Why Ted Cruz Will NOT Win A Contested Convention

[Syriusly]

Cruz has already won countless challenges to that. If that's what you're strategy is relying on, you better have a plan B

Cruz hasn't won any challenges against him. The cases have been denied for various reasons, late filing, no standing. failure to serve, etc. Only a candidate will be able to pursue based on standing, or Congress can flat out deny him if he is elected.

Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
TRENTON - Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution and therefore can run in the June 7 New Jersey primary, a state administrative law judge said Tuesday. "The more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a 'natural born citizen' within the contemplation of the Constitution," Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin wrote.

Seems like a win to me.

Cruz is eligible- just not qualified.

All the administrative law judge did was state that Cruz was allowed to be on the state ballot, his opinion that Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" is just his opinion. He goes on to state:

Masin wrote in a 26-page decision that the issue of whether a child born outside the U.S. to an American citizen is eligible to be president "can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling" of the U.S. Supreme Court.​

Again, all it did was qualify Cruz on the States ballot.

You should follow the links and read the full story instead of misleading snippets.
Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says

As did the Pennsylvania judge, the Illinois Board of Election amd the Connecticut Board of Election. It seems highly unlikely that a federal court would even hear the case.

Boards of election hold no legal authority in regards to Cruz's citizenship, only that he has qualified for that states ability to get on that states ballot. The Penn Judge was pretty much rebuked by the NJ Judge. A Federal Court won't hear any of it, as the issue must go through the DC Circuit as stated by the 9th Circuit.

Congress can choose to deny Cruz if he were to win the general election and even then SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case either, as Congress would have sole authority over the issue.

Here we find agreement- Congress is the ultimate authority over who is eligible. If this were to reach the Supreme Court, I think it would consider it a political issue and within the authority of Congress- not the courts.

And despite the general dislike for Cruz in Congress, I would expect that Congress would approve Cruz just as they signaled that they would have approved McCain.

Not that Cruz is likely to be on the ballot- or elected.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Your claim was that Cruz has not won anything- here let me quote you:

Cruz hasn't won any challenges against him. The cases have been denied for various reasons, late filing, no standing. failure to serve, etc.

However- Cruz did win- the challenge was dismissed- not for 'late filing', not for 'lack of standing' and not for 'failure to serve' but based upon the judges determination that Cruz was indeed eligible.

That Cruz was eligible to be on the States Ballot, nothing more. The claim by Avatar that Cruz was eligible as a US Citizen for Presidency was that of Cruz's Citizenship question in regards to the OP's birth certificate being Canadian, to which Cruz has won no cases based on that, again from your provided link:

Masin wrote in a 26-page decision that the issue of whether a child born outside the U.S. to an American citizen is eligible to be president "can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling" of the U.S. Supreme Court.​

Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
TRENTON - Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution and therefore can run in the June 7 New Jersey primary, a state administrative law judge said Tuesday. "The more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a 'natural born citizen' within the contemplation of the Constitution," Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin wrote.

Seems like a win to me. Cruz remains on the ballot- the judge ruled he was eligible.

Cruz is eligible- just not qualified.

All Judge Mason is saying is he is eligible to be on the States ballot (you only need to meet the requirements of the state regulations), nothing more. SMFH
Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in New Jersey - Ballotpedia

 

[Liquid Reigns]

. I suggest a good reading and understanding of the Wong Kim Ark case to recognize history, since our laws are run-ons of the English Common Law for citizenship. Both parents being English subjects in English territories were required to make a natural born subject

Oh please let us discuss Wong Kim Ark.

Because Wong Kim Ark discusses English Common law at length- and does not require that both parents be 'English subjects in English territories'.

Because I have been contradicting Birther idiots for years now, I have read and re-read Wong Kim Ark multiple times- since it contradicts many of the Birther claims- chief among them that both parents must be U.S. Citizens.

The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.

this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,

if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

None of this of course really is relevant to Cruz- as Wong Kim Ark did not directly address the issue of an American citizen who was born a U.S. citizen outside of the United States because of his parent(s) citizenship

Actually WKA does address the citizenship status of children born outside the US, Section IV of Justice Grays Opinion.

By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In the exercise of this power, Congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed at the second session of the First Congress under the Constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, "dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization." Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress. Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3; January 29, 1795, c. 20; June 18, 1798, c. 54; 1 Stat. 103, 414, 566; April 14, 1802, c. 28; March 26, 1804, c. 47; 2 Stat. 153, 292; February 10, 1854, c. 71; 10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993.

