Presumption of eligibility
In the United States there is a presumption of eligibility for candidates for office. Lacking a statute requiring some showing of eligibility, a candidate for office doesn’t have to prove eligibility; the burden of proof is on a challenger. Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service cited George W. McCray from his book, A Treatise on the American Law of Elections:
The presumption always is, that a person chosen to an office is qualified to fill it, and it is never incumbent upon him to prove his eligibility. The certificate of election does not add to this presumption, but simply leaves it where the law places it, and he who denies the eligibility of a person who is certified to be elected, must take the burthen of proving that he is not eligible.
Bradley Schrager argued before the Nevada Supreme Court:
Historically, this Court has approached candidate eligibility cases with a presumption of eligibility and a liberality of construction, especially where an ambiguity of law affects a determination of who may appear on a ballot. This is not a recent trend, but a part of the Court’s consistent approach going back many decades.
And the American and and English Encyclopedia of Law says of Public Officers:
That an officer has been elected and commissioned creates a strong presumption of eligibility.
Differing opinions have appeared on this blog both in articles and comments, on the topic or exactly who is eligible to be president of the United States. While examples exist where state officials have excluded obviously ineligible presidential candidates from the ballot and both state and federal courts have said that the issue of the eligibility of someone born in the United States to alien parents is “well settled,” I have not seen any court employ any kind of balancing test for presidential eligibility. Courts have not ruled candidates ineligible in ambiguous situations.
Political Question
The federal courts have held that they do not have jurisdiction over questions delegated expressly by the Constitution to another branch of government. One important case on this topic was Nixon v. United States, relating to the impeachment of a federal judge. The Supreme Court held that Nixon’s claim of a constitutional violation during his impeachment proceeding was nonjusticiable, a political question that could not be resolved by the courts. Professor Amar of Yale argues that presidential eligibility is likewise a non-justiciable political question.
Federal Judge Wingate, in his decision in Taitz v. Mississippi Democrat Party cited several Obama eligibility cases under the topic of “political question,” and said “…this court can find no authority in the Constitution which would permit it to determine that a sitting president is unqualified for office or a president-elect is unqualified to take office.”
State courts are not burdened by the political question doctrine, but they may well be held incapable of ruling on a presidential candidate eligibility because of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause that make the US Constitution and federal statutes made pursuant to it the”supreme law of the land.”
In the light of the presumption of eligibility, the lack of any express guidance from history, the reluctance of courts to get involved in presidential eligibility (deferring to Congress based on the 12th and 20th Amendments), on top of the political heat that would be created if Congress rejected a popularly-chosen president-elect, I find it difficult to envision any situation where Ted Cruz would ever be ruled ineligible.
I am almost sorry. I cannot raise any enthusiasm at all for a President Cruz, but it isn’t my business – not a US citizen – and of course many people seem to love the idea.
I will hope for a plain and simple humiliating defeat for him at the ballot box!
David Farrar’s latest “thoughts” on the issue:
“But it must be resolved. English civil wars were started over far, far, less than this.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-ted-cruz-is-a-total-liar-maybe-hes-got-no-heart/#comment-2488369259
The Constitution is filled with “Useless” law and rights. Since the courts are unable to weigh on the Article II section regarding NBC and Presidential eligibility because of a political question, the requirement is essentially a “useless” requirement. Likewise in rights, the right to redress your government for grevious is essentially an “useless” right since there is no right for the government to respond.
But John, the people and government have responded. Twice the voters selected electors pledged to Pres. Obama. You had your chance to persuade them otherwise. Heck, you even had (and probably still have) Donald Trump on your side and you failed to persuade a majority of voters of your position.
The electors picked Pres. Obama, twice. You had your chance to persuade them to be unfaithful and you failed.
Congress accepted the decision of the electors twice without a single voice in dissent. George Bush had opposition both times, but you persuade not a single member of Congress. Even the guy who called Pres. Obama a liar to his face. You couldn’t persuade him.
