Main Menu

Cruz eligibility lawsuits and ballot challenges

Back in the day, I started the Obama Docket Project to keep track of all the birther lawsuits against Barack Obama. That list became outdated and Tes did an excellent job of tracking them all over time (link in under the site Reference menu).

To make the Cruz eligibility lawsuits a little easier to find, I went back and tagged my articles “Cruz eligibility lawsuits.” In going through the articles, I noticed that all of the references to the Voeltz lawsuit in Florida against Cruz (and Rubio) on this site are in comments. So I will put a reference to those in this article and add ones below that don’t have their own article.

Selected comments:

,

12 Responses to Cruz eligibility lawsuits and ballot challenges

  1. avatar
    gorefan January 26, 2016 at 12:59 pm #

    Not sure about this one. She’s not listed on the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission website. I think she may have filed too late. She’s going to be on Mike Volin’s show today (1/26).

    “Atty & GOP Candidate Files Official Objection In NH Over Canadian Born Ted Cruz”

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/wheresobamasbirthcertificatexcom/2016/01/27/atty-gop-candidate-files-official-objection-in-nh-over-canadian-born-ted-cruz

    In previous recent challenges to Cruz and Rubio, the Commission cited the 2011 failure of Orly Taitz as precedent for why they won’t do anything.

    The jurisdiction and role of the Ballot Law Commission are set in statute. In our decision in BLC 20lI-4, Complaint of Dr. Orly Taitz. Esq. Against Barack Obama, this Commission stated,

    “As counsel advised the Commission at its hearing, the jurisdiction of the New
    Hampshire Ballot Law Commission is limited to that afforded it by the legislature in its enabling legislation. …After such a review, and absent such a showing, there is absolutely no basis to reject…(a candidate’s)…declaration of candidacy or to deny him a place on the…Presidential Primary Ballot.”

    Applying that precedent and principle to the present challenge, no obvious defect in the filing of Senator Cruz has been presented to the Commission, and nothing to dispute the reasonableness of the Secretary of State in accepting the filing.

    http://sos.nh.gov/2015-16BLC.aspx

  2. avatar
    gorefan January 26, 2016 at 3:41 pm #

    The Cruz New Hampshire challenger says this on her Facebook page.

    “As of 1/25/2016; Definition of Natural Born Citizen vs. Naturalized Citizen v. Citizen. A “Natural Born Citizen” is a person born within US Jurisdiction. A “Naturalized Citizen” is a person who must take and pass a US Citizenship test to become a “Naturalized Citizen” because they weren’t born within US Jurisdiction. A “Citizen” is a broad term that covers both “Natural Born Citizen” and “Naturalized Citizen”.”

    I don’t think the WheresObamasBirthCertificate crowd is going to be very impressed.

    https://www.facebook.com/chomipraglawoffices/?fref=photo

    Expect her to disappear from the show quickly.

  3. avatar
    y_p_w January 26, 2016 at 3:49 pm #

    gorefan:
    The Cruz New Hampshire challenger says this on her Facebook page.

    “As of 1/25/2016; Definition of Natural Born Citizen vs. Naturalized Citizen v. Citizen. A “Natural Born Citizen” is a person born within US Jurisdiction. A “Naturalized Citizen” is a person who must take and pass a US Citizenship test to become a “Naturalized Citizen” because they weren’t born within US Jurisdiction. A “Citizen” is a broad term that covers both “Natural Born Citizen” and “Naturalized Citizen”.”

    I don’t think the WheresObamasBirthCertificate crowd is going to be very impressed.

    https://www.facebook.com/chomipraglawoffices/?fref=photo

    Expect her to disappear from the show quickly.

    Those definitions aren’t quite correct. There’s “citizenship by derivation” after birth, such as when a parent naturalizes or a child born abroad is adopted. That child is technically naturalized. Below a certain age, no oath of citizenship is required, and in any case no citizenship test is required for a minor.

    Heck – in the hypothetical case that Obama was born overseas, we’re all aware that his mother didn’t meet the required physical presence requirements to pass on US citizenship. She could have then brought him into the US as the child of a US citizen and then filed paperwork once they were in the US to naturalize.

  4. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2016 at 4:28 pm #

    The meaning of citizenship by derivation, which you describe accurately, has gotten muddled up a lot in the last, well, several decades with citizenship by acquisition. I had found a good quote by Charles Gordon explaining the difference in no uncertain terms, but I’ve lost it. Can’t find it for the life of me. I noticed Judge Lohier saying this in Morales-Santana v. Lynch (a case made in HELL):
    “Unlike citizenship by naturalization, derivative citizenship exists as of a child’s birth or not at all.”
    Which is of course not true, derivative citizenship being a form of naturalization.

    http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/01/22/Determining%20US%20Citizenship%20-%20English%20%2815%29.pdf

    (pages 9-14)

    y_p_w: Those definitions aren’t quite correct. There’s “citizenship by derivation” after birth, such as when a parent naturalizes or a child born abroad is adopted. That child is technically naturalized. Below a certain age, no oath of citizenship is required, and in any case no citizenship test is required for a minor.

