[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
-- Title: we are waiting for the NJ results. We should have had the official results of the New Jersey Secretary Of State hearing on the Cruz eligibility case at 3:PM today but,nothing at 3, she said, maybe by 4. Evidently they case is getting hot and heave, a lot at stake and NJ seems to be taking their responsibility seriously. If we have nothing by five, maybe Drudge will, but the office I have for the New Jersey Secretary of State closes at 5PM. As I understand it the Judge has to rule by Wednesday. beginning or end of day I don't know. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 23. We should have had the official results of the New Jersey Secretary Of State hearing on the Cruz eligibility case..... Hmmmmmm........it may hit the fan today. One thing for sure, it certainly will not be a settled issue.
#3. To: SOSO, sneakypete (#1) Hmmmmmm........it may hit the fan today. One thing for sure, it certainly will not be a settled issue. Well, if it works its way up through the NJ courts, Cruz could appeal. And Trump's sister Maryanne "Partial-Birth" (Trump) Barry just happens to be a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. So she could rule on Cruz's eligibility in much the same way as she ruled to protect the right of women to have their abortionist deliver a late-term baby just enough for the abortionist to stab the baby in the back of the skull with surgical scissors before delivering the dead baby whole. It's not impossible. Any ruling by NJ courts would quickly get appealed to federal courts. And her court would be along the way to the Supreme Court.
#4. To: TooConservative (#3) I certainly hope we get this birther business into the Federal courts on the merits, so that the issue itself can be clearly resolved for good.
#11. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative (#4) I certainly hope we get this birther business into the Federal courts on the merits, so that the issue itself can be clearly resolved for good. There are no merits. It will be dismissed before any trial like the hundreds of frivolous cases before it. http://www.northjersey.com/news/ted-cruz-s-nationality-at-center-of-n-j-ballot-hearing-1.1542495
Ted Cruz's nationality at center of N.J. ballot hearing
Robinson v. Secretary of State Debra Bowen et al, CAND C 08-03836 WHA (2008), Doc 39, at 4:
It is clear that mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and that the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications for president are quintessentially suited to the foregoing process. Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review - if any - should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300-02 (1998). This circumstance also obviates any occasion to consider plaintiff’s standing-cure suggestion that the American Independent Party (affiliated with Alan Keyes) be allowed to intervene. ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DISMISSING ACTION by Judge Alsup denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 27 Motion to Dismiss (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2008)
- - - - - - - - - - KEYES, et al. v BOWEN, et al. (3rd Appellate District Court of Appeals - Sacramento) - Opinion Affirming Lower Court Decision At 1-2:
Plaintiffs’ contentions lack merit. Among other things, we conclude that the Secretary of State does not have a duty to investigate and determine whether a presidential candidate meets eligibility requirements of the United State Constitution. As we will explain, the presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. Were the courts of 50 states at liberty to issue injunctions restricting certification of duly-elected presidential electors, the result could be conflicting rulings and delayed transition of power in derogation of statutory and constitutional deadlines. Any investigation of eligibility is best left to each party, which presumably will conduct the appropriate background check or risk that its nominee’s election will be derailed by an objection in Congress, which is authorized to entertain and resolve the validity of objections following the submission of the electoral votes. At 6:
The trial court sustained both demurrers, ruling the Secretary of State was required to see that state election laws are enforced, but plaintiffs had not identified a state election law imposing a ministerial duty to demand documentary proof of birthplace from presidential candidates. At 7:
The court also found the petition was moot as to all parties with respect to the 2008 General Election because the Electoral College had voted and Mr. Obama had been inaugurated as President of the United States. It was not ripe as to future elections because the issues were not framed with sufficient concreteness and immediacy to allow the court to render a conclusive and definitive judgment rather than an advisory opinion based on hypothetical facts or speculative future events. - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
#13. To: nolu chan (#11) Oh, there is PLENTY of merit to these cases. Truth is, there is a constitutional provision about which these cases turn. Truth is, that constitutional provision isn't clear. Truth is, the meaning of that provision has been eviscerated, because the courts refuse to face the issue. Is somebody born outside of the USA of an American parent a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency, yes or no? The Courts won't rule on it. Winston Churchill could have been President of the United States under the current non-standard. Born in Britain of a posh family, his mother was born American, and that would be enough under the current "standard"...except that maybe the law of the time said "no", but that would then mean that the definition of who was and who wasn't eligible to be President would be completely under the control of Congress, who could change that at a whim, as opposed to being a fixed and predictable constitutional rule (as it was intended to be). The stark refusal to face the ambiguity is going to continue to bedevil this country going forward in an international world. It does not serve us well to leave such an important question unanswered. And it's a lie to say that it has been clearly answered. It has not been. It should be. The court should take the case, look at the law, and rule one way or the other. Set the standard and clear the decks.
