Breitbart News reports that Florida Congressman Alan Grayson spoke yesterday (November 25, 2015) to Alan Colmes on his Fox News Radio program, and said:
… the Constitution says natural-born Americans, so now we’re counting Canadians as natural born Americans? How does that work? I’m waiting for the moment that [Ted Cruz] gets the nomination and then I will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job because he’s ineligible…. Absolutely! Call me crazy but I think the president of America should be an American.
You’re crazy.
In July of 2014 Grayson told MSNBC that he didn’t think Cruz had a chance:
Since Ted Cruz is a Canadian, and our Constitution requires that an American win, I’m pretty sure that it’s not going to be Ted Cruz.
Deep blue liberal Grayson said that Cruz hadn’t even reached “anchor baby” status. In his characteristic shoot-from-the-hip style, he quipped:
In Cruz’s case, it is obvious what happened. The Canadians got pissed off at us for acid rain, so they gave us Ted Cruz.
In my opinion Grayson lacks standing to bring such a lawsuit.
Grayson is seeking the Republican Senate seat from Florida in 2016.
The Gerbil Report has an article up stating that Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson plans to file suit aganst Ted Cruz on ineligibility grounds if Cruz becomes the Republican nominee.
I saw it from Breitbart, as I was going through my Google Alerts.
This is disappointing. I like Grayson but he’s dead wrong on this.
Grayson has always struck me as a little too much icing and not enough cake.
It seems to me a natural extension of the Obama birther cases to cover Cruz eligibility stories here.
I don’t think you’re going to have to defer your planned retirement on that account.
Grayson has earned himself a fan base by making a habit of saying things that sound good as long as you don’t think about them.
It’s a common habit of wingnuts — and I don’t like it any better when a liberal does it.
Hate to see this . Now all the longsuffering right wing birthers will have a false equivalency to talk about withot end.
How embarrassing!
Some of the denizens of BR believe that Trump may challenge Cruz on the eligibility issue, for example:
“If Cruz catches up, there will be an ad with an ineligibility challenge. Then he will publicly blast him. ”
I think we can expect a similar flurry of Cruz eligibility ballot challenges and lawsuits, all of which will have a similar effectiveness as the Obama eligibility challenges. They won’t be as much fun to follow though.
Make no mistake, the majority of birthers is seeing the Cruz (/Rubio/Santorum/…) challenge only as an avenue to reopen the Obama eligibility discussion.
Their pipe dream is Cruz being declared “not an NBC” so they can scream “And now for Obama…!” – because their “logic” is that that would make the public open to another discussion about whether Obama was born in Kenya.
Then of course there are the Vattelists who dream that Cruz would be declared ineligible for not having two citizen parents.
The number of absolute true believers who object to Cruz regardless of Obama is not to be underestimated, either.
I wouldn’t say that. A GOP candidate getting the same ridiculous conspiracy crap thrown at him that Obama had to endure is sweet poetic justice. This follows from them not clearly rejecting Obama birtherism for opportunistic reasons.
Just remember the dog whistles from top Republicans stating “I believe he (Obama) is a citizen” which technically does not disagree with birtherism.
To see a GOP candidate defending himself against the crazies he “forgot” to fight early is fun.
To imagine a potentially significant part of his own base not voting for him because of the crap he neglected to stand up against is poetic justice.
Call me when GOP candidate eligibility lawsuits near the 200 mark.
A Facebook friend is telling me that there’s a “pretty strong argument” that Eleanor Darragh Wilson Cruz renounced her U.S. citizenship in Canada? I thought she returned to the U.S. and never renounced her citizenship. I’m sure that’s addressed in the archives. I looked but cannot find the article in question. Can someone please point me to that article so I can repost? Thank you.
The fact that this appeared on Facebook weakens the argument by at least 92%. One article on the topic cites a “Documented Cruz Citizenship Timeline”
https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-tomerlin/ted-cruz-citizenship-timeline/815852778451290
which says:
“1970 – Ted Cruz is born in Canada, to two parents who had lived in Canada for at least four years at that time, and had applied for and received Canadian citizenship under Canadian Immigration and Naturalization Laws, as stated by Rafael Cruz.”
While looking for this, I saw what i think is a dead-pan sarcastic comment:
“Brian Groves: It’s really interesting that all this can come out about Ted Cruz and yet not a single peep from ANYONE about the true citizenship and where Obama was born…I smell a witch hunt. If they are this thorough with Cruz….why the deafening silence when Obama was running?”
Good compendium of Cruz birther nonsense from 2013 at Salon.com:
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/ted_cruzs_ironic_birther_predicament/
Was Ted born out of wedlock?v
http://thisculturalchristiana.blogspot.com/2013/08/sen-ted-cruz-born-out-of-wedlock-his.html
I think I may have hit upon a new world record for cluelessness, and a contender for Dunning-Kruger “Man of the Year.” It’s this comment from David at The Free Republic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3059031/posts?page=307#307
Can anyone here say in the positive positive affirmation that there is no way HRC would file a challenge on Cruz if it came down to the wire and a loss or a win?