  5. avatar
    y_p_w January 26, 2016 at 5:28 pm #

    Dave B.:
    The meaning of citizenship by derivation, which you describe accurately, has gotten muddled up a lot in the last, well, several decades with citizenship by acquisition.I had found a good quote by Charles Gordon explaining the difference in no uncertain terms, but I’ve lost it.Can’t find it for the life of me.I noticed Judge Lohier saying this in Morales-Santana v. Lynch (a case made in HELL):
    “Unlike citizenship by naturalization, derivative citizenship exists as of a child’s birth or not at all.”
    Which is of course not true, derivative citizenship being a form of naturalization.

    http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/01/22/Determining%20US%20Citizenship%20-%20English%20%2815%29.pdf

    (pages 9-14)

    Morales-Santana v. Lynch also says that the Fifth Amendment guarantees equal protection.

    It was a strange case too. Guy moves to the Dominican Republic at age 18 just 20 days shy of his 19th birthday after living in Puerto Rico all his life. Then he fathers a child in his 60s. When I saw the various dates given, I thought it must have been some other case being cited and not one decided less than a year ago.

  6. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2016 at 5:41 pm #

    It’s like Mark Twain’s “A Medieval Romance.” There just ain’t no fixing it.

    y_p_w: t was a strange case too. Guy moves to the Dominican Republic at age 18 just 20 days shy of his 19th birthday after living in Puerto Rico all his life. Then he fathers a child in his 60s. When I saw the various dates given, I thought it must have been some other case being cited and not one decided less than a year ago.

  7. avatar
    gorefan January 26, 2016 at 9:28 pm #

    Andy Martin wants to have a Cruz Birther Summit!!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ggmDSOZfoo&feature=youtu.be

  8. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2016 at 10:20 pm #

    Man, I keep saying. It’s 2012 all over again. David Farrar gets a do-over to make up for his broken promise to sue Mitt Romney. Maybe we’ll get some more Mario live-in-court videos.

    gorefan:
    Andy Martin wants to have a Cruz Birther Summit!!!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ggmDSOZfoo&feature=youtu.be

  9. avatar
    gorefan January 29, 2016 at 11:39 am #

    CitizenWells is reporting that in Illinios (Graham’s ballot challenge), the hearing officer has ruled that Cruz and Rubio are natural born citizens. His recommendations to be voted on by the Board on February 1st.

    Minor v Happersett called dicta. LOL

    http://citizenwells.com/2016/01/28/msn-trump-overstates-cruz-challenges-really-media-discredits-trump-protects-obama-democrats-illinois-ballot-challenges-update-january-28-2016-msn-quotes-obot-site-instead-of-citizen-wells/

  10. avatar
    gorefan January 29, 2016 at 1:11 pm #

    Voeltz v. Cruz and Rubio in Florida has an opposition to Rubio’s Motion to Dismiss, a default motion against Cruz and Cruz’s lawyers finally checking in.

    http://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Web2

    Search by name – Voeltz, Michael or by case number CACE15022044

  11. avatar
    gorefan February 1, 2016 at 2:23 pm #

    Illinois ballot challenge of Rubio and Cruz by two guys – Graham (he attached Apuzzo writings and challenge Rubio and Cruz) and Joyce (he only challenged Cruz) has been published by the Elections Board. The hearing officer (Jim Tenuto – also decided the Illinios challenges to President Obama) found Cruz and Rubio to both be natural born citizens. Cruz because he didn’t have to go through a naturalization process.

    The General Counsel has agreed with the hearing officer findings so the board will rubber stamp it at today’s meeting.

    BTW, the briefs explaining why Cruz is a natural born citizen filed by the Cruz’s lawyer are almost identical to the one filed in Florida in Voeltz.

    http://www.elections.state.il.us/Downloads/AboutTheBoard/PDF/02_01_16SOEBAgenda.pdf

  12. avatar
    Kat Hill February 4, 2016 at 8:02 pm #

    This is a simple meaning of “natural born citizen” recorded in congress by John Armor Bingham … the House on March 9, 1866:”[4] [5] [6]

    “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the JURISDICTION of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”…”

    Bingham WROTE the 14th amendment of our Constitution.

    Clearly he along with all framers and founders knew this meaning since there are other almost verbatim confirmations of this meaning from SCOTUS up until 1898.

    Until SCOTUS decides to take this issue up we are stuck with that definition.
    Whatever cases have been decided since then are not relevant at this time on the “national born citizen” issue.

    Same with opinion from all walks..

    I am not sure but I do not believe the united States ever had jurisdiction over Canada and clearly Cruz does not have 2 CITIZEN parents..

    Rubio though born in the United States has no CITIZEN parents.

    Because Cruz fails both requirements it seems to be worse off than Rubio.
    None the less both arrive at the same location … not eligible.