Why Ted Cruz Will NOT Win A Contested Convention

[WheelieAddict]

Republican sheep will line up to vote for their Canadian messiah.

 

[HUGGY]

The requirement of a person running for President of the United States is that s/he be a natural born citizen. Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz is a natural born citizen of Alberta, Canada.

And if you think a Cruz nomination will not be challenged at the 11th hour by the left and their pocket liberal-majority on the USSC, eager to see one of their own take the empty Seat there for life to get a lock on their liberal majority for the next generation, you need to have your head examined.

http://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-canadian-citizen-415430 A growing number of constitutional law scholars are arguing that Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada makes him ineligible to become U.S. president...An increasing number of high-profile constitutional law professors, including one of Cruz's own professors from Harvard Law School, have in recent days argued publicly that Cruz's birth disqualifies him.... English common law was "unequivocal" on the subject, McManamon says: "Natural-born subjects had to be born in English territory."

Ultimately the USSC *sudden Decision* probably late this Summer or in September will be that what matters is the INTENT of the original law. The intent of course is to insure that because of the potential for foreign influence, the Office of POTUS must be completely scrubbed of potential for contamination. Other things that will be pondered as to this intent is also the requirement that a person reside continually within the US for a number of years just prior to running, in addition to being natural born.

For you see, the 14th Amendment means that even though it's "nice little ole' Canada" today, "born to a mommy born in the US"...tomorrow it can also legally be a Russian boy born to a Russian mother by a US-born serviceman on shore leave. And you cannot discriminate based on gender or country of origin, don't forget.

So, for the GOP to nominate (or to continue the charade further) with Ted Cruz would be political suicide. It's true that one of the two remaining "not Trump" candidates should leave the race so the other can legitimately finish off Trump. So let it be the one who isn't eligible to run anyway...

So far all I have heard is that one judge believes Cruz to be eligible. You can get ONE judge to believe he saw the face of Jesus in his toast. This problem needs to be vetted more closely and for the good of the American political process resolved before it is too late. One judge is not much to hang your hat on.

 

[Syriusly]

The 20th amendment does not specifically give the power to Congress to determine who is qualified to be presidency. If fact, neither the Constitution nor federal law assigns that responsibility. The amendment lays out a procedure to be followed if the president elect is not qualified.

Since the constitution and federal law do not establish who is responsible for certifying that a candidate is qualified. the issue must reside with the states, generally, the Secretary of State.

BTW the Congressional Research Service who does research for congress on legal issues, issued a 53 page report on presidential qualifications. In the report, they said a candidate born outside the US to a US citizen was natural born and thus met that qualification.
​

The issue must reside with the states? Citizenship is a Federal Issue, the States are useless in the interpretation of "Natural-born citizen".
The CRS report is nothing more than an legislative attorneys basic research, to which my prior link completely refutes. Legislative attorneys are by no means authoritative, they do nothing more than basic research.

An updated Congressional Research Service report is adding some new background on the controversy over U.S. presidential candidates like Ted Cruz who were born overseas and who are seeking office.
While not mentioning Cruz directly, the analysis prepared for Congress recaps legal “birther cases” since 2011, and at least in one paragraph, legislative attorney Jack Maskell states that it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively. ​

Latest CRS report discusses presidential birthplace issue

So much for your CRS report.

The CRS report is as valid as the paper you cited- and more persuasive to any Congress since it is their own research service.

That's nice except for the fact that even the CRS report states it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.

The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The 20th amendment does not specifically give the power to Congress to determine who is qualified to be presidency. If fact, neither the Constitution nor federal law assigns that responsibility. The amendment lays out a procedure to be followed if the president elect is not qualified.

Since the constitution and federal law do not establish who is responsible for certifying that a candidate is qualified. the issue must reside with the states, generally, the Secretary of State.

BTW the Congressional Research Service who does research for congress on legal issues, issued a 53 page report on presidential qualifications. In the report, they said a candidate born outside the US to a US citizen was natural born and thus met that qualification.
​

The issue must reside with the states? Citizenship is a Federal Issue, the States are useless in the interpretation of "Natural-born citizen".
The CRS report is nothing more than an legislative attorneys basic research, to which my prior link completely refutes. Legislative attorneys are by no means authoritative, they do nothing more than basic research.

