OK attorneys, how about this one?
Donald Trump sues Fox News and Ted Cruz asking the court for an emergency injunction preventing Fox from allowing Cruz to participate in the Republican presidential candidate debate August 6. (Fox I seem to recall has said that only eligible candidates may participate). Courts have ruled in favor of competitive standing in the past.
What’s the harm that Trump has suffered?
Wouldn’t a better case be had by the candidate who missed the cut because usurper?
Can we hope that Trump will raise this issue during the debate?
Fox is a private corporation. It could invite a Bufflehead duck to the debates and the courts wouldn’t care.
Actually the duck would be more interesting to watch than a GOP primary debate.
I think he would have standing for that, but I am probably in the minority.
The clearer case is if Fox left him out claiming that he is not eligible and Cruz sued to get in.
In contrasting “news”, GR has a story that prominent wingnut Jeff Kuhner claims that there is a secret agreement between Trump and Cruz, that Cruz will be Trump’s VP.
This, in spite of Trump’s recent broad hints that Palin would be his VP pick.
Since Trump has little chance of taking the nomination, I guess we’ll never know who his VP is.
I think while it is interesting it would be a poor choice of cases to to pursue. Following up on what Yoda said an ideal case would be where a secretary of state left Cruz off a primary ballot based on a contention he is not eligible. Cruz would most certainly have standing. A potential downer would be if the court ruled the SoS did not have authority to remove him based merely on his opinion. I think this scenario presents the best possibility to get a ruling on the definition of NBC though.
It’s all hypothetical of course. Cruz’s candidacy is going nowhere on a fast train.
Okay, I figure Huckabee’s far enough in for me to bring this one back around:
What does Ted Cruz throw to a drowning Donald Trump?
—Mike Huckabee’s amp.
Am I right in thinking this is an argument over who should be allowed to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic?
Time for this one too?
Q In a fight to the death between Ted Cruz and Donal Trump, who wins?
A Everybody.
I think Trumps only standing would be as a third party beneficiary to a private contract between Fox and the Republican party. Slim odds of success.
I thought Trump and Cruz were besties? is Trump merely an attention whore.
Hmmm Ken Bennett is out in Arizona but if Kris Kobach is still in place this looks like a job for him. Maybe he should ask Cruz to prove his credentials like with Obama.
Now the Cruz for VP with Trump talk could make me reconsider. Trump is certainly crazy enough to pick Cruz but I still think Trump has only a very, very small chance to win the nomination. The Republican Party would never be so accommodating to my wishes as to self inflict a would that big.
Trump would complain that the duck keeps calling him a quack.
I don’t agree. If FOX announced that the only criteria it is using is whether the candidate is eligible, I think that Cruz could seek to enforce that.
Actually the duck would be more interesting to watch than a GOP primary debate.
A new article by Lawrence Sellin has been posted over at BR. Here are words that come straight out of fantasyland:
“There is, in fact, no credible evidence that Obama was actually born anywhere.”
What planet is this guy from? As has been discussed on this site many times before, the state of Hawaii has verified Obama’s birth in several official documents. Wake up Mr. Sellins.
Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/08/fsm-political-establishment-media.html#lKvHiZivAoc91M6j.99
One more comment. The very fact that Obama is a walking, talking, breathing human with blood running through his veins is credible evidence that he was indeed born somewhere. Where do these people come up with their nonsense?
Yes, there’s plenty of credible evidence Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.
Like all birthers, Sellin is an idiot.
What he said. And that those idiots would rely upon such an idiot as some kind of authority is just more proof of idiocy.
Cruz is demented, but he’s a smart guy. Here’s Trump’s problem: he does not want to go into the debates with first, a hostile guy (the others seem a little scared of him because of the GOP base, I guess), and second, with his (Trump;s) stock response of “YOU’RE A LOSER” to each push back from what will surely be night of his (Trump’s) bs.
Cruz might call him out in front of everyone and he can’t risk that. Sooooooo, Cruz must GO……he’s a LOSER (said in Trump’s best “I’ll bring jobs back to AMERICA!!! voice….lol
IMHO this is a win-win scenario for he Sanity Party. Either:
a) Trump gets the GOP nomination and Sanity wins big
b) Trump does not get the GOP nomination & the Lunatics will rant about corruption & stay home
c) Trump runs an an Indy and Sanity wins big again
I’m planning to do all I can to bolster Trump;’s candidacy while using true statements like:
“Trump is the only one who clearly and unambiguously articulates the true GOP agenda”
“Trump is the only one who is a businessman and not a ‘politician.'”
