Cruz faces New Jersey eligibility challenge from write-in candidate

Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a mother that was an American Citizen.

So there have been multiple challenges to Ted Cruz's eligibility thus far around the "Natural Born Citizen" qualification, but each one has been tossed out on the basis of "Standing"..

Meaning that the person bringing the lawsuit did not have sufficient, direct, relative interest in the case.

Judges have been tossing them out and I haven't been paying close attention. We saw this with multiple challenges when Pres. Obama ran for office with the Birther crowd's claims he was born in Kenya.

What is interesting here is that in New Jersey.. A Law Professor has filed a challenge to keep him off the ballot, but in this case the law professor is actually running for President as a write in candidate...

Put another way..He has standing..

The courts have actually never fully defined "Natural Born Citizen" as a qualification for running for President.

And if this is fast-tracked to the SCOTUS...absent Scalia's replacement, this might land as a 4-4 tie..bouncing it back to whatever the prior courts decision is in NJ when they decide.

Sidenote: This Write in candidate/law professor is also a Trump Supporter..He will have the financial means/backing to press..

A law professor from Maryland, Victor Williams, filed as a GOP write-in candidate in New Jersey and other late primary states in order to ensure standing to challenge Cruz’s eligibility. He argues that the Canada-born senator is not a “natural born citizen” as required under the Constitution.

“He’s no different than any of the 650,000 aliens who become American citizen each year — they just didn’t put him through all the hurdles,” he said.

Natural born citizenship is one of the few constitutional requirements to be president. Williams, a law professor at The Catholic University of America, said Saturday by phone that as a candidate who touts himself as a constitutional conservative, Cruz “should know better.”

trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com...

This might get interesting....

ATS has a deep bench of birthers and birther skeptics that have debated the issue..

What say you? Is this lawsuit legit? And where do you think this is heading?

a reply to: Indigo5


Apparently the first hearing is scheduled for tomorrow!

BETHESDA, Md., April 8, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Ted Cruz risks primary disqualification in New Jersey resulting from charges of ballot access fraud. A primary ballot disqualification hearing is scheduled by the Secretary of State for Monday, April 11 at 9:00 a.m. in Mercerville, New Jersey.

www.prnewswire.com... ams-300248565.html?tc=eml_cleartime

originally posted by: Indigo5

Put another way..He has standing..

I am not sure he does have standing. What legal injury is this candidate suffering with Cruz's name on the ballot? His name will still qualify for writing-in.

Do you have more info on the standing issue?

a reply to: Indigo5

And it does appear that he has legitimate "standing"...at least at first glance?

Victor Williams warns of further action if Cruz is not disqualified from New Jersey's June 7th primary. Williams has unique litigation strategy. Williams became a late-entrant GOP presidential candidate. Now his "competitor candidate" status provides the strongest "standing" to challenge Cruz.

Attacking from Cruz's left flank, Williams announced his presidential campaign with a Huffington Post commentary: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Williams is registered/declared as a "write-in" candidate for the GOP presidential nomination in multiple states. Such "write-in" candidates are considered "genuine opposition" regardless of actual chances or support. Example: Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

www.prnewswire.com... ams-300248565.html?tc=eml_cleartime

a reply to: MotherMayEye


See above on the standing question. In short he is making the "genuine opposition" case..


Meaning Cruz running harms his chances?...

Though it should be noted the above links to PR News wire are issued/written by the Law Professor...Need to search for more objective analysis.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: MotherMayEye


See above on the standing question. In short he is making the "genuine opposition" case..


Meaning Cruz running harms his chances?...

Though it should be noted the above links to PR News wire are issued/written by the Law Professor...Need to search for more objective analysis.

The Obama cases left a bad taste in my mouth, to be honest. I guess I am not holding my breath. I felt like there was so much controlled opposition (Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, etc.) I now assume that most of these cases are brought by controlled opposition and are purposely set up to fail with terrible legal arguments.

There was a challenge in PA that went all the way to the PA Supreme Court, and was still dismissed.

