Trump Campaign Manager: He Will Debate Cruz Once A Judge Rules He Is A Natural Born Citizen

[OKTexas]

Yep, they are granted most of same rights as citizens, by law, in the jurisdictions where they reside. That is the definition of a statutory citizen.

'Most of' is the definition of 'all'?

Oh well, this is the Twilight Zone I suppose.

Not really, illegals have all constitutional protections except voting, same applies to legal residents, so most of, is not the definition of all. They can also be denied jobs for not being citizens.

 

[cnm]

8 Code 1401 is a statute. People who acquire Federal citizenship under the code are known as statutory Citizens. Stop obfuscating.

Illegal aliens do not have US citizenship.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

8 Code 1401 is a statute. People who acquire Federal citizenship under the code are known as statutory Citizens. Stop obfuscating.

Illegal aliens do not have US citizenship.

We're not discussing illegal aliens. Keep up!

 

[Syriusly]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/florida2000/12-08_supreme_decision.pdf

Gore vs. Harris

 

[cnm]

We're not discussing illegal aliens. Keep up!

Yeah?

OKTexas said: ↑

Of course you know illegal aliens are statutory citizens, right?​

 

[S.J.]

Yes, they did. They stepped in without a case being brought to them. They acted outside their authority.

Yes, and they claimed they had this authority under Florida state law. However, the SCOTUS corrected them on this because they can't take an action on their own motion. What they did was unconstitutional. Now back to the issue of Cruz, a court can't make a ruling on a case that hasn't been brought... it's unconstitutional. They can't even claim they have authority under state law as they did with the recount. There is no provision in the law to allow the court to rule on something that has not been brought before the court.

But as you said, Fla. SC did it anyway, even though it was unconstitutional. There was no case brought to them.

 

[Boss]

But as you said, Fla. SC did it anyway, even though it was unconstitutional. There was no case brought to them.

Well I wont' get into a lengthy debate about it but the fact is, there has to be some formal measure for the court to act on. They have no autonomy to just rule things out of thin air. In this case, they acted on their own motion which is unconstitutional. There has to be a motion or they have nothing to act on. If there is no motion it simply amounts to men who are judges presenting their opinions which carry no weight. So they created their own motion then ruled on their motion which is unconstitutional.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Trump calling for Cruz to have a judge rule on his eligibility. That is simply not how the process works. There has to be a motion filed with the court and then the court can make a ruling. Cruz is not going to make a motion against himself. So if Trump wants to make a motion he can, and certainly someone eventually will and the court will do as they always do and throw it out for lack of standing.

 

[easyt65]

Nice DODGE, Don...

 

[S.J.]

They no more acted on their own than the Supreme Court of the United States did.

Yes, they did. They stepped in without a case being brought to them. They acted outside their authority. The U.S. Supreme Court was ASKED to intervene and the case was filed with them first. Totally different.

Says you- citing you.

While I provide citations saying you are wrong.

IF you really think that the Florida Supreme Court acted on their own- and outside their authority- either put up or shut up.

No you didn't. The law requires a recount, and that recount is done by machines. The machine recount was done and STILL found Bush to be the winner. THEN the Fla. SC stepped in and stopped Harris from certifying the results, allowing the hand recount (WITHOUT BEING PETITIONED). You provided a link to a petition AFTER the first hand recount. The Gore campaign couldn't steal enough votes in the first hand recount and wanted to expand it to other counties. THAT'S when the petition was filed by Harris to stop the expanded recount.

 

[S.J.]

But as you said, Fla. SC did it anyway, even though it was unconstitutional. There was no case brought to them.

Well I wont' get into a lengthy debate about it but the fact is, there has to be some formal measure for the court to act on. They have no autonomy to just rule things out of thin air. In this case, they acted on their own motion which is unconstitutional. There has to be a motion or they have nothing to act on. If there is no motion it simply amounts to men who are judges presenting their opinions which carry no weight. So they created their own motion then ruled on their motion which is unconstitutional.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Trump calling for Cruz to have a judge rule on his eligibility. That is simply not how the process works. There has to be a motion filed with the court and then the court can make a ruling. Cruz is not going to make a motion against himself. So if Trump wants to make a motion he can, and certainly someone eventually will and the court will do as they always do and throw it out for lack of standing.

My point was that courts often exceed their authority for political purposes. If Cruz were to get the nomination, I have no doubt that some liberal would challenge his eligibility in court and he would have to get a ruling on it. That's not likely to happen though because he's not likely to get the nomination. He may win Iowa but that's as far as he's likely to get.