In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows:

The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been [p673] resident in the United States.

1 Stat. 104. In 1795, this was reenacted in the same words, except in substituting for the words "beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States" the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States." 1 Stat. 415.

In 1802, all former acts were repealed, and the provisions concerning children of citizens were reenacted in this form:

The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the Government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents' being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.

Act of April 14, 1802, c. 28, § 4; 2 Stat. 155.

The provision of that act concerning "the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States," not being restricted to the children of persons already naturalized, might well be held to include children of persons thereafter to be naturalized. 2 Kent Com. 51, 52; West v. West, 8 Paige, 433; United States v. Kellar, 11 Bissell, 314; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135-177.

But the provision concerning foreign-born children, being expressly limited to the children of persons who then were or had been citizens, clearly did not include foreign-born children of any person who became a citizen since its enactment. 2 Kent.Com. 52, 53; Binney on Alienigenae 20, 25; 2 Amer.Law Reg. 203, 205. Mr. Binney's paper, as he states in his preface, was printed by him in the hope that Congress might supply this defect in our law.

In accordance with his suggestions, it was enacted by the [p674] statute of February 10, 1855, c. 71, that

persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.

10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. § 1993.

It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802, and that the act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.
​

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Cruz hasn't won any challenges against him. The cases have been denied for various reasons, late filing, no standing. failure to serve, etc. Only a candidate will be able to pursue based on standing, or Congress can flat out deny him if he is elected.

Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
TRENTON - Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution and therefore can run in the June 7 New Jersey primary, a state administrative law judge said Tuesday. "The more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a 'natural born citizen' within the contemplation of the Constitution," Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin wrote.

Seems like a win to me.

Cruz is eligible- just not qualified.

All the administrative law judge did was state that Cruz was allowed to be on the state ballot, his opinion that Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" is just his opinion. He goes on to state:

Masin wrote in a 26-page decision that the issue of whether a child born outside the U.S. to an American citizen is eligible to be president "can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling" of the U.S. Supreme Court.​

Again, all it did was qualify Cruz on the States ballot.

You should follow the links and read the full story instead of misleading snippets.
Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says

As did the Pennsylvania judge, the Illinois Board of Election amd the Connecticut Board of Election. It seems highly unlikely that a federal court would even hear the case.

Boards of election hold no legal authority in regards to Cruz's citizenship, only that he has qualified for that states ability to get on that states ballot. The Penn Judge was pretty much rebuked by the NJ Judge. A Federal Court won't hear any of it, as the issue must go through the DC Circuit as stated by the 9th Circuit.

Congress can choose to deny Cruz if he were to win the general election and even then SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case either, as Congress would have sole authority over the issue.

Here we find agreement- Congress is the ultimate authority over who is eligible. If this were to reach the Supreme Court, I think it would consider it a political issue and within the authority of Congress- not the courts.

And despite the general dislike for Cruz in Congress, I would expect that Congress would approve Cruz just as they signaled that they would have approved McCain.

It is questionable, McCain had 2 citizen parents born in US Territory, whereas Cruz has 1 US Citizen Mother that never even registered his Canadian birth with the US Consul in Canada, which is a requirement.

Not that Cruz is likely to be on the ballot- or elected.

This we definitely agree on

 

[Cecilie1200]

What the fuck is wrong with you people, did you never study this stuff in high school? Each state has it's own rules for caucuses and primaries. There is not a ballot vote for candidates in Colorado. Previously, they have had "presidential preference" polls but delegates are not bound by those. In 2015, the Republican Party of Colorado decided not to have the preference polls and awarded the delegates through county caucuses.

Fact is, in MOST states, you do not vote directly for a candidate, you vote for their delegates... IF you vote at all. Some states hold caucuses.... some hold primaries. It's how the system works and how it's been working for as long as we've held presidential elections. You act like this is some kind of new unprecedented thing that just happened in Colorado because the GOP didn't want to count the votes or something.

If Trump had won the delegates in Colorado, there would have been absolutely nothing said about this. The ONLY REASON it is a story is because TRUMP started claiming outrage over the process... a process he knew full well was going to be as it was for the entirety of this campaign. He failed to secure the delegates through the process laid out by the state party and now he wants to cry foul. You abject MORONS join in the chorus because you're apparently ILLITERATE about how the process works. I learned about this stuff in 8th grade!