“Trump says what he thinks.”
etc.
Note that all of these statements are technically true and while I would not consider them an endorsement they are nevertheless received positively by the Lunatic base.
The question is ‘Has Fox Entered into a ‘binding agreement’ with the Candidates on the Stage in their ‘Qualifying’ rules for the Debate?
I think they have with this list of Published Qualifiers.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/fox-republican-debate-lowers-threshold-120748.html
“Although we are relaxing one component of our entry criteria – the requirement that candidates must score 1% or higher in an average of five most recent national polls – all other components of the criteria remain in effect for the 5 PM/ET debate. Participants must meet all U.S. Constitutional requirements; must announce and register a formal campaign for president; and must file all necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), including financial disclosure.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/fox-republican-debate-lowers-threshold-120748.html#ixzz3hjpIzwVX
Candidates at the very least are assured of these stipulations in their own appearance invitation. They come and expect a certain criteria to have been enforced as a component of their agreement to participate. The threat of violation seen as an endorsement of the Fox qualification criteria, i.e. setting the Constitutional Standard.
The reason Fox News invites their Corporation into the mix is based on the interpretation of their saying a Candidate is qualified under the Constitution demand for a natural born Citizen.
It not only becomes a liability , but a competitive insult to a Candidate, to have someone on that stage who is not qualified, not to mention the ‘public interest’ of the Case which millions of Campaign Dollars might be granted or withheld as an interest.
I certainly do not think its frivolous and could prove a sticking point for Mr. Trump if he fails to do so now, and then brings it up later on.
As stated here I think Fiorina is suffering damages being held off the 9PM Primetime Debate Stage. She should take the damages to the Court and get the ruling on Cruz and Rubio who are on at 9PM while she is being held at the 5PM debate.
http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/08/breaking-news-obamas-ineligibility-case.html
I think the game is quite clear:
1. Run a crazy guy like Trump to fire up the crazy base.
2. Make the crazy base feel like their crazy views have a home in the GOP.
3. Have Trump drop out of the race and fully endorse the party’s actual favourite.
That way, they keep the sane vote *and* they have a chance of keeping parts of the crazy vote (who otherwise never would’ve voted for an “establishment candidate”) *and* have a chance to achieve the same among independents who share some views with Trump (e.g. people who are generally moderate but have strong views/biases on immigration).
A different but same scenario from (3) would be to have the sane candidate pick Trump as VP (seeing how McCain picking Palin did not cause him to lose in a landslide).
That’s one of my current theories.
(The conspiracy nut in me has another: knowing the chances of ever winning an election again in the future are very slim and Hillary looks to be a clear favourite in the next one, their last hope is manufacturing a crisis – Trump becomes their candidate and on the eve of election declares he’s been a Democrat plant the entire time, prompting a crisis that the GOP tries to exploit for themselves.)
I don’t think you can manufacture a “case or controversy” that way.
If that were the case, Fox could get any legal question they have adjudicated by making it an access criterion for one of their shows and then have a “disqualified” candidate sue up to SCOTUS to have it resolved.
As an example, it is unresolved (though not controversial) whether the 14 year residency requirement has to be continuous.
So Fox wants this resolved by SCOTUS, runs a million dollar show where they make this an entry qualification, disqualify a candidate whose 14 year residency was not continuous, the candidate sues Fox and finally SCOTUS has to rule whether he should’ve been accepted.
I don’t think it works that way.
I think you are correct Magic M. I also think it is likely that the debate participants are required to sign an agreement to participate. Any such agreement would name Fox News as the sole judge of whom gets to participate according to the rules.. Ignoring that possibility anyone trying to sue would have to prove that Fox knowingly allowed an ineligible candidate to participate. Fox could claim correctly) there no candidate who was born a citizen has ever been ruled ineligible and at least one, George Romney in 1968, a foreign born candidate was a serious contender and was on primary ballots. I seriously doubt such a lawsuit would survive summary judgement.
Romney dropped out well before the first primary – in December, IIRC. I don’t think he was actually on the ballot anywhere.
Romney withdrew on February 28, 1968. The New Hampshire primary was March 12th so yes he withdrew before the first primary. Romney was a serious contender until he made his infamous “brainwashing” remarks about the war in Vietnam in 1967. Romney told a reporter that American generals had brainwashed him into supporting the war.