And then the Chief Justice swore the President in four times.
Not to speak of over two hundred court cases you lost. It really doesn’t matter the reason. Not a single judge, not even Roy Moore, said, hey, he’s ineligible but I can’t do anything about it. Not a single judge found him ineligible.
That’s over 1,000 members of the government who responded to your grievances. And you persuaded none.
Perhaps you can now turn your attention to a spelling class,
John, nice to see you’re still as ignorant and clueless as ever. The Constitution, you remember that document, the one you apparently haven’t and can’t be bothered to be read? Well, it gives the Congress, at the very least, two unique powers, they are the absolute and only judge(s) of their own elections, and they are the final judge(s) of the presidential elections. That means, hopefully in terms simple enough for you, that the Congress, NOT THE JUDICIARY gets to make these determinations, and they have done so twice now. So you are WRONG once again.
But except for a minority of lunatics, I don’t get the sense that americans give a sh*t about the issue.
If you accept that lunatics are a very small minority of the population as a whole, then they are indeed a very small subset.
Not even vaguely similar no matter the hyperbole of Breathless Dave.
First of all, exactly WHICH of the English Civil Wars..? There were 3 between 1642 and 1651. Oops, forgot Birfoons don’t actually read, research or check silly facts
Oh and lets not forget that it is believed that approx. 200,000 out of a population of about 5 million died as a direct consequence of these little unpleasantness’s
So, on the one hand we have one person who was born a US citizen but has a question around NBC status.
No one has or will die due to the birth status of Cruz
On the other we have a conflict between Church and State, the primacy of democracy over the “divine rights of kings”, a Parliament that was disenfranchised for 11 years, massive dislocation on who could raise and spend taxes and a serious (then) problem about succession via a potential Catholic heir.
Here some 4% of the population perished, the equivalent today in the USA of 12,920,000 as a reminder the US civil war deaths were 2.5%
Methinks Breathless Dave is substantially mistaken……
for the entitled, the right to be heard is the right to prevail.
I think the Tisdale case is a good example of this. Tisdale challenged Obama’s eligibility based on the fact that Obama’s father was not a US citizen. The Court dismissed the lawsuit BECAUSE what Tisdale asked the Court to do for him was not supported by the law. The courts can’t disregard the law and the Constitution just because someone has a grievance. First, the law must be changed.
Doc-Everything in your post, I agree with. Attempting to divine the original intent of natural born citizen is a fruitless exercise, because, barring the discovery of documents from the time whose existence has heretofore been unknown (or secret video shot with Madison’s iPhone) it is impossible to overcome the bar of the presumption of eligibility. Furthermore, I agree that the 12th and especially the 20th amendments make clear that Congress is delegated to act if the president-elect “shall have failed to qualify”. That certainly implies that if Congress doesn’t act, he/she is qualified. Thus this matter rests with Congress, not the courts.
The horse is dead. Further flogging, no matter how vigorous won’t revive it.
There are numerous studies suggesting that there is a “conservative brain'”and one of its salient characteristics is difficulty in handling ambiguity,
As I noted in an earlier post, it was resolved. English civil wars would have had at least one member of Parliament taking the contrary view. Mr. Farrar has yet to get one. That should give normal people pause.
I will have to disagree with you here. There are two options in regard to this position, either the phrase “natural born citizen” has no meaning at all which means it would have been pointless to have put it down as a qualification, or it meant something specific to the men writing the document, and that meaning would have been the common law meaning of “natural born subject” as was common parlance to them in that day. It is no different that using the term “majority” as it was used in laws and documents of the era to describe when an individual came in to their full rights and powers as an adult, and at the time would have meant someone of 21 years of age, as it no longer does. To deny that “natural born citizen” had a very specific and known meaning to the men of that time is to deny not only reason, but our very system of laws and judicial practice as they are all based on and harken back to the same shared legal history we shared with England. And the courts have in fact defined it in ringing terms just so. It is not undefined and unknown.
