Why Ted Cruz Will NOT Win A Contested Convention

[Boss]

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.

No, Congress does not have the power.

20th Amendment Section 3, The 9th Circuit says they do, so does Cruz's own team, sorry.

The President has 3 requirements to meet, 35 or older, 14 years resident in the US, and be a "natural-born citizen". Congress could disqualify based on not meeting any one of the 3 requirements. If they deem Cruz to not be a "natural-born citizen" he could be disqualified if he is the President elect.

Is it likely he is elected? Probably not
Is it likely he would be disqualified? Probably not
Would Congress issue a Resolution like they did for McCain? Quite possible

No they do not, you are misinterpreting a case regarding what is possible BEFORE he is on the ballot and officially running.

Misinterpreting a case? LMFAO

So you are calling the 9th Circuit and Cruz's own camp wrong?

No... I think what I said was, you are misinterpreting the case. Something wrong with your reading comprehension today? The 9th Circuit and Cruz's camp are right in the proper context of what can be done BEFORE he runs, BEFORE votes are cast, BEFORE his name is officially on the ballot. THAT is the context of the case that you keep bringing up. You are interpreting what they are saying in the context of AFTER he runs, AFTER votes are cast and AFTER his name is officially on the ballot. THAT is NOT the context the commentary was made in.

Now, myself and others have patiently tried to explain this to you several ways but you keep clinging to this case like a dog with a bone. I don't know what else we can tell you, I guess you'll have to wait and see that you're fucking wrong?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

No, Congress does not have the power.

20th Amendment Section 3, The 9th Circuit says they do, so does Cruz's own team, sorry.

The President has 3 requirements to meet, 35 or older, 14 years resident in the US, and be a "natural-born citizen". Congress could disqualify based on not meeting any one of the 3 requirements. If they deem Cruz to not be a "natural-born citizen" he could be disqualified if he is the President elect.

Is it likely he is elected? Probably not
Is it likely he would be disqualified? Probably not
Would Congress issue a Resolution like they did for McCain? Quite possible

No they do not, you are misinterpreting a case regarding what is possible BEFORE he is on the ballot and officially running.

Misinterpreting a case? LMFAO

So you are calling the 9th Circuit and Cruz's own camp wrong?

No... I think what I said was, you are misinterpreting the case. Something wrong with your reading comprehension today? The 9th Circuit and Cruz's camp are right in the proper context of what can be done BEFORE he runs, BEFORE votes are cast, BEFORE his name is officially on the ballot. THAT is the context of the case that you keep bringing up. You are interpreting what they are saying in the context of AFTER he runs, AFTER votes are cast and AFTER his name is officially on the ballot. THAT is NOT the context the commentary was made in.

Now, myself and others have patiently tried to explain this to you several ways but you keep clinging to this case like a dog with a bone. I don't know what else we can tell you, I guess you'll have to wait and see that you're fucking wrong?

Private citizen can BEFORE being placed on the ballot, almost every case denied due to NO standing. A candidate can do so DURING the process. Congress can do so AFTER. My comprehension is just fine. As Cruz's camp stated, only Congress can deny him, which would be AFTER.

You are so fucking confused you need to get out of the conversation and learn how to follow along, maybe then you could actually learn something.

And as I have already stated:
Is it likely he is elected? Probably not
Is it likely he would be disqualified? Probably not
Would Congress issue a Resolution like they did for McCain? Quite possible

 

[Avatar4321]

So is that a no on a plan B?

 

[Boss]

Private citizen can BEFORE being placed on the ballot, almost every case denied due to NO standing. A candidate can do so DURING the process. Congress can do so AFTER. My comprehension is just fine. As Cruz's camp stated, only Congress can deny him, which would be AFTER.

You are so fucking confused you need to get out of the conversation and learn how to follow along, maybe then you could actually learn something.

And as I have already stated:
Is it likely he is elected? Probably not
Is it likely he would be disqualified? Probably not
Would Congress issue a Resolution like they did for McCain? Quite possible

No, we don't have different sets of laws for different types of people. If there is a legitimate objection to Cruz or any candidate being on the ballot, it must be raised BEFORE the election process begins. In such a case, Congress could act. You're taking that fact and trying to apply it on the ass end, AFTER the election... there is no such provision.

