decision is to go against him.

Accually, your implyed arguement is that Mr. Tribe says it is so, therefore it must be.
IMO, the "person" (or rather persons) that have the jurisdiction to make this detemination is the Supreme Court. Now, as the Court has not, up to now, made a direct determination on this, we must therefore, use past court rulings to determine what a reasonable assumption would be as to what the ruling would be. This is what Sen. Cruz has done, IMO. He has looked at such cases as Goldwater, Romney, and McCain, and being a practiced constitutional laywer, has made a determination as to what he beleives the court would say in this specific case. Now, you may disagree with him, but I would take the word of someone with his record before the Court over most anyone elses.

I have implied nothing. I have stated, quite explicitly, that I respect Mr. Tribe's legal opinion more than I respect your legal opinion. All Mr. Tribe has said is that it's not a settled matter. That he and Mr. Cruz disagree would seem to prove that it is not a settled matter, and Mr.Tribe is not the only legal expert to express that opinion. The notion that Ted Cruz himself is the person to make that determination is a bizarre one. Clearly we cannot leave it to candidates to vet themselves.

The problem is that this casts doubt onto the integrity of the whole process. People have voted, and their votes may be nullified. I care nothing about Mr. Cruz. My question is a simple one, isn't there someone who is responsible for determining the eligibility of candidates for the office they seek before their names go on a ballot? The answer is apparently, no.

 

[oldsoul]

Laurence Tribe

He doesn't seem to have the only opinion on the matter:
Ted Cruz’s Presidential Eligibility
Ted Cruz: Is He or Isn’t He Eligible to be President?
Even some in the same school as him disagree:
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
Even he seems to disagree with himself:
A March 2008 paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency (Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The quote appears about half way down the page in paragragh three discussing whether or not Sen. McCain was eligable based on him being born in Panama to US citizens.
So, I guess your arguement holds no water.

My argument? I was unaware of having made one. I have asked questions, not made statements, except for respecting the opinion of professor Tribe over yours. Sorry, but I still do.

The multiplicity of opinions is precisely the problem. I'm not interested in opinions, I think a determination should be made by... someone. Who is supposed to make this determination? I have no idea. So far no one has said that they have any idea either. No one, apparently, which I find shocking. A candidate's eligibility should be determined by someone before votes are cast.

The further along in this process we get, without a determination being made, the greater the mess could be, should it be determined that Cruz is not eligible. Cruz is the one who should be insisting that this be cleared up. Leaving things undetermined can only cost him support. The fact that he is not insisting on a definitive determination from... whomever is supposed to make such a determination, is very telling, imo. If he as were confident in the decision as he claims to be, he would seek to clear this up. I think the calculus is that the further along this gets, the more delegates Cruz racks up, the less likely such a decision is to go against him.

Accually, your implyed arguement is that Mr. Tribe says it is so, therefore it must be.
IMO, the "person" (or rather persons) that have the jurisdiction to make this detemination is the Supreme Court. Now, as the Court has not, up to now, made a direct determination on this, we must therefore, use past court rulings to determine what a reasonable assumption would be as to what the ruling would be. This is what Sen. Cruz has done, IMO. He has looked at such cases as Goldwater, Romney, and McCain, and being a practiced constitutional laywer, has made a determination as to what he beleives the court would say in this specific case. Now, you may disagree with him, but I would take the word of someone with his record before the Court over most anyone elses.

I have implied nothing. I have stated, quite explicitly, that I respect Mr. Tribe's legal opinion more than I respect your legal opinion. All Mr. Tribe has said is that it's not a settled matter. That he and Mr. Cruz disagree would seem to prove that it is not a settled matter, and Mr.Tribe is not the only legal expert to express that opinion. The notion that Ted Cruz himself is the person to make that determination is a bizarre one. Clearly we cannot leave it to candidates to vet themselves.

The problem is that this casts doubt onto the integrity of the whole process. People have voted, and their votes may be nullified. I care nothing about Mr. Cruz. My question is a simple one, isn't there someone who is responsible for determining the eligibility of candidates for the office they seek before their names go on a ballot? The answer is apparently, no.