But there is a question as to whether it was common law without statutory addition, which would leave those born outside the US ineligible, or common law plus statutes added in England which would render them natural born citizens.
I have read the experts here and elsewhere and simply do not see a clear and convincing case as to whether the intent was to include or exclude such cases. Thus, I see no option but to fall back on the presumption of eligibility (itself a sound legal doctrine) and say that ineligibility is not proven for those cases, thus they are eligible.
I can just imagine how gleefully Trump would spin it.
“Look at that! Even the Obama Supreme Court, which has no problem with ObamaCare and same-sex marriage, refuses to say that Ted is eligible! Ted has a big problem! He’s going down!”
There is no right to redress. There is only a right to petition for redress.
The government has no obligation to respond to every petition for redress for a good reason. If it had to respond, sovereign citizens and other government-haters would flood Congress with millions of petitions, which would effectively shut down the government.
The Obama Administration has made it easy to file a petition with the White House. They even guarantee that you will receive a response if your petition gets 100,000 electronic signatures.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/
NATURAL LAW AND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN CALVIN’S CASE (1608)
Polly J. Price, Yale:
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/9YJLH73.htm
Census Bureau definition:
Native born – Anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth
• Born in the United States
• Born in Puerto Rico
• Born in a U.S. Island Area (e.g., Guam)
• Born abroad of U.S. citizen parent(s)
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/cspan_fb_slides.pdf
At last count there had been 226 petitions filed with federal, state and local governments seeking redress of some of the people’s grievances that Barack Obama is ineligible under Article II, Section 1. Those petitions, in the form of filed lawsuit briefs were adjudicatd by judges and state Election Boards.
Of course this horse would disagree with you. Any horse race has rules, and most often when they are broken its called cheating. If there is a price or purse at the end of the race often it is taken away based on the rules that were broken. I cite Lance Armstrong as an example of winning many races jacked up and having his titles removed in disgrace.
While Congress has been given the authority to check-check in the 12th and 20th as you mention, the Courts I believe do have the authority to judge disputes over rules and at least agreement by the parties to adhere to those rules as a measure of being included in the race.
While it is difficult to ask the Court to remove a unqualified President because of those tasks being assigned to Congress, it is not difficult to ask a Court for damages conferred by the broken rules upon another party.
I agree it is difficult to prove a negative. But implied consent is given when subjection to the rules is agreed. To enter the race as unqualified because of the drugs surging through your system you know will give you an edge on the hope that no one can catch you because you can beat the test is not the sign of a winner, but a cheater.
It makes absolute no sense to say that damages can not be ascertained and a compensation cant be leveled for equality under the law.
As a person who suffered losses that very big due to someone cheating, I can protest my losses. If no one else protest, that is not my concern or the Courts.
The political doctrine question has never been cited in any of my cases but I know it has been cited in some where standing was also cited.
Under the Political Question Doctrine it is said the court system only has authority to hear and decide a legal question, not a political question.
The eligibility of a candidate is not a political policy that the courts are questioning. Its a speed limit.
Did you drive over 55mph? Yes, then you were speeding. Pay the fine.
I should not have to claim that if it was otherwise I would have won the election, even though it is a equally challenged question. Its impossible to say if I wouldn’t have won the election. Knocking a leading candidate out is a big deal to a lot of people.
But at the very least, damages to a Campaign, Candidate, in the Race for the same office are conferred in actions deemed illegal to agreements of qualification, and if petitioned as damages should be considered valid.
Might is not always right, nor is a bully. Individual rights were conferred upon us to protect just such behavior we call cheating.
You have claim on your comment by celebrating a cheater and someone who has damaged someone else unfairly, unjustly, and with great malice. I can find no winning character in such at all.
We have referees in almost every sport and competition to penalize and call fouls and illegal activity according to the rules of the competition. How dis-crediting to a Judge or Justice of any Federal Court to say he is not authorized to call a foul, assess a penalty, see to it justice prevails, for all, in the equality of the rules and in the instance, the race.
