Main Menu

Trump fuzzy on Cruz eligibility: media seizes opportunity

Headlines that misinform (except my own) bug me. Newsweek had an opinion piece titled, “Trump Poised to Play the Birther Card on Cruz.” Usually I read “poised” to suggest preparation for imminent action, but there is nothing in the article to suggest that. What the article does say is, according to the author Anthony J. Gaughan, an associate professor of law at Drake University, Cruz is eligible. (I note that this is one of a series of recent articles in various publications from law professors saying that Cruz is eligible.)

Gaughan then cites remarks by Trump against Cruz’ eligibility, and cites another remark by Trump that all of the law professors he’s talked to say Cruz is eligible.

, ,

8 Responses to Trump fuzzy on Cruz eligibility: media seizes opportunity

  1. avatar
    CRJ November 6, 2015 at 9:05 pm #

    @Doc [law professors] v. [The Bench] I think this is an excellent discussion piece!

    The Campaign Plan

    1- Get a Professor from a Respected College to write an opinion editorial stating your legal..even using your name ( Op Ed.)

    2- Get a Respected College to Publish the Op Ed.

    3- Refer it as the [Expert Witness] in lue of a Court or Bench Opinion in Main Stream Media News Streams.

    4- Run uncontested while your competition is Burdened by proving a negative.

    This has been used verbatim by:
    1- 2008 McCain Non-Binding U.S. Sen Res. 511
    I’m reading “The Tribe/Olson ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Memo” on Scribd. Read more: http://scribd.com/doc/25457698
    2- 2008 – 2012 Obama: HARVARD LAW REVIEW

    3- 2016 Cruz: HARVARD LAW REVIEW-
    http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
    The Truth is certain there though the Article refers to. We very well could see a Ballot Challenge from Trump on Cruz & Rubio and he’d be Smart to do it.

    The New Hampshire Primary is the first place that [can] be done because it is the first Primary requiring name on a Ballot unlike Iowa [C]aucus. ( (Reference Judy v. Obama executive court Ballot Challenge New Hampshire ➡New Hampshire State Supreme Court. )

    If Trump allows the wind to hit the Sails of Rubio-Cruz Camps without the Challenge it could bite him in the Nomination. If Trump doesn’t do it, he opens the door to Jeb to do it.

    It well could be the Case Jeb could wrestle away Trumps Core by simple filing a
    the Ballot Challenge first. Whoever does it First may well be considered a Leader others follow.

    This really could be a way lower polling Candidates could take the Headlines w the Standard of the Constitution.

    MainStreamMedia could really struggle in covering this and not condemn Obama in the process. It could prove Obama’s ultimate undoing as the political race takes on a much more intense blood sport like parameter as Camps fight for Big Donors.

    The Candidates are crunching data right now with these strategies in mind I can assure you. I’d keep my eye on Jeb who stands the most tho gain and the most to lose if Trump beats him to it.

    Gotta wait until Rubio and Cruz File to get on the Ballot though.. That’s the first official action and only involves Candidates rather then the whole RNC-GOP and is a smart play.

    Obama had the whole DNC running blocks in 2012 and in 2008 Hillary was over confident and made a critical mistake after Iowa Caucus win by Obama. She should have hit him hard in New Hampshire. The 2016 Campaigns are much smarter and more prepared with those mistakes in mind.

  2. avatar
    bob November 6, 2015 at 10:10 pm #

    CRJ:
    Run uncontested while your competition is Burdened by proving a negative.

    Judy continues to remain unburdened by reality: No law professor or other expert thinks President Obama, or Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, etc. are ineligible.

    If Judy was serious about challenging any of the republican candidates, he would have changed his registration to republican.

  3. avatar
    Craig HS November 6, 2015 at 10:22 pm #

    The only thing this DOES tell us is that Trump has spoken to law experts, and chooses to ignore them in favor of his lies that obviously play well with his base.