So why don't you morons go learn something about how we nominate candidates in America and shut the fuck up with your incessant whining and moaning. I can't help that you're an illiterate. I can't do anything about the rules of the Republican Party of Colorado. They don't ask me what I think, I don't get included in their decisions. Ted Cruz doesn't either. So what the fuck do you expect us to do about that? You think maybe Ted Cruz should refuse to accept Colorado's delegates or something? Maybe he should just resign from the party in protest? Is THAT what you expect to happen?

I totally don't get this! What the hell are you people expecting to happen here? You think if you bitch and moan enough, Colorado might change it's mind and hold a primary or something? I don't think any of this stuff is going to happen and I think you're all going to have to just grow the fuck up and learn to live with this. I don't know what else to tell you but the incessant whining and complaining isn't serving any purpose.

Boss, I left the Republican Party about 8 years ago for 2 main reasons- I no longer wanted to be associated with the religious right (their dogma was really creeping me out) and the leadership seemed spineless in the defense and advancement of conservative ideas, so I concluded there was no point. Cast my first vote for Ronnie R. and have never picked a Dem over a Rep since. I own guns and hate commies.

Here at ground zero in Colorado, there are a lot of Good conservative people pissed as hell about the shenanigans in the process. Call them whiny morons if you like, tell them they are too stupid to understand the process, say they are illiterate because they don't spend the time you do studying the system..........and then scratch your arrogant head in November wondering how a person like Hillary can become President.

The GOP is getting what it sows, and they have elitist intellectuals like you to carry their water for them. That's sad man.

Seems like what there are in Colorado are a bunch of lazy couch monkeys who think "shenanigans" is anything that requires them to actually pay attention, think, and put in a little effort, rather than just waking up one morning, going, "Oh, geez, there's a vote!" and trundling down to a polling place to fill in a bubble on a piece of paper for a name they barely recognize.

There at ground zero in Colorado, you had your chance for your precious vote last month, March 1. That's when their county precincts held caucuses for them to choose their delegates to the next level of meetings. All registered Republicans in the precinct were eligible to vote in those caucuses. There were notices sent out, as well as posted all over the web pages for the county GOPs, and has been for months.

So . . . who did you vote for at YOUR precinct caucus?

exactly

The reason these "lazy, moronic couch potatoes" are agitated is because their preference for the Republican nominee was never considered, or at least that is what they are screaming about here. The Republican GOP has confirmed that they have no system in place to poll or survey registered republicans who attend the precinct caucus.

No, they reason that they're agitated is that they didn't bother to get themselves informed, so they're now being ginned up by a bunch of misinformation and outright lies.

"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."

In other words, get informed or get taken for a sucker.

Since your non-answer most likely means you didn't even ATTEND your precinct caucus, let alone cast the vote you're making such a ruckus about now, I'll ask you another question: At what point, exactly, did you become aware that your state was not going to be holding a standard GOP primary or caucus? How long ago was it?

 

[Syriusly]

Your claim was that Cruz has not won anything- here let me quote you:

Cruz hasn't won any challenges against him. The cases have been denied for various reasons, late filing, no standing. failure to serve, etc.

However- Cruz did win- the challenge was dismissed- not for 'late filing', not for 'lack of standing' and not for 'failure to serve' but based upon the judges determination that Cruz was indeed eligible.

That Cruz was eligible to be on the States Ballot, nothing more. The claim by Avatar that Cruz was eligible as a US Citizen for Presidency was that of Cruz's Citizenship question in regards to the OP's birth certificate being Canadian, to which Cruz has won no cases based on that, again from your provided link:

Masin wrote in a 26-page decision that the issue of whether a child born outside the U.S. to an American citizen is eligible to be president "can never be entirely free of doubt, at least barring a definitive ruling" of the U.S. Supreme Court.​

Ted Cruz is an American and can appear on N.J. primary ballot, judge says
TRENTON - Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is a "natural-born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution and therefore can run in the June 7 New Jersey primary, a state administrative law judge said Tuesday. "The more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a 'natural born citizen' within the contemplation of the Constitution," Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin wrote.

Seems like a win to me. Cruz remains on the ballot- the judge ruled he was eligible.

Cruz is eligible- just not qualified.