Obama is a cheater cheater cheater and a liar liar liar and a fraud fraud fraud and a robber of the office; a malcontent of civility. He said he was qualified as a [natural born Citizen] for the Office should he be elected and he was not, in my Petition.
Doesn’t mean he is not a good golfer, or basketball player, husband or father in many instances. We’re just talking about one race, the race for the Office of the President. He did not win it. He won an election based on a false presumption of the facts he was qualified when he wasn’t . This is a violation of the rules.
There is not a lot to be done about the “Glory” Lance Armstrong enjoyed in the great press, pats on the back, and all the perks of winning his tours. That of course was his [limited] reward. But he knew he was not a winner all along. He knew he was cheating and the reward was not justified in truth it was justified in a lie.
The lie will have its reward and it will have its punishment also. Its just a fact of universal laws of nature that if not supporting one, eliminates the other. If there is no bad, there can be no good.
Obviously, I’ve been suffering the bad but I’ve also had a clear conscience. Obama does not have a clear conscience, because even though you tell yourself a lie a thousand times and start believing it, the right and wrong of the conscience is made in the existence of God and the devil himself.
Obama has enjoyed the Office of President, there is no doubt about it. I’m sure of it in some ways. However deep in his conscience he has known he cheated and lied to get it. Others joined him. Yes a mixed bag of pollution that in the end I think will be terrible regretted and seen as selling the birthright for a bowl of oatmeal.
I am sorry for him and it is to be pitied.
If anyone here would like to relieve the conscience of foul defense they may contribute to my Campaign here:
http://codyjudy.us/information/codyrobertjudyforpresident2012_011.htm
When Obama is found ineligible of course I can’t imagine anyone here standing around and supporting him in the understanding known all along, so I don’t think anyone here is really a friend of Obama’s when it comes down to it.
On the other hand, you all do know and have seen how much sh*t I’ve put up with from all of you and in the end, you will say, that Cody is alright. He stood up for himself. Good for him. He deserves the Office of the President. He did the job.
The government HAS responded.
I have here photocopies of your official responses from all 3 branches of government, faithfully and accurately reproduced on a Xerox WorkCentre printer/scanner/copier. The forum won’t allow me to post the images, so I will copy the text below for you.
From the Executive Branch:
“Dear john,
Having taught Constitutional law, I was well aware at the time that I undertook to become President of the United States, that I was on solid ground in seeking to do so. I even went so far as to twice release copies of my birth certificate, knowing as I did that some folks would never be satisfied.
Make no mistake: History will record the accomplishments and trials of my Administration, but if you clowns are remembered at all, it will only be as the laughingstocks you are. Now feck off.
Sincerely,
Barack H. Obama
President of the United States”
From the Judicial Branch:
“Dear john,
We, together with our numerous counterparts in the State court systems, have received and duly examined your 225+ petitions alleging the President of the United States to be ineligible to hold and exercise that office. After due (and expensive, I might add) consideration of each and every one of your numerous petitions, our assembled Judges and Justices have unanimously reached the clear, definite, and final conclusion that not only are you ignorant of both history and Constitutional law, you are insurmountably full of cr*p. Now feck off.
Signed,
The Entire Judicial Branch of the United States Government
with concurring opinions from numerous State Judiciaries”
…and finally, from the Legislative Branch:
“Dear john,
We, the Senators and Representatives of the United States Congress, together with our assistants and staffs, are in receipt of your letters, Sheriff’s Kits and other lobbying efforts asserting the ineligibility of the President. We are also in possession of the detailed and well-done assessment of Presidential Qualifications and opinion prepared for us by the bipartisan Congressional Research Office. We are pleased to inform you that we have been able to reach a rare and complete bipartisan consensus on this issue.
Our judgment is that, just as the good people at ObamaConspiracy.org long tried to tell you, you never had a clue what you were talking about. Aside from that, we frankly just don’t give a sh*t. Now… you know what to do.