I’ve been saying for years ALL that needs to happen is for MainStream candidates to be faced with a choice in a do or die circumstance.
Protecting “Obama’s Legacy” will go from purse to poof. We could probably say now that “political purpose” is officially over.
@Magic M [To imagine a potentially significant part of his own base not voting for him because of the crap he neglected to stand up against is poetic justice.]
Laughing.. Yes.., just like Donald Trump? The guy is seriously kicking butt. Let’s see, stand up for the Constitution lead in Polls. How long before Democrats figure out the Magic?
Re: The Salon article, very last comment from “Misschinagirl” –
“Actually, even if she became a Canadian citizen, under the US Supreme Court case, Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), which applied at the time, she would not have lost her US citizenship since acquiring citizenship in another country is NOT considered a “clear renunciation of her US citizenship.” Instead, the rules are reversed and it is up to the US to prove that she intended to give up her US citizenship when she became a Canadian citizen.”
Is this true? I’ve never heard of this case.
A lot of crazy comments on that thread. I’ve seen reference to comments Cruz’s father has made that he and his wife became Canadian citizens in 1966. Any idea where that info came from (or is it just rumor?)
Because Ted Cruz is certainly poised to take the Republican nomination, huh? 😛
Have you heard any birther talk come out of HRC’s mouth? I haven’t. She better not go there, because I will pull my support if she does and I’m certain I’m not nearly the only one who will.
I know it’s hard for you CRJ, but let’s stick to reality, shall we?
I sure can…she didn’t do it with Obama because she knew it was nonsense so she won’t do it with Cruz because she knows it’s nonsense.
You’re on your own birther.
Afroyim left some ambiguity on whether or not naturalizing in a foreign state would be presumed to indicate intent to give up US citizenship. Vance v. Terrazas, 444 US 252 (1980) set the standard of administrative presumption found in 22 CFR 50.40(a):
“In adjudicating potentially expatriating acts pursuant to INA 349(a), the Department has adopted an administrative presumption regarding certain acts and the intent to commit them. U.S. citizens who naturalize in a foreign country; take a routine oath of allegiance; or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government need not submit evidence of intent to retain U.S. nationality. In these three classes of cases, intent to retain U.S. citizenship will be presumed. A person who affirmatively asserts to a consular officer, after he or she has committed a potentially expatriating act, that it was his or her intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship will lose his or her U.S. citizenship. In other loss of nationality cases, the consular officer will ascertain whether or not there is evidence of intent to relinquish U.S. nationality.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/50.40
Developing a loss-of-nationality case:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120546.pdf
Naturalization and oath of allegiance to a foreign state:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120544.pdf
This whole “I will file if he is nominated” thing sure did sound familiar, and then I remembered– who could forget?
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated
Hillary was in a do or die race with Obama, and she didn’t play the NBC card, probably because she is a lawyer by training and she knows that it’s nonsense. Trump is probably the only major candidate (well maybe Ben Carson) clueless enough to file an eligibility challenge. Of course, there are probably hundreds of clueless minority candidates who might try and fail.
@Doc interesting the two main stream candidates you singled out are anti-establishment and leading.
I believe when it comes to being [clueless] and a minority candidate you certainly were not excluding me.
Certainly all lawyers know there’s making an argument for the sake of making an argument. Of course you know why lawyers are buried 10 feet down instead of 6?
Because deep down they are really good people.
(Just a little levity there. )
Trust is not a strong point for HRC, so I’m not sure the molten lava stirring doesn’t erupt on a Republican.
Obama was a Democrat..
That would be Donald Trumps worst nightmare to have HRC win because she pulled the NBC Trigger on Cruz and he wouldn’t.
You know for the life of me I cannot understand politicians being so polite with each other in deference to the U.S. Constitution, but being so mean with each other in every other way.
So far, Trump’s proposals include:
* Abrogating treaties.
* Imposing taxes and tariffs by executive order.
* Confiscating private property to pay for his wall.
* Suspending due process to expedite deportations.
* Engaging in “previously unthinkable” levels of surveillance and searching.
* Government-imposed religious discrimination.
We’ve already “figure[d] out the Magic”: we’ve seen it before.
It didn’t end well.
It isn’t going to happen, even if Clinton wanted to.
If Clinton lost to Cruz she could plausibly argue that she has a particularized injury, but an eligibility lawsuit still would be dismissed because it would be a political question. If Cruz were to become president-elect, under the Constitution it would be up Congress, and Congress alone, to determine if he is ineligible.
Besides, even if Clinton could successfully have Cruz declared ineligible, that would not automatically make her the president-elect. She still wouldn’t have a majority of electoral votes.
It may have something to do with the merits of the challenge. At least on the Democratic side, saying things that are contrary to fact is seen by voters as a negative. That’s why any constitutional challenge to Cruz will not come from a Democrat with a chance to win.
Doc,
There is also the chance that a Democrat would bring a meritorious challenge against Rafael, a possibility that did not exist for President Obama.