I have not expressed a legal opionion, I have however posted links to the opinions of others, including Mr Tribe, that are in direct conflict with Mr. Tribe's.
Stating that it is bizarre that Cruz would be able to make the determination himself is without merit, IMO. Is it not up to each and every person to determine, for themselves, if what they are about to do is, in fact, legal? Whether or not a court, or other person, agrees with them is another matter all together. We all make similar determinations every day. It is, therefore, up to law enforcement, and the entire judicial system to determine if our actions were indeed legal, after we take said action(s). It is bizzare to me that one would assert the notion that there should be someone to decide if one's future actions would be legal. Is it not quite the opposite? Do we, as a society, not determine if a person's actions where lega lafter the fact? If this where not true, a person could, in fact, be charged with a crime because of what they intended to do. That is, IMO, what you are essentially saying. Mr. Cruz's eligability should have been decided before he was a canidate. How would this be done?

 

[Elvis Obama]

Laurence Tribe

He doesn't seem to have the only opinion on the matter:
Ted Cruz’s Presidential Eligibility
Ted Cruz: Is He or Isn’t He Eligible to be President?
Even some in the same school as him disagree:
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
Even he seems to disagree with himself:
A March 2008 paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency (Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The quote appears about half way down the page in paragragh three discussing whether or not Sen. McCain was eligable based on him being born in Panama to US citizens.
So, I guess your arguement holds no water.

My argument? I was unaware of having made one. I have asked questions, not made statements, except for respecting the opinion of professor Tribe over yours. Sorry, but I still do.

The multiplicity of opinions is precisely the problem. I'm not interested in opinions, I think a determination should be made by... someone. Who is supposed to make this determination? I have no idea. So far no one has said that they have any idea either. No one, apparently, which I find shocking. A candidate's eligibility should be determined by someone before votes are cast.

The further along in this process we get, without a determination being made, the greater the mess could be, should it be determined that Cruz is not eligible. Cruz is the one who should be insisting that this be cleared up. Leaving things undetermined can only cost him support. The fact that he is not insisting on a definitive determination from... whomever is supposed to make such a determination, is very telling, imo. If he as were confident in the decision as he claims to be, he would seek to clear this up. I think the calculus is that the further along this gets, the more delegates Cruz racks up, the less likely such a decision is to go against him.

Accually, your implyed arguement is that Mr. Tribe says it is so, therefore it must be.
IMO, the "person" (or rather persons) that have the jurisdiction to make this detemination is the Supreme Court. Now, as the Court has not, up to now, made a direct determination on this, we must therefore, use past court rulings to determine what a reasonable assumption would be as to what the ruling would be. This is what Sen. Cruz has done, IMO. He has looked at such cases as Goldwater, Romney, and McCain, and being a practiced constitutional laywer, has made a determination as to what he beleives the court would say in this specific case. Now, you may disagree with him, but I would take the word of someone with his record before the Court over most anyone elses.

I have implied nothing. I have stated, quite explicitly, that I respect Mr. Tribe's legal opinion more than I respect your legal opinion. All Mr. Tribe has said is that it's not a settled matter. That he and Mr. Cruz disagree would seem to prove that it is not a settled matter, and Mr.Tribe is not the only legal expert to express that opinion. The notion that Ted Cruz himself is the person to make that determination is a bizarre one. Clearly we cannot leave it to candidates to vet themselves.

The problem is that this casts doubt onto the integrity of the whole process. People have voted, and their votes may be nullified. I care nothing about Mr. Cruz. My question is a simple one, isn't there someone who is responsible for determining the eligibility of candidates for the office they seek before their names go on a ballot? The answer is apparently, no.

I have not expressed a legal opionion, I have however posted links to the opinions of others, including Mr Tribe, that are in direct conflict with Mr. Tribe's.
Stating that it is bizarre that Cruz would be able to make the determination himself is without merit, IMO. Is it not up to each and every person to determine, for themselves, if what they are about to do is, in fact, legal? Whether or not a court, or other person, agrees with them is another matter all together. We all make similar determinations every day. It is, therefore, up to law enforcement, and the entire judicial system to determine if our actions were indeed legal, after we take said action(s). It is bizzare to me that one would assert the notion that there should be someone to decide if one's future actions would be legal. Is it not quite the opposite? Do we, as a society, not determine if a person's actions where lega lafter the fact? If this where not true, a person could, in fact, be charged with a crime because of what they intended to do. That is, IMO, what you are essentially saying. Mr. Cruz's eligability should have been decided before he was a canidate. How would this be done?