Cordially,
The 100 Senators of the US Senate,
The 435 Representatives of the US House,
and our Staff Members”
There. I would call that a pretty clear response, john.
That has been the problem with you and the other birthers the whole time. You think that the right to ask for something means that you have the same right to receive what you ask for. It doesn’t work that way. The birthers have petitioned and the duly elected representatives, the elected/appointed judges and the various appointed governmental servants have said no.
The simple fact is, your own rep has blown you off. Yet, you still do not realize that you are wrong.
Attention department of redundancy department. Cargo-cult division.
The lying convicted felon goes off on yet another tangent that he can’t get right because once again he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. One can’t get something, if one doesn’t even know what the word means or how to use it, and this coming forma pretend presidential candidate and dogcatcher reject. Your grammar is so universally bad I’m not even sure what you are trying to say, other than that it is WRONG. There is a constitutional right to PETITION the gov’t for redress of grievances etc, there is NO constitutional right to a response. If that petition is meritorious, then there is likelihood that the gov’t will do something about it. If it isn’t, it will be treated like the lying convicted felon’s improperly filled out and submitted IFP before the USSC, which is to say round filed.
Pardon, did I miss something here? I do not see a comment from Cody, only John blabbering away.
You’re right, I wasn’t paying attention when I wrote that, John was the guilty party not Cody, I owe him an apology.
No sweat..HOW ABOUT A GAME OF MUSICAL CHAIRS to decide #iacaucus #IowaCaucus Order of operations to determining Iowa winners? :
1. Tallied votes
2. Coin toss
3. Rock paper scissors
4. Staring contest
? http://www.marketwatch.com/story/coin-toss-broke-6-clinton-sanders-deadlocks-in-iowa-and-hillary-won-each-time-2016-02-02
Kind of seems that’s where we are headed over the Qualifications and differences understood of NBCtzn.
At least everyone here knows I’ve appealed to the #SCOTUS for a professional opinion that would be respected by all.
Did you see my Book on Drudge? https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/694407226270699520
I know how you could win. They should have a convicted felon contest among the candidates.
How many votes did you get in Iowa last night?
The odious Ann Coulter tweeted this last night:
“Trump is the leading GOP vote-getter tonight, among natural-born-American candidates.”
Of course there are differences between Opinions in Political Policies here as well the U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
However under the conditions of the political doctrine question this Post relates, I don’t think the Justices offering an opinion on the Privileges or Equal Protections under the Law for same-sex marriage or abortion differ from my Appeal for the Standard of [Natural Born Citizen] to be considered by the Court as a Candidate for President.
It shouldn’t take suing Cruz and suing Rubio and suing McCain and suing Obama to decide the definition of [natural born Citizen] especially if the Standard is assumed as it was in Minor v, Happersett-
Those born in the Country of it’s Citizens are the natives or [natural born Citizens].
I know there has been bitter pills to swallow for Conservatives about both Equality of Marriage and Protecting Choice, however in general we have had no States that have left the Union over these.
Perhaps it is the hope many have for Ted Cruz to terminate Life Tenure for the SCOTUS Justices. I’m generally happy our Union is honoring Citizens with Pro Choice and Equal Marriage rights.
There are great advantages in preserving the Union I’m very grateful for.
However, evading the [ natural born Citizen ] clause as they are denying my Forma Pauperis where the real fabric of the Vote and Republic exist is in fact a Call for Civil War. Especially as we see Rubio, and Cruz getting the ball rolling just like Obama did in 2008.
It is very possible as the Standards of the Election moves forward, that regardless of the good intentions here to call for Cruz and Rubio as eligible that a jilted Hillary or Sanders appeals an entire American Election based on a 1% loss.
It’s difficult to imagine regulating an Election to a coin toss., but the evasion of the Court on [Natural Born Citizen] is calling for it. It is not settled law by any stretch of the imagination. It has been evaded.