Honestly.... Do you think if Congress had the power to rule candidates ineligible after the fact, we wouldn't have seen this happen many times over the years? Like.... almost every election?

Congress can issue a resolution if they want to... it has nothing to do with anything.

 

[dannyboys]

Its different. The Panama Canal Zone was an unorganized US territory. Which Longborough v. Blake makes clear is the United States. Cruz was born in Canada. Which most definitely wasn't the United States.

Regardless, the Senate won't want to fuck with a GOP candidate. And the courts don't want this issue at all. They would only touch it if a State Secretary of State brought it to them. And then likely find in Cruz's favor.

Says the far left advocate who strangely is here defending far-right Cruz's "right to run" for the GOP ticket.

You confuse me with yourself. You make assessments based on what you want to occur rather than what the evidence suggests. I make assessments on what the evidence suggests, regardless of my preferred outcome.

My methodology works far better in predicting actual outcomes than yours does. For example, in every prediction of the law you've made, you've been wrong. Every single time, every single case, ever single legal outcome.

While I have a reasonably good record of predicting the actual outcome of legal cases. I'll stick with my methodology, thanks.

"Don't worry folks! The USSC's liberal majority in the pocket of the far-left cult won't take every opportunity available to strip a GOP-Cruz at the last minute to harm the vote and pitch it over to Hillary!"...

You're so funny Skylar it's almost cute...

Save of course that they most likely won't. The USSC has no interest in this case. They were offered yet another opportunity to step in. And again, predictably haven't granted cert. With virtually every case challenging Cruz's eligibility being dismissed.

You're again projecting your desires onto outcomes. Assuming that because you want something to happen, it will happen. Alas, that's not how reality works.

As your perfect record of failure in predicting legal outcomes demonstrates.

So what were your 'predictions' in the TM and 'Big Mike' cases?
Ya fucking right!

 

[Boss]

IMHO, the Supreme Court should make a clear ruling as to the requirements of president, that will once and for all end this issue. It's a distraction in the election process that is used to divert the attention of voters from the real issues.

Catch 22.... Every time a case is brought it falls under the PQD.

 

[Syriusly]

No, congress is not the ultimate authority on the meaning of the constitution. Congress can certainly pass legislation that would deny Cruz the presidency, but you can bet that the Supreme Court would review their action to determine constitutionality and would most assuredly block congress and probably rule the term means a person born to a U.S. citizen without regard to where they were born. .

The problem of course is the Constitution did not define "natural born" nor did it supply an enforcement clause. but , there is abundant evidence as to the meaning of the phrase..

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States

Every time there is a presidential candidate born abroad, or whose parent(s) were, there will be political opposition calming ineligibility. They have no intention of actually getting a court ruling on the issue but rather to leave doubt in the minds of voters in hopes of winning their vote. IMHO, the Supreme Court should make a clear ruling as to the requirements of president, that will once and for all end this issue. It's a distraction in the election process that is used to divert the attention of voters from the real issues.

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

Your link is completely rebutted here:
Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president
by: Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.

And here: The Natural Born Citizen Clause as Originally Understood by Mary Brigid McManamon :: SSRN

An interesting and well researched article- but here conclusion is rather contradictory
She says the question of here paper was whether 'early Americans' would consider someone born outside the United States to be a Natural Born citizen- and concluded no.

But in 1790 the majority in Congress said just the opposite- and I would consider Americans from 1790 to be 'early Americans'

She claims Congress didn't have that authority- but clearly that Congress thought either that they were expressing the common understanding of Natural Born- or felt that they had the authority to declare such citizens natural born.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

No, we don't have different sets of laws for different types of people. If there is a legitimate objection to Cruz or any candidate being on the ballot, it must be raised BEFORE the election process begins. In such a case, Congress could act. You're taking that fact and trying to apply it on the ass end, AFTER the election... there is no such provision.

Honestly.... Do you think if Congress had the power to rule candidates ineligible after the fact, we wouldn't have seen this happen many times over the years? Like.... almost every election?

Congress can issue a resolution if they want to... it has nothing to do with anything.

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 almost 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.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

An interesting and well researched article- but here conclusion is rather contradictory
She says the question of here paper was whether 'early Americans' would consider someone born outside the United States to be a Natural Born citizen- and concluded no.

But in 1790 the majority in Congress said just the opposite- and I would consider Americans from 1790 to be 'early Americans'

She claims Congress didn't have that authority- but clearly that Congress thought either that they were expressing the common understanding of Natural Born- or felt that they had the authority to declare such citizens natural born.