 

[Boss]

My point was that courts often exceed their authority for political purposes. If Cruz were to get the nomination, I have no doubt that some liberal would challenge his eligibility in court and he would have to get a ruling on it. That's not likely to happen though because he's not likely to get the nomination. He may win Iowa but that's as far as he's likely to get.

Well, state courts sometimes have but then the SCOTUS rules their actions unconstitutional. The SCOTUS is not going to ignore it's own long-standing Political Question Doctrine. HE won't have to get a ruling on anything. The motion will be made to the court who will issue their ruling and that will be the end of it. Cruz will be the defendant.

I don't know that it's a "done deal" yet or not. Cruz is very strong in Iowa and has a strong ground game elsewhere. Trump's negatives continue to spiral up... he is now at 66% unfavorable and no one has ever won the presidency with that kind of negative. Trump has a YUGE support base, no doubt about that... his poll numbers are a clear indicator... but whether the numbers translate to votes remains to be seen.

I happen to think there are a LOT of voters who like Trump and are kind of on the fence between Trump and Cruz, but the attacks on Cruz are turning those voters off in a big way and it was a mistake in strategy for him to go on the attack the way he did. It was unnecessary and he will need those voters to win the general. If Cruz can beat the polls a few times and win some of the early primaries it might swing the support his way and if Trump continues to attack him it won't help him much at all.

 

[S.J.]

My point was that courts often exceed their authority for political purposes. If Cruz were to get the nomination, I have no doubt that some liberal would challenge his eligibility in court and he would have to get a ruling on it. That's not likely to happen though because he's not likely to get the nomination. He may win Iowa but that's as far as he's likely to get.

Well, state courts sometimes have but then the SCOTUS rules their actions unconstitutional. The SCOTUS is not going to ignore it's own long-standing Political Question Doctrine. HE won't have to get a ruling on anything. The motion will be made to the court who will issue their ruling and that will be the end of it. Cruz will be the defendant.

I don't know that it's a "done deal" yet or not. Cruz is very strong in Iowa and has a strong ground game elsewhere. Trump's negatives continue to spiral up... he is now at 66% unfavorable and no one has ever won the presidency with that kind of negative. Trump has a YUGE support base, no doubt about that... his poll numbers are a clear indicator... but whether the numbers translate to votes remains to be seen.

I happen to think there are a LOT of voters who like Trump and are kind of on the fence between Trump and Cruz, but the attacks on Cruz are turning those voters off in a big way and it was a mistake in strategy for him to go on the attack the way he did. It was unnecessary and he will need those voters to win the general. If Cruz can beat the polls a few times and win some of the early primaries it might swing the support his way and if Trump continues to attack him it won't help him much at all.

I don't think Trump will have to attack him. Cruz's performance last night (imo) was weak at best. He may win Iowa but I'd be surprised if he wins anything after that.

 

[Boss]

I don't think Trump will have to attack him. Cruz's performance last night (imo) was weak at best. He may win Iowa but I'd be surprised if he wins anything after that.

Well according to Conservative Review, Cruz won the debate hands down with like 58%. I realize CR is a partisan conservative site but that's kind of who Cruz is appealing to. Paul made a good showing as well and Kasich bombed.

AGAIN... Warning on Trump's poll numbers... MANY people recognize his name. So whenever someone is contacted by a pollster, it is more likely than not they are going to identify with Trump over the others because of that.... we do not KNOW how many of those people will turn out to actually vote for Donald Trump. I admit, it could be phenomenal.... He could walk away with this thing. But until we have some actual results from the ballot box, I am hesitant to believe his support is as strong as the polls are indicating. I still think a lot of that is simply a recognizable name.

 

[Unkotare]

Trump said his lawyers looked into Cruz and was satisfied he was eligible until Cruz started climbing in the polls. Then he did his little flip flop, yep, Trumps a coward, typical politician with a big mouth.

Yea but constitutional scholars and lawyers have now dug deeper into the founders archives and case law discovering he's a statutory Citizen, not a natural born Citizen.

he derived his citizenship form his mother.

Yes, derived through federal statute. Constitutional natural born Citizens need no federal statutes to make them citizens.

So the answer is no, you haven't bothered to look up the definition. Also many other constitutional scholars disagree with yours, and ya know what, they're right.

Ted Cruz was naturalized a Citizen by statute at birth in a foreign sovereignty. Natural born Citizens for Article 2 Section 1 purposes need no such statutes due to Natural Law.

You are pulling distinctions out of your unAmerican ass that do not exist in law, fool.