All Judge Mason is saying is he is eligible to be on the States ballot (you only need to meet the requirements of the state regulations), nothing more. SMFH
Ballot access requirements for political candidates in New Jersey - Ballotpedia

"The more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a 'natural born citizen' within the contemplation of the Constitution," Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin wrote.

Fascinating decision actually.

http://dng.northjersey.com/media_server/tr/2016/04/12cruz/ruling.pdf

Part of the decision was Judge Mason noting that the court in Pennsylvania did rule on the issue based upon the merits- and found that Cruz is a natural born citizen

Therefore refuting again your claim that no court had decided the issue on merit.

And the judge did indeed rule on his eligibility- specifically:

 

[Boss]

Congress can choose to deny Cruz if he were to win the general election and even then SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case either, as Congress would have sole authority over the issue.

Nonsense. Sheer and utter nonsense.

:yawn: Maybe you should read the US Constitution, specifically Amendment 20.

Yep... we've been over this. It lays out the process of Congress verifying the legitimacy of the electors. You see-- It might be a very close race, like Gore/Bush in 2000, and it might happen to be that some of the electors were improperly seated, thus electing the wrong man. So this is a Congressional check and balance to insure the integrity of our electoral process. The 20th says nothing about disqualifying a president-elect on the basis of his qualifications to run.

Now let me say this... I personally don't believe you have the brains to have even known what the 20th Amendment said before you read some bullshit online about it. If someone had asked you a year ago, what was in the 20th, you would have shrugged and had no idea whatsoever. You've suddenly become a Constitutional expert by virtue of some partisan hack blogger somewhere who doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Congress can choose to deny Cruz if he were to win the general election and even then SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case either, as Congress would have sole authority over the issue.

Nonsense. Sheer and utter nonsense.

:yawn: Maybe you should read the US Constitution, specifically Amendment 20.

Yep... we've been over this. It lays out the process of Congress verifying the legitimacy of the electors. You see-- It might be a very close race, like Gore/Bush in 2000, and it might happen to be that some of the electors were improperly seated, thus electing the wrong man. So this is a Congressional check and balance to insure the integrity of our electoral process. The 20th says nothing about disqualifying a president-elect on the basis of his qualifications to run.

Now let me say this... I personally don't believe you have the brains to have even known what the 20th Amendment said before you read some bullshit online about it. If someone had asked you a year ago, what was in the 20th, you would have shrugged and had no idea whatsoever. You've suddenly become a Constitutional expert by virtue of some partisan hack blogger somewhere who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Yes, we have been over this, you were made to look foolish, just like you are now. LMFAO

The 9th fucking Circuit states Congress can deny Cruz if he is the President elect, would you like to hear it directly in a case against Cruz and Cruz's lawyers stating it?

Pellegrini spent half of his decision in Elliott v. Cruz determining whether the judiciary had jurisdiction over questions of eligibility to run for president. Cruz argued it was a question only for the Electoral College or Congress to determine, and that the court should be barred from hearing it under the political-question doctrine. But Pellegrini rejected that contention, finding there was no support for it under various sections of the U.S. Constitution, nor under the 12th Amendment.​

Do you see that BIG word or in there?

The 20th Amendment states:

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.​

How do you suppose a President Elect doesn't qualify, especially since he is the President Elect as the Electoral College has voted for? Why do you think the US Senate drafted the Resolution for McCain? watafuknidiot

 

[Boss]

How do you suppose a President Elect doesn't qualify, especially since he is the President Elect as the Electoral College has voted for? Why do you think the US Senate drafted the Resolution for McCain? watafuknidiot

The way I just explained... his electors were not legitimate. If he doesn't have the appropriate legitimate electors he can't be president. In that case, it would go to the VP.

The Senate drafts resolutions all the time. It's usually due to a Senator bringing a resolution to the floor and other Senators deciding it's a good idea to vote on it. It could be for virtually ANYTHING... Proclaiming April 14th National Lettuce Day! It doesn't mean there is some Constitutional requirement for Congress to proclaim a certain day as National Lettuce Day.

And hey... I really don't mind being called names here.... that generally tells me that I am making a valid point that you can't really refute... so you have to hurl insults instead.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The way I just explained... his electors were not legitimate. If he doesn't have the appropriate legitimate electors he can't be president. In that case, it would go to the VP.