I doubt that would have left time to take his name off the ballot.
Talk about an election cycle. 1968 was a doozy!
The last major presidential candidate not born in the United States was John McCain. 😉
I don’t think Trump could successfully sue Fox because he has suffered no damages. A candidate excluded from the main debate would be the better litigant.
The idea of a collusive lawsuit to force the courts to answer this question has been discussed before. No one but birthers, however, are discontent with the status quo, so it won’t happen. And birthers lack the skill to manufacture a collusive lawsuit (or anything else).
For most of those candidates, being included in the debates will be more damaging than being excluded would.
OK, end of February, not early December as I thought. I was in too much of a hurry to look it up properly and got burned.
You are right, there probably wouldn’t have been enough time to take his name off the ballots.
@bob “No one but birthers, however, are discontent with the status quo, so it won’t happen. ”
Please don’t forget the status quo related through U.S. History and 44 Presidents. -1 who burned his I.D.
Relaying “the very short 7 yr stint Obama enjoyed a free pass ” as “status quo” for the U.S. is about like saying Birthers have enjoyed a litany of successful hearings and had their evidence fairly litigated in Trial(s) affording all of Obama’s identification Records that he laid open in discovery including unfettered access to all schools, colleges, and records of identification that can be cross references to confirm his identity questions with the same format I am willing to lay on the table of my own.
Of course I would not dare ask him for anything I also would not be willing to provide. That wouldn’t be right.
The surprise here is rather the level of secrecy many here don’t have a problem with their President maintaining in identification cross referencing discovery for confirmation. Especially with the scrutiny upon which they seem to hold all others accountable.
Are you learning-impaired, possibly dyslexic? As an example, the above sentence quickly turns into word salad, and whatever you’re trying to say becomes hopelessly garbled. I’m a foreigner and my English is better than yours. This is not normal. You should seek help.
Like all birthers, Judy writes not in English but in Birthanese. Birthanese uses English words that when strung together are completely meaningless and incomprehensible. It is like listening to someone pretending to speak English.
As for what Judy was attempting to say, what he and his fellow mentally challenged cohorts seem to always forget is that the President owes them nothing and is entitled to the exact same levels of privacy as is every other citizen.
I have always had one wish and hope for this President-that he be treated and judged the same as all other Presidents. And that is the one thing that never happened.
As I have said before, the greatest promise that this Country ever made is that pretty much anyone can grow up to be President. Until someone did and all hell broke loose.
Personally, I wish the President had never released anything to placate the birthers. It only emboldened them to ask for more. He should have told them to go fuck themselves by ignoring them completely.
We both got “burned” I read part of an article on Wikipedia that Romney was polling 6% right before the NH primary and I assumed he stayed in at least through that primary. He didn’t though.
1968 was not one of our better years as a country. Of course any year that ends with a President-Elect Richard Nixon is by definition a bad year.
Ask and ye shall recieve … (Ok – he hasn’t gone Birther … Yet. But really – can that shoe be too far behind?)
“The Fox News debate is becoming the circus that many thought it would be after Republican presidential candidate Mark Everson filed a complaint with the FEC asking that the network’s rules for participation in the “pre-show” debate be declared illegal.”
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/03/fox-news-hot-water-candidate-files-federal-complaint-republican-debate-rules.html
CRJ, that’s the guy who is a convicted domestic terrorist, who threatened to blow up a room full of churchgoers, right? You are free to lay your records on the table. Start with a genuine certified copy of your conviction.
My comment was about the definition of natural-born citizen: every notable candidate (save perhaps Trump at one point in time) acts as if Cruz’s U.S. citizenship at birth is sufficient for him to be a natural-born citizen and therefore be eligible to be the president (and participate in the debates). Only the usual birthers question Cruz’s eligibility.
And it has been birthers who have forgotten the status quo: they make extraordinary demands for President Obama — far beyond that expected of all other presidents, and even all other presidential candidates. Birthers presently are in love with Trump, but they, for example, simply accept Trump’s unsupported assertion that his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. The double standard applied to Obama is blatant.
And no president “burned his I.D.”
But, please, Judy, put your money where your big mouth is: For starters, post the hospital records that document your alleged birth in the United States.
Not about the natural-born-citizen clause, but a candidate has filed a FEC complaint over Fox’s inclusion/exclusion criteria.