She states in Section C.:
The very existence of this provision demonstrates that the early American
notion of “natural born citizen” adopted the English common law only and did
not include the eighteenth-century statutes. If it had been otherwise, there
would have been no need for the 1790 statute because the children covered
would have been natural born under then-current English law. As one
nineteenth-century senator stated: “[T]he founders of this Government made
no provisionof course they made nonefor the naturalization of naturalborn
citizens.”105
Moreover, the legislative history suggests that the first Congress intended to
effectuate a change in the law, not merely to declare the status quo.106 On
February 3, 1790, Congress began debating a draft bill that provided for
naturalization.107 The legislature acknowledged the common law principle that
“[a]n alien has no right to hold lands in any country [but his own].”108
However, there was no real opposition to “let[ting] foreigners, on easy terms,
be admitted to hold lands” in America.109 One of Congress’ greatest concerns
was the prospect of all those immigrants pushing their way into the budding
nation’s new government.
....
In sum, the debate focused on how to balance properly an immigrant’s need to
purchase or inherit land quickly and Congress’ concerns about granting other
aspects of citizenship.
Another congressman, referring to a statute that allowed English children to
inherit from alien parents,111 suggested that “the . . . children of American
parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done [by Parliament] in
the case of English parents.”112 In essence, he called for a clause that would
permit American parents to bequeath property to their alien children. Thus, he
understood “children of American parents born abroad” to be aliens and
ineligible to inherit property.
.....
On January 2, 1795, the bill
was recommitted to a select committee of three individuals, one of whom was
James Madison.131 Earlier, on December 29, 1794, Madison had expressed the
opinion that Congress had no naturalization authority over American citizens:
“It was only granted to them to admit aliens.”132 The following Monday,
January 5, 1795, “Mr. Madison . . . reported a new bill of Naturalization,
containing the amendments recommitted, and also whatever was necessary
from the Old Law, so that the latter should be entirely superceded.”133
Madison salvaged the “Old Law” provision that granted naturalization rights to
children of American citizens born abroad.134 Interestingly, the phrase “natural
born” was deleted without any recorded debate on the issue.135 The new
statute provided in pertinent part that “the children of citizens of the United
States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be
considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of
citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been
resident in the United States.”136 The law established that the alien child was
only naturalized, not declared a natural born citizen.137


My understanding is these children were Naturalized via the Naturalization Act as Congress can not amend the Constitution via statute. Even Justice Grey in WKA states:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.​

 

[Boss]

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.

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.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

 

[Boss]

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.

LOL... The 20th was not ratified to give Congress power to render presidents ineligible after they're elected. It's really just to shore up some protocol and set parameters for when power transfers. It does NOT give Congress power to "approve" a president the people have elected. It's sheer stupidity to believe that's what the 20th Amendment does.

Congress can disqualify a President elect if they determine him ineligible to hold office.

We can go on repeating the same things over and over like a couple of mindless drones, I don't see the point in that. No, Congress most certainly cannot "disqualify" a president elect.... unless, there is some problem with their electors or the president is incapacitated for some reason. They simply cannot wait until AFTER an election, then proclaim the president is not eligible to hold office. That can't happen.

If someone raised the issue BEFORE the candidate ran for president, they could declare the candidate ineligible to run. But AFTER he has run and has been elected, they can't do that... it disenfranchises every person who voted for him. Do you not comprehend that fact? Why in the hell would you think Congress has the power to nullify everyone's vote? Oh wait... I know why... because some puke in his underwear posted it on his blog and thought he was clever times two!

I'm sorry but you're just a fucking moron if you buy into this... it's not true and it's not going to happen.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

LOL... The 20th was not ratified to give Congress power to render presidents ineligible after they're elected. It's really just to shore up some protocol and set parameters for when power transfers. It does NOT give Congress power to "approve" a president the people have elected. It's sheer stupidity to believe that's what the 20th Amendment does.

It gives power to disqualify a President elect. Again you seem to fail basic comprehension of words.

Here you admit the people don't elect anybody, delegates do:
After what the stupid party did in Colorado, they will soon be history.