SMFH

Section 3 provides that if the president-elect dies before Inauguration Day, the vice president-elect will be sworn in as president on that day. If there is no president-elect, or the president-elect fails to meet all of the Constitution's qualifications to be president, Section 3 provides that the vice president-elect will become acting president on Inauguration Day until there is a president who does qualify. Section 3 also allows Congress to determine whom should be acting president if a new president and vice president have not been chosen by Inauguration Day. The Constitution was originally silent on this point, an omission that nearly caused a constitutional crisis when Congress seemed deadlocked in resolving the election of 1800.[8]​

The Senate drafts resolutions all the time. It's usually due to a Senator bringing a resolution to the floor and other Senators deciding it's a good idea to vote on it. It could be for virtually ANYTHING... Proclaiming April 14th National Lettuce Day! It doesn't mean there is some Constitutional requirement for Congress to proclaim a certain day as National Lettuce Day.

Which doesn't address the fact that the Senate drafted a Resolution for McCain. SMFH

 

[Boss]

The way I just explained... his electors were not legitimate. If he doesn't have the appropriate legitimate electors he can't be president. In that case, it would go to the VP.

SMFH

Section 3 provides that if the president-elect dies before Inauguration Day, the vice president-elect will be sworn in as president on that day. If there is no president-elect, or the president-elect fails to meet all of the Constitution's qualifications to be president, Section 3 provides that the vice president-elect will become acting president on Inauguration Day until there is a president who does qualify. Section 3 also allows Congress to determine whom should be acting president if a new president and vice president have not been chosen by Inauguration Day. The Constitution was originally silent on this point, an omission that nearly caused a constitutional crisis when Congress seemed deadlocked in resolving the election of 1800.[8]​

The Senate drafts resolutions all the time. It's usually due to a Senator bringing a resolution to the floor and other Senators deciding it's a good idea to vote on it. It could be for virtually ANYTHING... Proclaiming April 14th National Lettuce Day! It doesn't mean there is some Constitutional requirement for Congress to proclaim a certain day as National Lettuce Day.

Which doesn't address the fact that the Senate drafted a Resolution for McCain. SMFH

You keep citing the procedure for protocol in case the president cannot serve. That has nothing to do with Congress disqualifying a president on the basis of his eligibility to run. NOTHING!

And the Senate can draft a resolution that Liquid Reigns is a swell guy... it doesn't mean anything.

 

[Avatar4321]

Congress can choose to deny Cruz if he were to win the general election and even then SCOTUS wouldn't hear the case either, as Congress would have sole authority over the issue.

Nonsense. Sheer and utter nonsense.

:yawn: Maybe you should read the US Constitution, specifically Amendment 20.

Yep... we've been over this. It lays out the process of Congress verifying the legitimacy of the electors. You see-- It might be a very close race, like Gore/Bush in 2000, and it might happen to be that some of the electors were improperly seated, thus electing the wrong man. So this is a Congressional check and balance to insure the integrity of our electoral process. The 20th says nothing about disqualifying a president-elect on the basis of his qualifications to run.

Now let me say this... I personally don't believe you have the brains to have even known what the 20th Amendment said before you read some bullshit online about it. If someone had asked you a year ago, what was in the 20th, you would have shrugged and had no idea whatsoever. You've suddenly become a Constitutional expert by virtue of some partisan hack blogger somewhere who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Yes, we have been over this, you were made to look foolish, just like you are now. LMFAO

The 9th fucking Circuit states Congress can deny Cruz if he is the President elect, would you like to hear it directly in a case against Cruz and Cruz's lawyers stating it?

Pellegrini spent half of his decision in Elliott v. Cruz determining whether the judiciary had jurisdiction over questions of eligibility to run for president. Cruz argued it was a question only for the Electoral College or Congress to determine, and that the court should be barred from hearing it under the political-question doctrine. But Pellegrini rejected that contention, finding there was no support for it under various sections of the U.S. Constitution, nor under the 12th Amendment.​

Do you see that BIG word or in there?

The 20th Amendment states:

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.​

How do you suppose a President Elect doesn't qualify, especially since he is the President Elect as the Electoral College has voted for? Why do you think the US Senate drafted the Resolution for McCain? watafuknidiot

Probably for cases such as Hillary if she is arrested and elected

 

[Boss]

Probably for cases such as Hillary if she is arrested and elected

Ironically, that's not the case either. There is nothing in the Constitution which says a president is disqualified if they are under indictment or arrest. Congress can invoke articles of impeachment...wouldn't that be something... getting impeached before you get inaugurated? She'd be one up on Bill!