An updated Congressional Research Service report is adding some new background on the controversy over U.S. presidential candidates like Ted Cruz who were born overseas and who are seeking office.
While not mentioning Cruz directly, the analysis prepared for Congress recaps legal “birther cases” since 2011, and at least in one paragraph, legislative attorney Jack Maskell states that it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively. ​

Latest CRS report discusses presidential birthplace issue

So much for your CRS report.

The CRS report is as valid as the paper you cited- and more persuasive to any Congress since it is their own research service.

That's nice except for the fact that even the CRS report states it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.

The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

And I have already addressed this, would most likely include is by no means definitive, it is conjecture based on one recent dissenting judges opinion as interpreted by the author.

 

[Syriusly]

The 20th amendment does not specifically give the power to Congress to determine who is qualified to be presidency. If fact, neither the Constitution nor federal law assigns that responsibility. The amendment lays out a procedure to be followed if the president elect is not qualified.

Since the constitution and federal law do not establish who is responsible for certifying that a candidate is qualified. the issue must reside with the states, generally, the Secretary of State.

BTW the Congressional Research Service who does research for congress on legal issues, issued a 53 page report on presidential qualifications. In the report, they said a candidate born outside the US to a US citizen was natural born and thus met that qualification.
​

The issue must reside with the states? Citizenship is a Federal Issue, the States are useless in the interpretation of "Natural-born citizen".
The CRS report is nothing more than an legislative attorneys basic research, to which my prior link completely refutes. Legislative attorneys are by no means authoritative, they do nothing more than basic research.

An updated Congressional Research Service report is adding some new background on the controversy over U.S. presidential candidates like Ted Cruz who were born overseas and who are seeking office.
While not mentioning Cruz directly, the analysis prepared for Congress recaps legal “birther cases” since 2011, and at least in one paragraph, legislative attorney Jack Maskell states that it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively. ​

Latest CRS report discusses presidential birthplace issue

So much for your CRS report.

The CRS report is as valid as the paper you cited- and more persuasive to any Congress since it is their own research service.

That's nice except for the fact that even the CRS report states it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.

The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

And I have already addressed this, would most likely include is by no means definitive, it is conjecture based on one recent dissenting judges opinion as interpreted by the author.

No more 'conjecture' than the paper written by one professor that you cited.

So far the CRS report has accurately predicted the decisions- based on merit- of the two judges that have reviewed the issue and issued decisions.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The issue must reside with the states? Citizenship is a Federal Issue, the States are useless in the interpretation of "Natural-born citizen".
The CRS report is nothing more than an legislative attorneys basic research, to which my prior link completely refutes. Legislative attorneys are by no means authoritative, they do nothing more than basic research.

An updated Congressional Research Service report is adding some new background on the controversy over U.S. presidential candidates like Ted Cruz who were born overseas and who are seeking office.
While not mentioning Cruz directly, the analysis prepared for Congress recaps legal “birther cases” since 2011, and at least in one paragraph, legislative attorney Jack Maskell states that it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively. ​

Latest CRS report discusses presidential birthplace issue

So much for your CRS report.

The CRS report is as valid as the paper you cited- and more persuasive to any Congress since it is their own research service.

That's nice except for the fact that even the CRS report states it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.

The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

And I have already addressed this, would most likely include is by no means definitive, it is conjecture based on one recent dissenting judges opinion as interpreted by the author.

No more 'conjecture' than the paper written by one professor that you cited.

So far the CRS report has accurately predicted the decisions- based on merit- of the two judges that have reviewed the issue and issued decisions.

The 2 state judges conclusions have no effect other than allowing for Cruz to be on their state ballot. Their conclusion that he is a "natural-born citizen" is but dicta and sets no precedent, is not holding in any way, and is not binding on any federal court.

The CRS report is non-biased and gives both views, narrow interpretation and broad interpretation, in which the outcome is inconclusive. All the report says is it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.