The lower court had determined:

Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini ruled March 11 that common law precedent and statutory history maintain that an eligible candidate includes any person born to an American citizen, regardless of where.

and then:

The Supreme Court order Thursday upheld a lower-court judge's decision to dismiss the case.

So, at least one case was indeed dismissed because it was determined he is eligible, and not just on the basis of Standing of the petitioner.

But I think the issue is still fuzzy and a higher court has to make an official law or constitutional amendment, in writing, as to what factors determine a naturalized citizen.

Notice in the PA case, they only say "common law precedent and statutory history maintain..". not that this is determined by the letter of the law

www.mcall.com...

a reply to: BlueAjah


Thanks for that...What is interesting there is that Cruz's Attorney made the argument that the courts are not eligible to rule on eligibility..


Essentially...separation of powers...the Justice Branch cant decide who is President (executive Branch)

In his brief opposing the appeal, Cruz attorney Robert Feltoon argued that state courts are not the appropriate venue for determining a presidential candidate's eligibility for the office.

"The question of whether a candidate for president of the United States is eligible to take office is within the purview of the Electoral College and the U.S. Congress — not this [or any other] court," Feltoon wrote.

www.mcall.com...

I would argue the SCOTUS ruling on the Florida Recount with Pres. Bush vs. Gore sets a precedent to the contrary.


And yes I agree with you ...citing "common law precedent" is pretty damn weak.

a reply to: Indigo5

originally posted by: Indigo5
And yes I agree with you ...citing "common law precedent" is pretty damn weak.

"Statutory history" implies written law. But then BlueAjah is referencing Pennsylvania - New Jersey has different statutes (Not that I know what they are).

Also, I don't think Gore v. Bush is similar enough to serve as precedent.

I am curious where this goes though! If anywhere...

This is an interesting read, if you are into the legal stuff:
assets.documentcloud.org...

This is the court document in the PA case.
There is actually a fairly deep analysis of precedent, intention of the founding fathers, and a great deal of case law that does seem to support that a person born as a citizen, no matter where they are born, would indeed be considered a natural born citizen, including for the purposes of presidential eligibility.

Citizens would only be excluded if they became a citizen through naturalization after birth.
If born a citizen, you are "natural born".
If one parent is a citizen, you are natural born, no matter where you are born.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Another interesting thing I heard explained this weekend...

The DNC and RNC are PRIVATE organizations...

PRIVATE organizations who only relatively recently in history decided to EMULATE the general election/electoral college process for selecting their Nominees.

They can use whatever rules they choose in selecting a party nominee and they are not subject to government intervention nor constitutional requirements or law.

So all the shouting about "Fair"??? Fair is what they decide is fair...the courts have nothing to do with it.

NOW...That is a different question than being on the ballot for a general election and being eligible and on that ballot for that general election.

I think the fact that the DNC and RNC and the Party Nomination process with caucuses is a process dictated and run by a private organization gets lost in the debate.

Nominations and caucuses?...Fair defined by the RNC and DNC...

General Election and electoral college...that is where the Gov, Law, Constitution matter..

This law professor is challenging Cruz being on the Ballot for the general election.

a reply to: BlueAjah

This is the case that Victor Williams is arguing...In contrast to the definition of "Natural Born" meaning born to an American Citizen regardless of American Soil or not.

No person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President, neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States.

Like the 14 years residency requirement, the “natural born Citizen” requirement is a test of American soil. This natural-born soil test is required only for the nation’s highest federal office – the presidency.

In my opinion, this can be read either way..

He reads it as supporting the definition of Natural Born as being relevant to "within the United States"...

But couldn't the case be also made...if they meant "Natural Born" to mean American Soil...they would have said so? Just like they did when they specified "resident within the United States"? They were specific in that requirement, but not in Natural Born.

One thing I am sure about...Cruz has a long legal career, has argued in front of the SCOTUS...he has prepared a robust defense behind the scenes in case this ever becomes an issue.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Indigo5

Put another way..He has standing..

I am not sure he does have standing. What legal injury is this candidate suffering with Cruz's name on the ballot? His name will still qualify for writing-in.

Do you have more info on the standing issue?

Someone who is ineligible to run could take votes away from him. That's the injury.