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The way I just explained... his electors were not legitimate. If he doesn't have the appropriate legitimate electors he can't be president. In that case, it would go to the VP.

SMFH

Section 3 provides that if the president-elect dies before Inauguration Day, the vice president-elect will be sworn in as president on that day. If there is no president-elect, or the president-elect fails to meet all of the Constitution's qualifications to be president, Section 3 provides that the vice president-elect will become acting president on Inauguration Day until there is a president who does qualify. Section 3 also allows Congress to determine whom should be acting president if a new president and vice president have not been chosen by Inauguration Day. The Constitution was originally silent on this point, an omission that nearly caused a constitutional crisis when Congress seemed deadlocked in resolving the election of 1800.[8]​

The Senate drafts resolutions all the time. It's usually due to a Senator bringing a resolution to the floor and other Senators deciding it's a good idea to vote on it. It could be for virtually ANYTHING... Proclaiming April 14th National Lettuce Day! It doesn't mean there is some Constitutional requirement for Congress to proclaim a certain day as National Lettuce Day.

Which doesn't address the fact that the Senate drafted a Resolution for McCain. SMFH

You keep citing the procedure for protocol in case the president cannot serve. That has nothing to do with Congress disqualifying a president on the basis of his eligibility to run. NOTHING!

And the Senate can draft a resolution that Liquid Reigns is a swell guy... it doesn't mean anything.

I keep citing exactly what the 9th Circuit states and what even Cruz states, Congress can disqualify him if he is the President elect and they deem him to not be a "natural-born citizen". This is basic English comprehension, what are you having such a hard time understanding? The part where even Cruz admits it?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Boss, I left the Republican Party about 8 years ago for 2 main reasons- I no longer wanted to be associated with the religious right (their dogma was really creeping me out) and the leadership seemed spineless in the defense and advancement of conservative ideas, so I concluded there was no point. Cast my first vote for Ronnie R. and have never picked a Dem over a Rep since. I own guns and hate commies.

Here at ground zero in Colorado, there are a lot of Good conservative people pissed as hell about the shenanigans in the process. Call them whiny morons if you like, tell them they are too stupid to understand the process, say they are illiterate because they don't spend the time you do studying the system..........and then scratch your arrogant head in November wondering how a person like Hillary can become President.

The GOP is getting what it sows, and they have elitist intellectuals like you to carry their water for them. That's sad man.

Seems like what there are in Colorado are a bunch of lazy couch monkeys who think "shenanigans" is anything that requires them to actually pay attention, think, and put in a little effort, rather than just waking up one morning, going, "Oh, geez, there's a vote!" and trundling down to a polling place to fill in a bubble on a piece of paper for a name they barely recognize.

There at ground zero in Colorado, you had your chance for your precious vote last month, March 1. That's when their county precincts held caucuses for them to choose their delegates to the next level of meetings. All registered Republicans in the precinct were eligible to vote in those caucuses. There were notices sent out, as well as posted all over the web pages for the county GOPs, and has been for months.

So . . . who did you vote for at YOUR precinct caucus?

exactly

The reason these "lazy, moronic couch potatoes" are agitated is because their preference for the Republican nominee was never considered, or at least that is what they are screaming about here. The Republican GOP has confirmed that they have no system in place to poll or survey registered republicans who attend the precinct caucus.

No, they reason that they're agitated is that they didn't bother to get themselves informed, so they're now being ginned up by a bunch of misinformation and outright lies.

"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."

In other words, get informed or get taken for a sucker.

Since your non-answer most likely means you didn't even ATTEND your precinct caucus, let alone cast the vote you're making such a ruckus about now, I'll ask you another question: At what point, exactly, did you become aware that your state was not going to be holding a standard GOP primary or caucus? How long ago was it?

I thought I had made it clear, but I will clarify now- I am an unaffiliated conservative. I am not a member of the GOP, I dropped my affiliation after 2008. You will find no post of mine to the contrary. Trust me, or look if you like.

I have no interest in participating in politics unless you consider voting when called upon to do so, participating in politics. I watch sports on tv and I follow politics. That is all I am willing to do. I went to the caucus in 2008. I have no desire to be any more involved in the process than that, other than voting. It's not what I want in my life. I will spare you all the reasons why.

I do enjoy being called names though. Reminds me of debating my sisters when I was 12. Good times.

