LF: Breaking: VT Judge may have to toss Cruz, Rubio & Jindal off of state's ballot (ineligible for US president)

Title: Breaking: VT Judge may have to toss Cruz, Rubio & Jindal off of state's ballot (ineligible for US president)
Source: Examiner.com
URL Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/bre ... state-s-ballot?cid=db_articles
Published: Jan 3, 2016
Author: Lori Stacey
Post Date: 2016-01-03 05:06:23 by Hondo68
Keywords: None
Views: 1763
Comments: 5

Although Bobby Jindal has already dropped out of the race, the 3 Republican contenders for the GOP nomination for President were all originally listed in an eligibility challenge filed in Vermont back in December.

The plaintiff, H. Brooke Paige had previously filed court challenges against the alleged ineligibility of Obama in reference to the natural-born citizen requirement contained in the US Constitution. That case eventually found its way to Vermont's State Supreme Court. According to a report in the Burlington Free Press on October 13, 2013, "The high court ruled 5-0 that Paige’s contention was moot, because Obama won re-election in 2012 and by law is prevented from running for a third term." Paige alleges that the state's Attorney General, William Sorrell, may have played a role in causing that case to be dragged out so long. This time, Paige included Sorrell as a plaintiff both personally and in his official capacity as Vermont's AG in this new lawsuit against Cruz, Rubio and Jindal.

This new lawsuit has been closely followed and reported on at Citizen Wells which appears to be getting direct updates from the plaintiff. After the Secretary of State and Attorney General were duly served on December 11, 2015, they had 20 days in which to file a response to the court which made the deadline December 31, 2015 by close of business at 4:30 pm. According to the latest interesting development reported by Citizen Wells:

Mr. Paige waited until the bailiff came by to lock up the courthouse – no timely response was by A/G Sorrell’s office on behalf of the State, Secretary of State Jim Condos or Attorney General William Sorrell (who is himself named as a co-defendant as a result of his intentional misconduct in Mr. Paige’s prior ballot challenge before the court)

Paige now intends to file a "Notice of Default" to the court on Monday morning. Could we finally see ineligible presidential candidates thrown off a state's primary ballot due to default on an eligibility challenge? The American people by now will not believe it until they actually see it. Let's hope there is finally an inkling of some shred of justice in this matter.

But the Birthers simply aren't as much fun without Oily Teatz driving their Klown Kar.

more birther nonsense. No doubt Trump will make it an issue if he has to . H.Brooke Paige is a multiple time fringe Vermont kook candidate no one takes seriously .

If there were ineligible candidates, you might, but neither Cruz nor Rubio are ineligible.

A default on a challenge does not mean that you win your case. It means that the case proceeds without you there to defend yourself. Now, in a civil case, that usually means that you lose, but it doesn't have to. The judge has independent powers to judge a case based on the pleadings.

In general, in simple breach of contract or basic tort proceedings, for reasons of judicial efficiency the judges simply rule for the plaintiff if the defendant shows up.

But in a case like this, that has major political implications, the judge will read the pleadings and then decide on the law.

And on the law, Rubio and Cruz are both eligible. Rubio was born in the United States, and his parents were not diplomats immune to US jurisdiction. Therefore, Rubio is a natural born US citizen who is fully eligible for the Presidency, and the judge will so rule.

Cruz was born in Canada, but of an American parent. By the law of the time of his birth, Cruz was born an American citizen - and that's what the judge will rule that "natural born" means. Cruz is also eligible.

The default by the state may mean merely that the issue of what "natural born" means is finally forced before a judge. The judge will rule as described above, and then there will be precedent...in New Hampshire. It will be appealed, and the state and federal judges who hear the case on appeal will uphold the ruling of the Vermont trial judge, and we will finally have a formal judicial answer to the question. Then the law will be settled, and judges after that will throw out subsequent cases based on that precedent.

The language of the Constitution is ambiguous because the term "natural born" isn't defined. Law has defined it since, but "immaculate conception original intentists" have decided that "natural born" means something they want it to mean.

Absent a formal ruling straight on the facts, they can continue to labor under that illusion. But now that this case in Vermont will proceed to trial, we may get an actual ruling. That ruling will strike down the arguments of the "immaculate conceptionists" and establish the obvious rule: "natural born" means "born a citizen", and that means "born anywhere in the world of one US citizen parent , who himself or herself is either naturalized or natural born".

The birthers have been persistent enough to perhaps finally get a definitive answer out of a Vermont court, which may mean, eventually, the US Supreme Court. After all of that effort, the birthers will have set in concrete the rule that means that Rubio and Cruz are natural born citizens.

The question won't be answered on Obama, because of the state of the law in 1961, and he's not running. Cruz is not in the same situation.

That's the official D&R Party lie, as the elites face Obama's birthplace of Kenya five times a day, to pray.

It's what must be done to keep the lie alive that, Senator Juan Panama McCain is a Natural Born US Citizen. If that lie falls, the whole corrupt D&R Party, and their rigged elections are exposed.

Even if that were true ;he'd still be eligible because the emperor's mother was an American by birth . Neither of us like it ;but that's the way it is.

I'd say this is a subject begging for an amendment to clarify the requirement . The Constitution gives three eligibility requirements to be president: one must be 35 years of age (unambiguous), a resident "within the United States" for 14 years(unambiguous ), and a "natural born Citizen," a term not defined in the Constitution and subject to all types of interpretation . Why should we not change the requirements to end any ambiguity ?