 

[Boss]

YES, Congress can. That's right, it has never happened because Cruz's situation would be unique as there has never been a similar situation in the past.

Still have menstrual mixed up with mensa do you.

It's never happened because Congress has no such authority in the Constitution. Period.

I guess the 20th Amendment just doesn't exist then. SMFH

It's been demonstrated it doesn't say what you claim.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

YES, Congress can. That's right, it has never happened because Cruz's situation would be unique as there has never been a similar situation in the past.

Still have menstrual mixed up with mensa do you.

It's never happened because Congress has no such authority in the Constitution. Period.

I guess the 20th Amendment just doesn't exist then. SMFH

It's been demonstrated it doesn't say what you claim.

Your demonstration was you going

 

[Flopper]

The 20th amendment does not specifically give the power to Congress to determine who is qualified to be presidency. If fact, neither the Constitution nor federal law assigns that responsibility. The amendment lays out a procedure to be followed if the president elect is not qualified.

Since the constitution and federal law do not establish who is responsible for certifying that a candidate is qualified. the issue must reside with the states, generally, the Secretary of State.

BTW the Congressional Research Service who does research for congress on legal issues, issued a 53 page report on presidential qualifications. In the report, they said a candidate born outside the US to a US citizen was natural born and thus met that qualification.
​

The issue must reside with the states? Citizenship is a Federal Issue, the States are useless in the interpretation of "Natural-born citizen".
The CRS report is nothing more than an legislative attorneys basic research, to which my prior link completely refutes. Legislative attorneys are by no means authoritative, they do nothing more than basic research.

An updated Congressional Research Service report is adding some new background on the controversy over U.S. presidential candidates like Ted Cruz who were born overseas and who are seeking office.
While not mentioning Cruz directly, the analysis prepared for Congress recaps legal “birther cases” since 2011, and at least in one paragraph, legislative attorney Jack Maskell states that it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively. ​

Latest CRS report discusses presidential birthplace issue

So much for your CRS report.

The only way the issue can be settled once and for all is through a Supreme Court ruling brought about by a lower court ruling or action of congress. Otherwise, the qualification of any presidential candidate born outside the US will be in doubt by many.

The CRS is much like the CBO, an advisor to congress. The CBO provides information on budgetary matters and the CRS on legal.

 

[jillian]

Cruz or Trump are not electable their best bet is to form a unity ticket

what unity ticket?

 

[Flopper]

Who said anything about separate laws? You seem to like to make shit up since you fail basic comprehension. A citizen can attempt to file claim during the ballot process which is BEFORE and has been done in many states to which all have been held as no standing, except Penn and NJ. Any candidate can file suit during the process at any time. Congress can disqualify the President elect after the electoral college vote and before taking office, or they could even impeach him after he takes office. This is all basic knowledge and law.

No, they can't. They can only disqualify his electors if they have reason. They can not retroactively make his candidacy illegitimate. That's the point you seem to be missing and I don't know how else it can be explained to you. If Congress had such power, virtually every hotly-contested election would result in big Congressional fights over the president-elect... we've never seen that happen because it can't happen.

Its never happened because there has never been a child born outside the US that was President after the 20th Amendment was put in place.

They can bring articles of impeachment but not over his supposed ineligibility as a candidate. The standard is "high crimes and misdemeanors" and this simply wouldn't fall into that category. Now.... You can join the kook conspiracy crowd and BELIEVE anything you want... I can't stop that. But I am telling you, Congress cannot disqualify a president-elect because they believe him ineligible to run.

Congress can disqualify a President elect if they determine him ineligible to hold office. You seem to have a hard time with knowing where all of this is and what exactly is being stated. You keep inferring things that aren't there.

So where in the constitution does it give congress the authority to rule on who is qualified to be president?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The only way the issue can be settled once and for all is through a Supreme Court ruling brought about by a lower court ruling or action of congress. Otherwise, the qualification of any presidential candidate born outside the US will be in doubt by many.

I agree

The CRS is much like the CBO, an advisor to congress. The CBO provides information on budgetary matters and the CRS on legal.