 

[Silhouette]

I keep citing exactly what the 9th Circuit states and what even Cruz states, Congress can disqualify him if he is the President elect and they deem him to not be a "natural-born citizen". This is basic English comprehension, what are you having such a hard time understanding? The part where even Cruz admits it?

If Cruz is the GOP candidate, the USSC's liberal majority will beat Congress to that task....

 

[Boss]

I keep citing exactly what the 9th Circuit states and what even Cruz states, Congress can disqualify him if he is the President elect and they deem him to not be a "natural-born citizen".

They could have, before he ran.

Again, you are taking something out of context because some yahoo in his underwear posting from his grandmother's basement made this "brilliant" argument on his blog somewhere. Once a candidate has gone on the ballot and run, it's a completely different matter. It becomes a political question and the court will not become involved. Congress cannot constitutionally reject a president-elect on the basis of declaring his candidacy illegitimate and his voting supporters disenfranchised. THAT would be a constitutional crisis.

The only scenario where Congress MIGHT could do something like this would be... say if Trump won the presidency by 20 electoral votes and they discovered 21 electors were paid $1 million by Trump to vote for him.... something along those lines, they could disqualify his electors and oust his presidency, but they would have to show cause.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I keep citing exactly what the 9th Circuit states and what even Cruz states, Congress can disqualify him if he is the President elect and they deem him to not be a "natural-born citizen".

They could have, before he ran.

Again, you are taking something out of context because some yahoo in his underwear posting from his grandmother's basement made this "brilliant" argument on his blog somewhere. Once a candidate has gone on the ballot and run, it's a completely different matter. It becomes a political question and the court will not become involved. Congress cannot constitutionally reject a president-elect on the basis of declaring his candidacy illegitimate and his voting supporters disenfranchised. THAT would be a constitutional crisis.

The only scenario where Congress MIGHT could do something like this would be... say if Trump won the presidency by 20 electoral votes and they discovered 21 electors were paid $1 million by Trump to vote for him.... something along those lines, they could disqualify his electors and oust his presidency, but they would have to show cause.

You've been given the 9th Circuits statement in the other thread, in this thread it came directly from Cruz's camp that Congress could deny him, yet you still rail that it comes from some guy in his underwear from a blog. SMFH

Look, it's obvious you have a hard on for Cruz, your problem is you are thinking with your little brain. Reality seems a bit hard to swallow for you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seems like what there are in Colorado are a bunch of lazy couch monkeys who think "shenanigans" is anything that requires them to actually pay attention, think, and put in a little effort, rather than just waking up one morning, going, "Oh, geez, there's a vote!" and trundling down to a polling place to fill in a bubble on a piece of paper for a name they barely recognize.

There at ground zero in Colorado, you had your chance for your precious vote last month, March 1. That's when their county precincts held caucuses for them to choose their delegates to the next level of meetings. All registered Republicans in the precinct were eligible to vote in those caucuses. There were notices sent out, as well as posted all over the web pages for the county GOPs, and has been for months.

So . . . who did you vote for at YOUR precinct caucus?

exactly

The reason these "lazy, moronic couch potatoes" are agitated is because their preference for the Republican nominee was never considered, or at least that is what they are screaming about here. The Republican GOP has confirmed that they have no system in place to poll or survey registered republicans who attend the precinct caucus.

No, they reason that they're agitated is that they didn't bother to get themselves informed, so they're now being ginned up by a bunch of misinformation and outright lies.

"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."

In other words, get informed or get taken for a sucker.

Since your non-answer most likely means you didn't even ATTEND your precinct caucus, let alone cast the vote you're making such a ruckus about now, I'll ask you another question: At what point, exactly, did you become aware that your state was not going to be holding a standard GOP primary or caucus? How long ago was it?

I thought I had made it clear, but I will clarify now- I am an unaffiliated conservative. I am not a member of the GOP, I dropped my affiliation after 2008. You will find no post of mine to the contrary. Trust me, or look if you like.

I have no interest in participating in politics unless you consider voting when called upon to do so, participating in politics. I watch sports on tv and I follow politics. That is all I am willing to do. I went to the caucus in 2008. I have no desire to be any more involved in the process than that, other than voting. It's not what I want in my life. I will spare you all the reasons why.

I do enjoy being called names though. Reminds me of debating my sisters when I was 12. Good times.