"320" made the same point about before and after the fact. I don't follow the logic. What you seem to be suggesting is that the rules pertaining to who is on a ballot should be completely divorced from the rules pertaining to who is eligible to hold the office. How can someone determine eligibility before you are on a ballot? In exactly the same way it's determined afterwards. Over 35? Show a birth certificate. Natural born citizen? Show a birth certificate. How difficult it that?

What's the alternative? Allow people on a ballot, allow voters to vote for them, then make a determination about their eligibility? If he is disqualified the votes of those who supported him will be nullified. That would be a problem. If he is disqualified Rubio and Bush and etc, etc, will claim that they have been cheated. It will cast doubt on the integrity of the whole process. That too would be a problem.

Want to go to college? You've got to show a HS transcript before you do which proves you are eligible. They don't let you into the college, give you a diploma, then determine if you were eligible for it in the first place. As I said in my OP, if you want on a roller coaster you stand by the "you must be this tall" sign before getting on the ride. Not after. I can't think of any other process where your eligibility requirements are not considered before the rest of the process proceeds.

 

[2aguy]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

Is one of his parents a citizen. If yes, then he is a citizen.

 

[Skylar]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

This has already been covered, dozens of times. McCain was born in Panama (eligible), Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona, before it was a state (eligible). Need I go on? Cruz was born in Toronto, his mother was a US citizen at that ime (was born here I believe), case closed, Cruz is a natural born citizen by US statue.

Both Arizona Territory and the Panama Canal Zones were US territories. The former organized, the latter unorganized. A US territory, organized or otherwise, is part of the United States.

"The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other. "

Canada wasn't.

The State Department makes it clear that citizenship for children born outside the US to US citizens isn't embodied in the constitution. But is created by congressional statute:

This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.

7 FAM 1110 Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By Birth in the United States

With the Congressional Research Service coming to this conclusion:

“Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.” (Again, the italics above were added by the CRS in the 2016 report.)

Latest CRS report discusses presidential birthplace issue

And when you look for where the Congressional Research Service got this idea, you find its the Supreme Court, having found the following:

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts

If you're an originalist, as Cruz is.....then Cruz can't be eligible. If you're a 'living constitution' kinda person, they he could be.

 

[Skylar]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

Is one of his parents a citizen. If yes, then he is a citizen.

Citizen yes. But per the Supreme Court, a naturalized citizen if he was born outside the US.

If Cruz is following an originalist interpretation, he can't be president.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Well, two states have held their presidential nominating contests, and the latest national poll has Ted Cruz in first place. Problem is, no one can say if he is qualified to be on the ballot in the first place. I don't get it. If you want to get on a roller coaster, they have these "you must be this high" signs to make sure you qualify to ride. Do we have less vetting for the process of getting on ballots than we do for getting on a roller coaster? There aren't many qualifications. Just be over 30 and a natural born citizen. Doesn't someone check to make sure these qualifications are being met?

So now what? What if, at some point in this nominating process, Cruz is determined to ineligible? What would that do to the delegates he's racked up? Shouldn't this be definitively determined, as soon as humanly possible? Why are we just leaving this hanging out there?

Is one of his parents a citizen. If yes, then he is a citizen.

Citizen yes. But per the Supreme Court, a naturalized citizen if he was born outside the US.

If Cruz is following an originalist interpretation, he can't be president.

I think the point is being lost here. I have no position about Cruz's eligibility one way or the other. I'm not interested in the opinion of anyone other than that of a legal authority. What I am saying is that this most important of processes doesn't seem to have any pre-screening procedure. You have to file with the FEC, but apparently the FEC does not bother to check anything about those applications other than whether you've received campaign contributions or not. Shouldn't they?