Yes, and the specific CRS report is pretty much neutral as it gives both a broad view and a narrow view and concludes with it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

So where in the constitution does it give congress the authority to rule on who is qualified to be president?

The 20th Amendment grants Congress the power to disqualify the President elect if they determine he/she fails to meet the requirements as set by the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

The CRS report is as valid as the paper you cited- and more persuasive to any Congress since it is their own research service.

That's nice except for the fact that even the CRS report states it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.

The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

And I have already addressed this, would most likely include is by no means definitive, it is conjecture based on one recent dissenting judges opinion as interpreted by the author.

No more 'conjecture' than the paper written by one professor that you cited.

So far the CRS report has accurately predicted the decisions- based on merit- of the two judges that have reviewed the issue and issued decisions.

The 2 state judges conclusions have no effect other than allowing for Cruz to be on their state ballot. Their conclusion that he is a "natural-born citizen" is but dicta and sets no precedent, is not holding in any way, and is not binding on any federal court.

The CRS report is non-biased and gives both views, narrow interpretation and broad interpretation, in which the outcome is inconclusive. All the report says is it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.

Let us review:

You provided a paper by a Law Professor and said that demonstrates why Cruz is not eligible.

And then you turn around and say the opinions by two judges- who actually were judging a case- and the Congressional Research Service should be ignored.

And despite your mischaracterization- the CRS report says much more than that- why be so coy about what the CRS conclusion is?

The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

 

[Syriusly]

The only way the issue can be settled once and for all is through a Supreme Court ruling brought about by a lower court ruling or action of congress. Otherwise, the qualification of any presidential candidate born outside the US will be in doubt by many.

I agree

The CRS is much like the CBO, an advisor to congress. The CBO provides information on budgetary matters and the CRS on legal.

Yes, and the specific CRS report is pretty much neutral as it gives both a broad view and a narrow view and concludes with it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.

'pretty much neutral'?

The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

 

[Syriusly]

The 20th amendment does not specifically give the power to Congress to determine who is qualified to be presidency. If fact, neither the Constitution nor federal law assigns that responsibility. The amendment lays out a procedure to be followed if the president elect is not qualified.

Since the constitution and federal law do not establish who is responsible for certifying that a candidate is qualified. the issue must reside with the states, generally, the Secretary of State.

BTW the Congressional Research Service who does research for congress on legal issues, issued a 53 page report on presidential qualifications. In the report, they said a candidate born outside the US to a US citizen was natural born and thus met that qualification.
​

The issue must reside with the states? Citizenship is a Federal Issue, the States are useless in the interpretation of "Natural-born citizen".
The CRS report is nothing more than an legislative attorneys basic research, to which my prior link completely refutes. Legislative attorneys are by no means authoritative, they do nothing more than basic research.

An updated Congressional Research Service report is adding some new background on the controversy over U.S. presidential candidates like Ted Cruz who were born overseas and who are seeking office.
While not mentioning Cruz directly, the analysis prepared for Congress recaps legal “birther cases” since 2011, and at least in one paragraph, legislative attorney Jack Maskell states that it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively. ​

Latest CRS report discusses presidential birthplace issue

So much for your CRS report.

The only way the issue can be settled once and for all is through a Supreme Court ruling brought about by a lower court ruling or action of congress. Otherwise, the qualification of any presidential candidate born outside the US will be in doubt by many.

The CRS is much like the CBO, an advisor to congress. The CBO provides information on budgetary matters and the CRS on legal.

I believe that any of the parties denied by Penn or NJ could try to appeal all the way to their State Supreme Court- and from their to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Whether or not the Supreme Court would take it is another question.

 

[Flopper]

So where in the constitution does it give congress the authority to rule on who is qualified to be president?

The 20th Amendment grants Congress the power to disqualify the President elect if they determine he/she fails to meet the requirements as set by the Constitution.

Well, that's not what the amendment says, "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify....." The amendment lays out the procedure to be following but it does not give congress the authority to make that decision.

 

[Syriusly]

So where in the constitution does it give congress the authority to rule on who is qualified to be president?

The 20th Amendment grants Congress the power to disqualify the President elect if they determine he/she fails to meet the requirements as set by the Constitution.