Votes are meaningless... Trump needs 1,237 delegates to win the nomination.​

So which is it? If delegates choose, how are the voters disenfranchised if Congress disqualifies the President elect? You seem to like to argue out of both sides of your mouth, all the while making yourself look the fool.

We can go on repeating the same things over and over like a couple of mindless drones, I don't see the point in that. No, Congress most certainly cannot "disqualify" a president elect.... unless, there is some problem with their electors or the president is incapacitated for some reason. They simply cannot wait until AFTER an election, then proclaim the president is not eligible to hold office. That can't happen.

Congress can most certainly disqualify a President elect, it's in the fucking 20th Amendment. SMFH Congress can disqualify for failing to meet the requirements as stated by the USC, being a "natural-born citizen". SCOTUS wouldn't touch it due to it being a PQD. Cruz's case is unique to any other situation of the past. He has NO US Birth certificate, namely a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, he entered the US on his mothers passport at the age of 4. He attained US Citizenship via the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, otherwise he would never be considered to even be a US Citizen.

If someone raised the issue BEFORE the candidate ran for president, they could declare the candidate ineligible to run. But AFTER he has run and has been elected, they can't do that... it disenfranchises every person who voted for him. Do you not comprehend that fact? Why in the hell would you think Congress has the power to nullify everyone's vote? Oh wait... I know why... because some puke in his underwear posted it on his blog and thought he was clever times two!

Prior to his running citizens with standing can try to deny him from being on a states ballot (Penn and NJ), nothing more. IF he were to become President elect, Congress can disqualify him for not being a "natural-born citizen". How would everyone's vote be nullified if the candidate was ineligible to hold office? The VP would then become the President elect, nothing lost. Read the fucking 20th Amendment. You still deny what Cruz's own camp has sated, deny a SCOTUS opinion from WKA and claim a Constitutional Law Scholar as being some puke in his underwear. And you call me a fucking moron. LMFAO

I'm sorry but you're just a fucking moron if you buy into this... it's not true and it's not going to happen.

Please deny Justice Grays opinion in WKA.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.​

 

[Flopper]

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.

No, congress is not the ultimate authority on the meaning of the constitution. Congress can certainly pass legislation that would deny Cruz the presidency, but you can bet that the Supreme Court would review their action to determine constitutionality and would most assuredly block congress and probably rule the term means a person born to a U.S. citizen without regard to where they were born. .

The problem of course is the Constitution did not define "natural born" nor did it supply an enforcement clause. but , there is abundant evidence as to the meaning of the phrase..

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States

Every time there is a presidential candidate born abroad, or whose parent(s) were, there will be political opposition calming ineligibility. They have no attention of actually getting a court ruling on the issue but rather to leave doubt in the minds of voters in hopes of winning their vote. IMHO, the Supreme Court should make a clear ruling as the requirements of president, that will once and for all end this issue. It's a distraction in the election process that is used to divert the attention of voters from the real issues.

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

SCOTUS wouldn't touch the case, Political Question Doctrine. Nobody has stated Congress is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the constitution. SMFH What was stated was: Congress is the ultimate authority over who is eligible.

The phrase, natural-born citizen, is ambiguous, you need to start removing the ambiguity from it to narrow it down

Nuts ! You think the Supreme Court would stand mute on Congress overturning a vote of the Electoral College? and thus the vote of the people for president based on Congress's interpretation of the Constitution?

One of the 4 criteria the Supreme Court uses to determine what cases to hear is it's importance. A case in which Congress overturned the vote of the people based Congress's interpretation of the constitution would be before the court in a matter a days.

 

[Flopper]

LOL... The 20th was not ratified to give Congress power to render presidents ineligible after they're elected. It's really just to shore up some protocol and set parameters for when power transfers. It does NOT give Congress power to "approve" a president the people have elected. It's sheer stupidity to believe that's what the 20th Amendment does.

It gives power to disqualify a President elect. Again you seem to fail basic comprehension of words.

Here you admit the people don't elect anybody, delegates do:
After what the stupid party did in Colorado, they will soon be history.

Votes are meaningless... Trump needs 1,237 delegates to win the nomination.​

So which is it? If delegates choose, how are the voters disenfranchised if Congress disqualifies the President elect? You seem to like to argue out of both sides of your mouth, all the while making yourself look the fool.