#23. To: Vicomte13, TooConservativ e (#13)
Oh, there is PLENTY of merit to these cases. Truth is, there is a constitutional provision about which these cases turn. Truth is, that constitutional provision isn't clear. Truth is, the meaning of that provision has been eviscerated, because the courts refuse to face the issue. The courts have a self-stated lack of jurisdiction in matters assigned by the Constitution to the Legislative branch.
And the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the subject of the action in that federal law establishes election procedures and the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President. The appropriate procedure was an action before the United States Congress pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Congress and 3 U.S.C. section 15. In the trial court’s words, plaintiffs’ “belief in the importance of their arguments is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.” Keyes v. Bowen, as quoted supra. Somebody born outside of the USA of an American parent is born a natural born citizen, yes. Nobody has ever challenged the natural born citizenship of any candidate in the only lawful method provided by the Constitution. Challenges in the courts of the 50 states run afoul of:
As we will explain, the presidential nominating process is not subject to each of the 50 states’ election officials independently deciding whether a presidential nominee is qualified, as this could lead to chaotic results. A lawsuit submitted to a court or administrative body with no jurisdiction has no merit. Keyes v. Bowen, as quoted supra.
Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review - if any - should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course. Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300-02 (1998). This circumstance also obviates any occasion to consider plaintiff’s standing-cure suggestion that the American Independent Party (affiliated with Alan Keyes) be allowed to intervene. Robinson v. Bowen, quoted supra. The matter has been addressed by SCOTUS in dicta. Of course, the Court has not, and could not, issue a holding directly addressing the issue as you desire, as it has never had such a case to rule upon, and never will as long as it is considered as committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch. In 1971, in Rogers the court set current precedent. http://supreme.justia.com/us/401/815/case.html U.S. Supreme Court At 828:
The reach of congressional power in this area is readily apparent: At 829-30:
Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing [401 U.S. 815, 830] rights, and affirmative of existing law," so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688 . Then follows a most significant sentence: UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
7 FAM 1100 ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY When all else fails, read the modifying statute. For any individual, the applicable statute is the one that applied at the moment of birth. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr003449)) The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3] 3 Farrand's Records 617 at 629-630 Article IX § 1 in Appendix F of the Hamilton Plan of June 18, 1787 read:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States. Opinion of Laurence H. Tribe and Theodore B. Olson of March 19, 2008
Those [British] statutes provided, for example, that children born abroad to parents who were "natural-born Subjects" were also "natural-born Subjects ... to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever." British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21. The Framers substituted the word "citizen" for "subject" to reflect the shift from monarchy to democracy, but the Supreme Court has recognized that the two terms are otherwise identical:. See, e.g., Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U.S. 25, 34-35 (1903). Thus, the First Congress's statutory recognition that persons born abroad to U.S. citizens were "natural born" citizens fully conformed to British tradition, whereby citizenship conferred by statute based on the circumstances of one's birth made one natural born. A natural born citizen was one who is born a citizen of the United States. It is just not that complicated. The citizenship status of those born abroad is determined by Federal statute in force at the time of birth.
Replies to Comment # 23. A natural born citizen was one who is born a citizen of the United States. It is just not that complicated. The citizenship status of those born abroad is determined by Federal statute in force at the time of birth. Apparently not. Obama was born in Kenya, and at the time of his birth there, to an American, she was not old enough to convey US citizenship to her child. Therefore, Obama was not natural born, but there he sits, President of the United States, because the courts lack jurisdiction to touch the matter. Which is to say, the Constitutional provision is rendered null and void, when the man involved is powerful enough and popular enough. The rule of man, not law, is the law of the land. So be it.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 23. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|