I haven't called YOU any names. I made a general statement about people who make no effort toward getting what they want, including clearly identifying HOW that's accomplished or even paying attention, and then get flail around in a rage because they mysteriously didn't get it. If you want to identify yourself with that statement, that's YOUR lookout, not mine.

I don't actually give a rat's rear what political party you are or are not affiliated with. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is people blaming their own lack of investment and the lousy returns they get from it on others not making the effort for them. It's hypocritical, and it generates no sympathy. For the record, though, given your lack of political affiliation, I can tell you that you would have been just as "disenfranchised" if you lived in Arizona where I am, because despite having a standard primary, it's closed and only allows party members to vote. Is that ALSO "cheating" and "rigging the system" and "unfair"?

Well, it appears to me that you weren't following much in the way of politics for the last nine months, at least not on a local level, or none of this would be a shock now. I don't get more involved in politics than to be informed and vote myself, but I AM informed. I work at it. And if I don't care about something enough to put in that effort, then I admit it and do everyone a favor and stay out of it. And I own that decision.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

exactly

The reason these "lazy, moronic couch potatoes" are agitated is because their preference for the Republican nominee was never considered, or at least that is what they are screaming about here. The Republican GOP has confirmed that they have no system in place to poll or survey registered republicans who attend the precinct caucus.

No, they reason that they're agitated is that they didn't bother to get themselves informed, so they're now being ginned up by a bunch of misinformation and outright lies.

"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."

In other words, get informed or get taken for a sucker.

Since your non-answer most likely means you didn't even ATTEND your precinct caucus, let alone cast the vote you're making such a ruckus about now, I'll ask you another question: At what point, exactly, did you become aware that your state was not going to be holding a standard GOP primary or caucus? How long ago was it?

I thought I had made it clear, but I will clarify now- I am an unaffiliated conservative. I am not a member of the GOP, I dropped my affiliation after 2008. You will find no post of mine to the contrary. Trust me, or look if you like.

I have no interest in participating in politics unless you consider voting when called upon to do so, participating in politics. I watch sports on tv and I follow politics. That is all I am willing to do. I went to the caucus in 2008. I have no desire to be any more involved in the process than that, other than voting. It's not what I want in my life. I will spare you all the reasons why.

I do enjoy being called names though. Reminds me of debating my sisters when I was 12. Good times.

I haven't called YOU any names. I made a general statement about people who make no effort toward getting what they want, including clearly identifying HOW that's accomplished or even paying attention, and then get flail around in a rage because they mysteriously didn't get it. If you want to identify yourself with that statement, that's YOUR lookout, not mine.

I don't actually give a rat's rear what political party you are or are not affiliated with. It's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is people blaming their own lack of investment and the lousy returns they get from it on others not making the effort for them. It's hypocritical, and it generates no sympathy. For the record, though, given your lack of political affiliation, I can tell you that you would have been just as "disenfranchised" if you lived in Arizona where I am, because despite having a standard primary, it's closed and only allows party members to vote. Is that ALSO "cheating" and "rigging the system" and "unfair"?

Well, it appears to me that you weren't following much in the way of politics for the last nine months, at least not on a local level, or none of this would be a shock now. I don't get more involved in politics than to be informed and vote myself, but I AM informed. I work at it. And if I don't care about something enough to put in that effort, then I admit it and do everyone a favor and stay out of it. And I own that decision.

Ok, you are better informed than I am on what has occurred in Colorado, what the Rep voters are saying, what the mood is here, and what it all means. I am sorry I have not been a political junky for the last nine months, but I feel fortunate to have you tell me what my eyes get wrong.

Thank you for your research. You have qualified yourself to tutor people on the Colorado caucus system. I know you are aware you will
have to re-educator yourself as the system will change for 2020. But you have proven you can learn everything from google search.

So I will just tell you what happened here and you tell me what it means-

What does it mean that the Colorado Republican chairman Steve House is getting death threats? I mean other than what you already explained regarding lazy, fat, and dumb voters.

Is there any significance to this audio of Steve House talking at a Republican meeting,

and the Colorado republican executive committee changing the rules days later to make it more difficult for a canidate like trump to win delegates?

What does it mean that the state GOP tweeted "we did it. #never Trump" shortly after Ted Cruz Was awarded all Colorado delegates?

What does it mean they did not Send the tweet, and claim it was a hack. Is it possible the hacker is the same one who hacked Anthony wiener's Twitter account?

Thanks for helping those of us who are too lazy to be as informed as you.