I see a lot about the 1952 naturalization act section 306 regarding Obama and his mother but no one seems to consider that section 309 makes Obama a citizen even if born in Kenya due to fact that father was not legally married to Stanley Ann Dunham as per FBI files that confirm and as does wikipedia etc that Barack Obama Sr was already married and thus a bigamous marriage in USA is void marriage making her actual status an unwed mother which per section 309 says voids the requirements of section 306 to be living in US for 5 years after age 14. Section 309 states that Obama becomes natural born citizen as a result due to citizenship of unwed mother even if he was born in Kenya. So real question becomes did he give up that citizenship later for Indonesian, etc
309 (c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section,
a person born, on or after the effective date of this Act, outside the
66 STAT. ] PUBLIC LAW 4 14-JUN E 27, 1952 239
United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at
birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality
of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and
if the mother had previously been ])physically present in the United
States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of
one year.
In the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual 7FAM1130, “Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parent,” you’ll find
“(b) Voidable and Void Marriages
(i) A marriage that did not conform to the laws of the country or state in which it was performed may be a void marriage, but only after declared so by an appropriate authority, usually a court in the jurisdiction where the marriage occurred. Prior to such judicial declaration, the marriage may be considered voidable. A voidable marriage is considered valid for all purposes unless and until annulled or voided by the court. Even after a marriage is voided, there is every likelihood that the children’s status will not be affected. Every state in the United States, for example, considers children of a void marriage to be legitimate (see 7 FAM 1133 EXHIBIT 1133.4-2(A), Part II).”
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf (page 33)
I’d emphasize that “only after declared so by an appropriate authority”.
Now, turning to the State of Hawaii, in the Hawaii Revised Statutes we have:
Ҥ580-21 Grounds for annulment. The family court, by a decree of nullity, may declare void the marriage contract for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:
…(3) That the husband had an undivorced wife living, or the wife had an undivorced husband living;
and
§580-23 Former husband or wife living. A marriage may be declared null on the ground that one of the parties has an undivorced husband or wife living, on the application of either of the parties during the lifetime of the other, or on the application of the former husband or wife.
and
§580-27 Legitimacy in case of annulment. Upon the annulment of a marriage on account of nonage, lack of mental capacity of either party to consent to the marriage, or of a marriage that is prohibited on account of consanguinity between the parties, or for any other ground specified in section 580-21, the issue of the marriage shall be legitimate.”
From a Social Security Administration benefits case:
“H.R.S. section 572-1 requires, for a valid marriage to be contracted, that (inter alia) the man not at the time have a lawful wife living and the woman similarly not have a lawful husband living. In Hawaii, however, the public policy against polygamy is not as strong as in most states; it does not make polygamous marriages void. 1_/ Polygamous marriages in Hawaii and voidable only. 2_/ H.R.S §580-21. A decree of nullity of a polygamous marriage may be secured by either party (to that marriage) during the lifetime of the other party, or by a former husband or wife. H.R.S. §580-23. Because none of the spouses in the current case sought such a decree of nullity, both marriages must be treated as valid.”
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/1505305014
I’d like to point out that neither party to the marriage is living; that the marriage ended in divorce decades ago, and that Grace Kezia Obama, Barack Obama Sr.’s first Kenyan wife, never contested the marriage; I know of no legal challenge to the marriage’s validity on the grounds of bigamy. I’d also like to point out that Barack Obama married Ruth Baker in Kenya, soon after his return to that country in 1964; and that in 1989, in the middle of the battle over Barack Obama, Sr.’s estate, Nairobi High Court Judge J.F. Shields ruled that Grace and Barack Sr. had indeed been divorced.
Isn’t it a lot simpler to just say “No, he wasn’t born in Kenya”?
Here are the sections of the Hawaii Revised Statutes to which I referred:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0580/HRS_0580-0021.htm
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0580/HRS_0580-0023.htm
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0580/HRS_0580-0027.htm
There’s no “real question” about whether he gave up his US citizenship for Indonesian citizenship. Not the slightest bit of one.
I had an email exchange with Gabriel Chin, a legal scholar, who said he thought the Obama marriage would be considered legal for this purpose. Other commenters have filled in details.
And don’t forget the kindergarten transcripts. We must have the kindergarten transcripts.
Also, the baptismal records. Gotta prove that second birth.
Gotta have proof he went to college as an American Citizen…let’s see your college records too.
And his dental records. And…..and….everything!!!!!