We can go on repeating the same things over and over like a couple of mindless drones, I don't see the point in that. No, Congress most certainly cannot "disqualify" a president elect.... unless, there is some problem with their electors or the president is incapacitated for some reason. They simply cannot wait until AFTER an election, then proclaim the president is not eligible to hold office. That can't happen.

Congress can most certainly disqualify a President elect, it's in the fucking 20th Amendment. SMFH Congress can disqualify for failing to meet the requirements as stated by the USC, being a "natural-born citizen". SCOTUS wouldn't touch it due to it being a PQD. Cruz's case is unique to any other situation of the past. He has NO US Birth certificate, namely a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, he entered the US on his mothers passport at the age of 4. He attained US Citizenship via the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, otherwise he would never be considered to even be a US Citizen.

If someone raised the issue BEFORE the candidate ran for president, they could declare the candidate ineligible to run. But AFTER he has run and has been elected, they can't do that... it disenfranchises every person who voted for him. Do you not comprehend that fact? Why in the hell would you think Congress has the power to nullify everyone's vote? Oh wait... I know why... because some puke in his underwear posted it on his blog and thought he was clever times two!

Prior to his running citizens with standing can try to deny him from being on a states ballot (Penn and NJ), nothing more. IF he were to become President elect, Congress can disqualify him for not being a "natural-born citizen". How would everyone's vote be nullified if the candidate was ineligible to hold office? The VP would then become the President elect, nothing lost. Read the fucking 20th Amendment. You still deny what Cruz's own camp has sated, deny a SCOTUS opinion from WKA and claim a Constitutional Law Scholar as being some puke in his underwear. And you call me a fucking moron. LMFAO

I'm sorry but you're just a fucking moron if you buy into this... it's not true and it's not going to happen.

Please deny Justice Grays opinion in WKA.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.​

[/QUOTE]
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.
​

 

[Political Junky]

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...

That combined with the fact that everyone in DC hates him.

 

[Boss]

It gives power to disqualify a President elect. Again you seem to fail basic comprehension of words.

Here you admit the people don't elect anybody, delegates do:
After what the stupid party did in Colorado, they will soon be history.

Votes are meaningless... Trump needs 1,237 delegates to win the nomination.
So which is it? If delegates choose, how are the voters disenfranchised if Congress disqualifies the President elect? You seem to like to argue out of both sides of your mouth, all the while making yourself look the fool.

Do you also not comprehend the difference between a party primary and an election? You are a hot mess when it comes to your civics knowledge. Parties do not nominate candidates through a purely democratic process and presidents aren't elected through a purely democratic process.... that's generally what people mean when you hear them say we are a republic and not a democracy. But party primaries have nothing to do with president's-elect and congressional powers.

Disenfranchisement is what happens when the legitimate vote is ignored and that applies in your fantasy scenario. It's not applicable in the Electoral Process (or the delegate process) because that is the process. The votes are not ignored, they are the basis for determining the electors.

 

[Boss]

Prior to his running citizens with standing can try to deny him from being on a states ballot (Penn and NJ), nothing more. IF he were to become President elect, Congress can disqualify him for not being a "natural-born citizen". How would everyone's vote be nullified if the candidate was ineligible to hold office? The VP would then become the President elect, nothing lost. Read the fucking 20th Amendment. You still deny what Cruz's own camp has sated, deny a SCOTUS opinion from WKA and claim a Constitutional Law Scholar as being some puke in his underwear. And you call me a fucking moron. LMFAO

I've read the 20th and it says nothing about Congress disqualifying an elected president on the basis of his eligibility to run. It says not a damn word about Congress getting to decide what a "natural born" citizen is.

We've already discussed the case you keep citing about what Cruz's own camp said... they are talking about PRIOR to a candidate running, not AFTER.

How would everyone's vote be nullified if the candidate was ineligible to hold office?

Because in your fantasy scenario, they found him ineligible after people cast their votes. Dummy!

 

[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.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Nuts ! You think the Supreme Court would stand mute on Congress overturning a vote of the Electoral College? and thus the vote of the people for president based on Congress's interpretation of the Constitution?

One of the 4 criteria the Supreme Court uses to determine what cases to hear is it's importance. A case in which Congress overturned the vote of the people based Congress's interpretation of the constitution would be before the court in a matter a days.

Yes, SCOTUS would stand mute if Congress disqualifies Cruz if he were to become the President elect. Political Question Doctrine, SCOTUS would not touch the issue.