Like the courage it takes to stand up for a women’s right to choose, and the courage it takes to stand for Equality of Civil Marriage, the SCOTUS Court should take the preventative MEASURE with courage to stand up for the NBCtzn clause as not doing so threatens Civil War.
If they undertook 14-9396 NOW we might avoid the Electoral Vote nightmare that places the Election in the SCOTUS and could much more easily tear the Union up, and with it so many protections afforded to so many now.
I’ve never seen such clearer writing on the Wall. This is not just about any particular candidate, it’s about a Standard.
I got the 1% in 4 counties uncommitted , HOWEVER, you know I’m just 1 FBI INDICTMENT , a heart attack, OR a SCOTUS HEARING away from securing the nomination which could happen any day.
Cody, if you actually believe that, I’m afraid you’re literally delusional.
Even if you think Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley (who has suspended his campaign) are all going to go away, there are 174 people “running” for the Democratic nomination.
That would leave 170 other people besides you.
So yeah, if Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley all drop dead simultaneously, and if you can beat the other 170 officially registered candidates (hint: snowball, hell), then yeah, you might have a shot.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Would you care to explain in plain English?
I’m sure that in their time of need the Democrats will turn to a convicted felon who has never held a public office to save the day.
Well, he’s arguably more qualified than Limberbutt McCubbins.
In spite of the presumption of eligibility and political question issues, I think Limberbutt would likely be found ineligible. So that only leaves 169 other candidates Cody would have to beat.
Assuming, of course, that Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley all simultaneously drop dead next week.
Hey Pete, how you doing my friend?
When are you going to quit with the psych-ops? You are only asking the Govrnmnt to come in and deny you every right you ever thought you had.
Or are you just trying to dilute and pollute the Psych-op menu so if they come in and say you’re nuts, none of the General population will take it seriously?😂
You think I don’t know about the many other D potentials and declared? You didn’t read my last Post did you? http://www.codyjudy.blogspot.com where I specifically mention the Dem Rules if Hillary is indicted and suspends her Camp the day before the National Convention.
That aside, out of the 170 D Pres. Candidates you refer to, how many have a Case in SCOTUS that could Officially suspend 2 Leading Presidential Republican Candidates Campaigns including the Iowa Caucus Winner?
Let’s be honest, not even Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders with THEIR SUPPORTERS combined could do that.
Now, it’s just a guess , but it doesn’t seem delusionally based to understand within the Democratic Party which you may not understand , the gratitude which would pour on to a Democratic Candidate able to do that especially by the Constitution.
You Mr Trump tweeted in a sense his self funding after 6 months was not worth it.
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/694596879682646017
I say the last 7 years of my life have been dedicated to upholding the very Principle that if Judicially upheld in a fair checks and balances’ way, would have carried Trump to a Win in Iowa.
The disparaging remarks about my Campaigns and Legal and Civil Petitions mostly self funded, has been the near total disregard for the VALUE.
THIS IS AS NICELY AS I CAN PUT IT.
Uncommitted doesn’t actually mean anything. I got 10% in every country uncommitted. See how that works.
The widely accepted abbreviation is psyops not psych-ops
Not a single candidate has a case in SCOTUS, and that includes you. Your case is dead and buried, never again to see the light of day.
Oct 8 2015 Case considered closed.
The Iowa caucus results are here.
Unless Judy changed his name to “Other” or “Uncommitted,” he’s not listed.
Since this Post is dedicated to Cruz and Political Question, it’s appropriate to watch this 35 minutes of Cruz’s Victory Speech.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?404055-1/ted-cruz-caucus-night-speech
At 16M you hear Cruz talk about the Washington Cartel. Does anyone find the same language interestingly used in Judy v. Obama 14-9396?
I’m reading “2015 U.S. Supreme Court Judy v. Obama Writ Certiorari ” on Scribd. Read more: http://scribd.com/doc/262436958
As you watch this, the understanding of a Politician saying anything to get elected is air-apparent.