Well, that's not what the amendment says, "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify....." The amendment lays out the procedure to be following but it does not give congress the authority to make that decision.

The real question is two fold

1. Would Congress assume that authority? Since it is not defined Congress could be tempted- especially if there was a real controversy- which so far there really isn't.
   
2. If Congress did assume that authority- and then did reject a President- would the Supreme Court then assert that it has the authority- either to determine who is eligible- or to overturn Congress election count. Frankly none of us know for certain about that- I would have at one point said it was a strictly political issue and the court would not interfere- BUT- Bush v. Gore undermines the argument that there is no chance the Supreme Court would step in.

 

[Flopper]

The 20th amendment does not specifically give the power to Congress to determine who is qualified to be presidency. If fact, neither the Constitution nor federal law assigns that responsibility. The amendment lays out a procedure to be followed if the president elect is not qualified.

Since the constitution and federal law do not establish who is responsible for certifying that a candidate is qualified. the issue must reside with the states, generally, the Secretary of State.

BTW the Congressional Research Service who does research for congress on legal issues, issued a 53 page report on presidential qualifications. In the report, they said a candidate born outside the US to a US citizen was natural born and thus met that qualification.
​

The issue must reside with the states? Citizenship is a Federal Issue, the States are useless in the interpretation of "Natural-born citizen".
The CRS report is nothing more than an legislative attorneys basic research, to which my prior link completely refutes. Legislative attorneys are by no means authoritative, they do nothing more than basic research.

An updated Congressional Research Service report is adding some new background on the controversy over U.S. presidential candidates like Ted Cruz who were born overseas and who are seeking office.
While not mentioning Cruz directly, the analysis prepared for Congress recaps legal “birther cases” since 2011, and at least in one paragraph, legislative attorney Jack Maskell states that it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively. ​

Latest CRS report discusses presidential birthplace issue

So much for your CRS report.

The only way the issue can be settled once and for all is through a Supreme Court ruling brought about by a lower court ruling or action of congress. Otherwise, the qualification of any presidential candidate born outside the US will be in doubt by many.

The CRS is much like the CBO, an advisor to congress. The CBO provides information on budgetary matters and the CRS on legal.

I believe that any of the parties denied by Penn or NJ could try to appeal all the way to their State Supreme Court- and from their to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Whether or not the Supreme Court would take it is another question.

SCOTUS will certainly not hear the case unless the plaintiff petitions the court. I haven't seen any statement to that effect.

IMHO, it is a case that should be hear by SCOTUS. There are 17 members of congress who are US citizen's born abroad that may someday be nominated for president or vice-president. As long as there is any doubt of constitutional qualification for office, the opposition will exploit the issue to create doubt in minds of voters. Voters have a hard enough time evaluation candidates without having to contend with candidates that may not be legally qualified.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

That's nice except for the fact that even the CRS report states it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.

The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

And I have already addressed this, would most likely include is by no means definitive, it is conjecture based on one recent dissenting judges opinion as interpreted by the author.

No more 'conjecture' than the paper written by one professor that you cited.

So far the CRS report has accurately predicted the decisions- based on merit- of the two judges that have reviewed the issue and issued decisions.

The 2 state judges conclusions have no effect other than allowing for Cruz to be on their state ballot. Their conclusion that he is a "natural-born citizen" is but dicta and sets no precedent, is not holding in any way, and is not binding on any federal court.

The CRS report is non-biased and gives both views, narrow interpretation and broad interpretation, in which the outcome is inconclusive. All the report says is it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.

Let us review:

You provided a paper by a Law Professor and said that demonstrates why Cruz is not eligible.

And then you turn around and say the opinions by two judges- who actually were judging a case- and the Congressional Research Service should be ignored.

And despite your mischaracterization- the CRS report says much more than that- why be so coy about what the CRS conclusion is?

The report concludes that, “the weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicate that the term ‘natural born citizen’ would most likely include, as well as those native born citizens born in the U.S., those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

You came to all that over the simple phrase from the CRS report: it is unclear that a situation like Cruz’s has been settled definitively.