PDA

View Full Version : tPF Lawsuit Over Ted Cruz’s Eligibility to Run for President Heads to Court



TrueBlue
02-19-2016, 12:41 PM
Lawsuit Over Ted Cruz’s Eligibility to Run for President Heads to Court
By Margaret Hartmann

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/ted-cruz-eligibility-case-heads-to-court.html

"Legal challenges over Cruz's eligibility have been filed in at least three states (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-18/new-york-voters-ask-court-to-remove-ted-cruz-as-candidate). Joyce seems primarily concerned about the political fallout from the questions surrounding Cruz's candidacy, rather than the possibility of a secret Canadian infiltrating the U.S. government. He told Chicago's WLS that he's concerned about what would happen if the challenge came from a Democrat in the fall after Cruz secured the GOP nomination. "At that point, all of his fundraising would dry up. And his support in the polls would drop dramatically. He may be forced at that point to resign the nomination," he said."


==========================
Thanks to NYMag for this report.

Imho, Americans have the right to know the answer to this issue. Indeed, more Democrats should join in to support finding out, legally, whether Cruz is eligible to run for president in this country. After all, there was much stir made when President Obama was running for office with much the same concern. Therefore, turnabout is fair but important play. And if this case is not settled by election time then it will have to just continue to be carried out afterward.



Notice: This Is A WARNING To Everyone Participating In This Thread.
In This Thread It Is Not Allowed To Conduct Any Bad Faith Postings; Baiting; Flooding the Thread With Little Or No Content; Ignoring Requests to Cease.

In Addition, Harassment *Of Any Kind* Is Not Permitted Or Calling Members Out. No Threatening Of Members Or Calling Them "Liars" Or Anyone Else. No Bigoted Attacks Against Any Minorities or Any Person(s) Or Vulgarity, Profanity, and Nasty Innuendo. No Comments Are Allowed Referring To Criminal Acts With Regard To Those Who Have Not Been Accused of Any Wrong-Doing. Memes Used For The Purpose Of Harassment Are Also Cause For An Immediate Ban!

Be Sure To Deport Yourself In A Decent, Amicable Manner At All Times Simply Because YOU CAN, Anyone Can. Any Violations of the Aforementioned Things Will Be Cause For An Immediate Ban Without Further Warnings. So, If You Find Yourself Suddenly Banned From This Thread Without Farther Notice You Will Know Why. Be Forewarned. Thank You For Your Cooperation and Enjoy the Thread!

Cigar
02-19-2016, 12:43 PM
He'll never be Elected anyway ...

texan
02-19-2016, 01:18 PM
He is legal get off it, not to mention they already tried it in Illinois and he won.

Stop listening to Trump, it is hot air.

Common
02-19-2016, 01:23 PM
I hope cruz loses the case and goes runs in canada

texan
02-19-2016, 01:35 PM
Gotta be honest with you, a guy considered as good as he was trying cases in the court knows what the law says.

Cigar
02-19-2016, 01:43 PM
Gotta be honest with you, a guy considered as good as he was trying cases in the court knows what the law says.



Must of had some really Good Law Professors at that Harvard Law School :grin:

texan
02-19-2016, 01:59 PM
I was just reading up on the Illinois complaint. The plaintiff interviewed uses words like "terrified" LOL snicker....................Face brain cancer and then get back to me.

Peter1469
02-19-2016, 06:36 PM
I predict that the courts will rule for him. For reasons I have said too often to repeat. And for another reason that I have not mentioned. The Courts don't like to get into the middle of political fights that are best left to the other branches of government to work out.

donttread
02-20-2016, 10:02 AM
I predict that the courts will rule for him. For reasons I have said too often to repeat. And for another reason that I have not mentioned. The Courts don't like to get into the middle of political fights that are best left to the other branches of government to work out.


Peter is this another case where the rule of law is pretty clear but yet somehow still subject to interpretation? I mean if our rules granted him American citizenship at birth via his mother's citizenry , that's it right?

exotix
02-20-2016, 10:11 AM
Peter is this another case where the rule of law is pretty clear but yet somehow still subject to interpretation? I mean if our rules granted him American citizenship at birth via his mother's citizenry , that's it right?Pete will be happy to point you to H.R. 1503 ... this is pretty much another case where the rabid right-wing loons fucked themselves with conspiracies theories about Obama ... practically requiring Presidential candidates to show their Birth Certificates to assume exactly what is said in Article II Section I of the constitution to be eligible to be president of the U.S. ...