How can all of his words about Standing for the Constitution matter when he is a walking- talking violation of it? When the #SCOTUS Court fails to address the Core Principle of NBCtzn a machine .. a cabal., a Cartel forms. It’s so BIG it’s difficult to tackle.
About the only thing you can do is knock the ball out of its hands and create a fumble. You think the commitment of Cruz’s Cartel of supporters is not enhanced as a FAVOR by the #SCOTUS Court by their SILENCE in Judy v. Obama 14-9396 your sadly mistaken.
You cannot serve two Masters. Luke 16:13 [for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. He cannot serve God and mammon]
The political question doctrine as a safe-haven for the # SCOTUS is almost an absurd doctrine between Presidential Candidates in a dispute of constitutional qualifications.
I am not convinced everyone here is for Ted Cruz, but as you watch the Victory Speech think of how easily that victory is considered a fraud upon the Election proceeds with his inelligibility.
Think how foolish it is for the SCOTUS to refuse to hear Judy v. Obama 14-9396 to decide in their considerations the VALUE of Place and Parents in the constructions of [nature born Citizen] by nature and nurture.
To me it is a disconbobulation to favor a Cartel/Cabal against the Constitution represented by a U.S. Senator who with his brillant mind educated at Harvard did not know he was held as a foreigner a short time ago in the Office of President. And disfavor a questionably accused and convicted felone terrorist of a Church protest who did not get the evidence he was accused with and who is for the Constitution and is petitioning it in the highest Court.
You might think it strange Obama and Cruz could interchangeably act in the above paragraph against myself.
It is as if this crowd thinks that he who petitions the Court is wrong as if no offense can come whatsoever. If the Court has no place for disagreement it seems a liscence for violence is given.
I think in my Case the patients of Job has been excercised. Honestly I do not think Trump , Cruz, or Rubio have near the patients for the Civil Procedures I have had in this matter. Their bully behaviour in the matter of either going to public court to smash the other as TRUMP has, or to simply smash or run over the Public with a simple excuse of abject non sense iterated on the authority of education and experience of character for the selfish motivation of their selves as is the case for Cruz & Rubio , is plainly a lack of patients and respect for Law. is. Might is Right
It’s the recipe for the shedding of blood
Zero votes and zero delegates. His campaign is off to a flying start!
What does “air-apparent” mean? The Urban Dictionary defines it as “When seated on the throne, the gas expelled from the backside immediately before the Great Brown King visits the Royal pool.” I don’t think that’s what you meant.
I dunno. Many political speeches have that character. Certainly, Ted Cruz’s do to my ears and it has nothing to do with where he was born or who his parents are.
I’m beginning to wonder if Judy is using voice recognition software to write his notes. Doe he really believe that “patience” is spelled “patients?”
Who knows? If “heir-apparent” had made sense in context, I wouldn’t have said anything, but it doesn’t.
This brings to mind the time that closed captioning interpreted George W. Bush’s word “ratified” as “rat identified.”
If you are referring to Donald Trump, the term is “hair-apparent”.
On a public library computer?
https://inthenorthland.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/a-new-birther-theory/
Ted Cruz Is A ‘Natural Born Citizen,’ Board Of Election Finds
“The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth,” the board said, reasoning that Cruz met the criteria because he “did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth.”
As if addressing Trump directly, the Illinois Board of Elections was conclusive in its findings: “Further discussion on this issue is unnecessary.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-natural-born-illinois_us_56b10542e4b0a1b96203f393
He’s been sniffing too much air-apparent.
I’m doing fine.
Um… stating reality isn’t “psych-ops.” And no, I’m not asking the Govrnmnt to deny anything. Believe me, I value civil and Constitutional rights.
Um… no. I’ll confess. I didn’t.
In fact, I’ll confess that I haven’t read any of your blog.
Rereading this, it’s sad that Cody apparently thinks a statement of reality is “psych-ops.”