    Why anybody thinks this is a positive trait to be encouraged in people hoping to become President of the most powerful nation on earth, is utterly beyond me.

  4. avatar
    CRJ November 7, 2015 at 1:49 pm #

    @Bob [ If Judy was serious about challenging any of the republican candidates, he would have changed his registration to republican.]

    The implication that I don’t care about the Principles over the Party are thoroughly put to rest. I call your attention to:
    Page 2- #9
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/270192631/Motion-Application-for-Time-Extension-Judy-v-Obama-14-9396

    And you can Google
    Judy v. McCain 2008

    Of course your suggestion inserts a presumption you think a few Republican’s are ineligible for the Office of President. I applaud you for that Sir. Your right!

    What most scholars do agree on is not that there are those in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate running that are ineligible, but that the difficulty is high in satisfying Standing and over coming the skirt of the Political Question Doctrine JUSTICES hide behind due to proximity of election timing.

    I certainly have got to be one of the stupidest people on this earth for attempting this vertical cliff climb without any help or safty net huh?

  5. avatar
    bob November 7, 2015 at 2:06 pm #

    CRJ:
    The implication that I don’t care about the Principles over the Party are thoroughly put to rest.

    The only thing Judy does care about is seeking attention; that is his only principle.

    I call your attention to:
    Page 2- #9
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/270192631/Motion-Application-for-Time-Extension-Judy-v-Obama-14-9396

    In which Judy wastes everyone’s time (even his own) by ignoring what the the court did ask him to do: Pay the filing fee and file actual briefs.

    And you can Google
    Judy v. McCain 2008

    Judy wastes more judicial resources in a case that was dismissed due to Judy’s inattentiveness and then made moot by McCain losing.

    Of course your suggestion inserts a presumption you think a few Republican’s are ineligible for the Office of President.

    Judy once again fails at reading, as I suggested only that Judy believes Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio are ineligible. A belief that no law professor or other expert holds.

    What most scholars do agree on is not that there are those in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate running that are ineligible, but that the difficulty is high in satisfying Standing and over coming the skirt of the Political Question Doctrine JUSTICES hide behind due to proximity of election timing.

    “Standing” and “political question doctrine” are cornerstones of the limited nature of federal judiciary, as described in the U.S. Constitution. There is no “skirting” or “hiding.”

    From his comment, I conclude Judy is either fundamentally ignorant about the U.S. Constitution, or that he despises it.

    I certainly have got to be one of the stupidest people on this earth

    No argument there.

  6. avatar
    ASK Esq November 8, 2015 at 11:38 am #

    I’ve been going back and forth with Mario himself at that Newsweek article (Which didn’t originate at Newsweek, actually). Anyone else care to join in? He is, as always, relying on his misinterpretation of Minor, and then misinterpreting common law, the 14th Amendment, and 8 USC 1401 from there.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 8, 2015 at 5:02 pm #

    And I have been engaging him here:

    http://www.newstalkflorida.com/should-the-birthers-go-after-ted-cruz

    I am basically saying that he lost in court, so now he is trying to convince a less-informed crowd on the Internet where he mislead without sanctions. The MO of an Internet crackpot is that he dumps a long argument and then taunts people to try to refute it. I won’t play his game, but rather cite instance after instance where his theories have been rejected.

    ASK Esq: I’ve been going back and forth with Mario himself at that Newsweek article

  8. avatar
    Rickey November 8, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

    ASK Esq:
    I’ve been going back and forth with Mario himself at that Newsweek article (Which didn’t originate at Newsweek, actually). Anyone else care to join in? He is, as always, relying on his misinterpretation of Minor, and then misinterpreting common law, the 14th Amendment, and 8 USC 1401 from there.

    There really is no point in arguing with Mario because he will never admit to being wrong about anything. He still refuses to acknowledge that Americans were not banned from traveling to Pakistan in 1981.

    Doc has the right idea – simply point out that every court which has addressed Mario’s arguments has dismissed them.