No person except a natural born Citizen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen), or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United StatesPretty much meaning Ted Cruz must walk into court with his Canadian Birth Certificate and argue why he was born in America ...

hanger4
02-20-2016, 11:58 AM
Pete will be happy to point you to H.R. 1503 ... this is pretty much another case where the rabid right-wing loons fucked themselves with conspiracies theories about Obama ... practically requiring Presidential candidates to show their Birth Certificates to assume exactly what is said in Article II Section I of the constitution to be eligible to be president of the U.S. ...

Pretty much meaning Ted Cruz must walk into court with his Canadian Birth Certificate and argue why he was born in America ...



What was the vote tally for H.R. 1503 ?? When did Obama sign it into law ??

Tahuyaman
02-20-2016, 12:01 PM
Birthers are funny.

Peter1469
02-20-2016, 12:02 PM
Peter is this another case where the rule of law is pretty clear but yet somehow still subject to interpretation? I mean if our rules granted him American citizenship at birth via his mother's citizenry , that's it right?

The "rule of law" is not clear. We have discussed this already. SCOTUS has never ruled on the issue. I have told you how they will rule when they have the case before them.

I am done with repeating over and over with you people. Keep up or wear the dunce cap.

Peter1469
02-20-2016, 12:05 PM
Pete will be happy to point you to H.R. 1503 ... this is pretty much another case where the rabid right-wing loons fucked themselves with conspiracies theories about Obama ... practically requiring Presidential candidates to show their Birth Certificates to assume exactly what is said in Article II Section I of the constitution to be eligible to be president of the U.S. ...

Pretty much meaning Ted Cruz must walk into court with his Canadian Birth Certificate and argue why he was born in America ...




IQ below 85? That is retarded level.

It is OK. You don't have to understand the stuff you cut and paste. Don't let people think less of you just because you post utter nonsense. Tell them to screw off. :wink:

exotix
02-20-2016, 12:37 PM
What was the vote tally for H.R. 1503 ?? When did Obama sign it into law ??Well, the actual precedent came from Hawaii ... pretty much meaning Cruz needs to hurry-up and declare Canada a U.S. Statehood ... LOL


United States presidential eligibility legislation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_eligibility_legislation

Hawaii statehood

On July 27, 2009, the House of Representatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) passed a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood.

The resolution, containing language recognizing Hawaii as President Obama's birth state, passed by a vote of 378 to 0.

Some of the cosponsors of the Posey bill (H.R. 1503) , namely Campbell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._T._Campbell_III), Carter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carter_(Texas)) and Marchant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Marchant), did not cast a vote.

The House has 435 members when all seats are filled.

hanger4
02-20-2016, 01:30 PM
Well, the actual precedent came from Hawaii ... pretty much meaning Cruz needs to hurry-up and declare Canada a U.S. Statehood ... LOL


United States presidential eligibility legislation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_eligibility_legislation

Hawaii statehood

On July 27, 2009, the House of Representatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) passed a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood.

The resolution, containing language recognizing Hawaii as President Obama's birth state, passed by a vote of 378 to 0.

Some of the cosponsors of the Posey bill (H.R. 1503) , namely Campbell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._T._Campbell_III), Carter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carter_(Texas)) and Marchant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_Marchant), did not cast a vote.

The House has 435 members when all seats are filled.

Ok, so H.R. 1503 isn't law which means you're ranting about something that doesn't exist. Glad we got that cleared up. LOL

exotix
02-20-2016, 02:22 PM
Ok, so H.R. 1503 isn't law which means you're ranting about something that doesn't exist. Glad we got that cleared up. LOLWe better get Pete to come in and weigh-in on this one ... should be good ... LOL

hanger4
02-20-2016, 02:35 PM
We better get Pete to come in and weigh-in on this one ... should be good ... LOL
Why ?? Peter knows it doesn't exist. You're the only one living in fantasy land.

donttread
02-20-2016, 03:33 PM
In response to Peter's post #13. As hard as it is to believe , not all of us read all your post. There was absolutely no provocation for the last sentence of your response .