Sorry, the dental records are suspect if the dentist is a Democrat. And where’s the proof that this dentist’s professor’s in dental school didn’t pal around with socialists or miss a KKK meeting?
I’ve got it figured out. CRJ is clearly a French speaker that knows no English what-so-ever. He’ s just using us to study for the World English Language Scrabble Tournament so he can give some payback to the guy who won the French version.
You said it, brother.
NO! NOT EVERYTHING.
I draw the line at checking proof of circumcision (or not).
Only proving that the secret dream of any English-speaking scrabble player is to learn French! 🙂
What CRJ does is not writing in English as a foreigner might, but writing word salad. I maintain that this not normal and that he should seek some kind of help. It could be a sign of some kind of health issue.
umbilical cord tissue
How’s this for English?
It is a Criminal Probe.
The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured e-mail account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe
http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-criminal-probe/
My info you requested is in my YouTube Salad Channel: CODE4PRES (smile)
And my salad book: Taking A Stand – The Conservative Independent Voice that you haven’t read yet.
I’ve airways enjoyed a good salad myself along with many other healthy Americans I see no reason for you to pour your foul dressing and ignorant dressing in it though.
You know what I’m talking about. Privacy when out comes to “National Security”… Lol.. That’s what Mrs. Clinton wanted with her private server.
When you work for WE THE PEOPLE your privacy Standard goes down because the bar is set higher.
That is reasonable I think.. Not an excessive burden either. kindergarten transcripts? Do you they have them?
One day, National Security is going to come crawling up your butts and you’ll have Obama to thank for it. Enjoy your excrement now because it’s not going last much longer boys and girls.
Your victory was criminally forged and your defense was a fraud. Just because McCain was White didn’t mean I didn’t sue his sorry excuses. ” I wanna be pres…u..can’t”
I like you guys. (word salad… Lol) What about like BBQ Words or Word Soup. How about “word lasagna” and your intelligence at interpretation.. Why don’t you use it? Lol
We the people? You don’t speak for me.
Oh my, Where to begin?
I can’t say I’m surprised by your ignorance, but FYI the term “word salad” is often used by professionals to describe a symptom of a neurological or mental disorder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
When you put together a string of disconnected words to the extent that the reader cannot extract any meaning from them, as in the example I quoted above, that is “word salad”.
Here is another. You just wrote:
“You know what I’m talking about. Privacy when out comes to “National Security”… Lol..”
What does that mean?????
You have been doing this here repeatedly (and likely everywhere else) and I really think you should talk to a health professional.
Wtfbbq
The feeling ain’t mutual. You’re a colossal, delusional asshole.
Judy would rather toss word salad than provide the documents that any presidential candidate should be able to provide.
What fraud and forgeries are Judy hiding?
I’ve said it before: ordinary claims require ordinary evidence.
Obama claims that he was born in the state his parents provably lived in at the time. That’s about as ordinary as you can get. (Short of, “he was born”. But who would ever deny that?)
There is an overwhelming amount of solid, ordinary evidence to support this ordinary claim.
To deny this evidence requires
ludicrousextraordinary claims, such as, “One of the states of the Union is engaged in a decades-long process of deception that casts the validity of every document they’ve ever produced into doubt.” But who would ever say that?I was having a discussion with a guy once about this. He claimed that birthers had proven that one could get a birth certificate saying a child was born in Hawaii when in fact it was born elsewhere.
I replied that there had not been one documented case of birth certificate fraud in Hawaii since it became a state and no birther had proven otherwise.
He responded by latching on to the “since Hawaii became a state” part, saying “Hard to believe they could have tightened up so much in just two years.”
I guess it was my mistake for saying “since Hawaii became a state,” but it was funny how he assumed everything was so lax there prior to 1959.
After he was unable to provide one example of birth certificate fraud, he changed the subject to President Obama’s college records.
Maybe if you said “in the last hundred years,” that might work. Wait– what am I saying? Never mind.
Is that true or isn’t it, Convict Judy? Is that what you learned in prison? To toss a salad?
Sure – an unidentified source cited by the Rupert Murdoch owned rag, the New York Post. How can there be a criminal probe when it hasn’t even been established that any classified information was compromised?
I’ve read more than enough of it.
According to the Associated Press:
“The referral to the Justice Department did not seek a criminal probe and did not specifically target Clinton.”
But who are you gonna believe, those kooks as the AP or the fine, upstanding ex-con domestic terrorist Cody Robert Judy?