I know I’m wasting my breath here, but Cody: There’s a very simple test of whether:
a) Someone knows what they’re talking about, or
b) Someone is not in touch with reality.
If someone makes predictions (such as the impeachment of President Obama, or the courts ruling in favor of the birther concept of “natural born citizen,” or Sheriff Arpaio is going to drive Obama from the White House) and they never, EVER come true, that person is not in touch with reality.
If someone makes predictions (such as: Your court case doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding, or this birther case is going to fail), and they ALWAYS come true, then that person is obviously in touch with reality.
if anything, air is hardly apparent. in fact, its presence had to be inferred. imagine explaining water to a fish …
I’ve never 🔊 heard any Fat Lady 📢Sing yet? Less than a year to go is Prime Time! Do you think anyone 🔥burns down the USA to see him go now?
Nope!
🎵😂😂😂🎵
Ted Cruz …
@tedcruz “the only person who has always opposed amnesty, and who’s always opposed citizenship is me.” EXCEPT his NBCtzn Amnesty #SCOTUS 14-9396 #Democrats
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/695104832147828738
Cody, we now have a SEVEN YEAR LONG track record of birthers claiming Obama was going to be driven out of the White House, and claiming it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
And we now have a SEVEN YEAR LONG track record of folks like Kevin Davidson saying, no, Obama isn’t about to be driven from the White House, and your birther cases are DOOMED, and the US Supreme Court is NEVER going to declare that it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
During these seven years, birthers have brought more than 225 court cases. Every single one of them – EVERY SINGLE D*MN ONE – has gone down in flames. Except for one or two that may still be (temporarily) in the courts. And those are doomed, too.
When President Obama peacefully hands over the White House to a new President on January 20 of next year, and the Supreme Court still has not declared a birther definition of NBC, will you admit then that you were totally full of bullcr*p?
http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/democratic-voter-cruzs-birthplace-doesnt-matter-his-idiotic-views-of-the-world-do/
This is from a satire site, but it sums up how I feel about this issue very nicely.
Good article on Cruz eligibility:
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/161859
I agree and reading it set me to thinking about the following question, which I wonder if you can answer-Weren’t all additions to US territory beyond the boundaries in 1781, and the subsequent admission of states from those territories achieved by acts of Congress? Thus, couldn’t one say that those born in those states are citizens due to an act of Congress? If being a citizen due to an act of Congress is a bar to being President, are they ineligible? Since, no one claims that they are, wouldn’t it seem that owing one’s citizenship to an act of Congress is not, per se, disqualifying?
Nope!
Ted Cruz …
@tedcruz “the only person who has always opposed amnesty, and who’s always opposed citizenship is me.” EXCEPT his NBCtzn Amnesty #SCOTUS 14-9396 #Democrats
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/695104832147828738
Cody, the fat lady broke into song a long time ago but you and the other birthers resolutely jammed your fingers into your ears
You’ll never hear the fat lady sing, if you’re not even in the same opera house….
You must be deaf, then.
There will be no impeachment. The House of Representatives wouldn’t dare initiate impeachment proceedings, not during an election year. And even if the House did, how would you get a conviction in the Senate? There are 54 Republicans in the Senate, and they would need 67 votes to convict.
For all the talk of impeachment, It appears that the Republicans learned their lesson with the Clinton impeachment. Bill Clinton left office with the highest average second-term approval rating (60.6%) of any President since Gallup started polling during the Truman Administration.
I agree. That’s one of the better articles I have read.
Illinois board of elections declares Ted Cruz a natural born citizen:
“The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth,” the board said, explaining Cruz met the criteria because he “did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/03/illinois-board-of-elections-declares-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/
Convenience of “naturalization statute” is still naturalization and Citizens at Birth Title 8 § 1401 a-h. Citizen at Birth still doesn’t say [natural born Citizen]
Dim Wits
Obama is no President Bill Clinton, that’s for sure!
Obama’s approval rating in the new ABC/Washington Post poll is 50%.
George W. Bush’s approval rating in February, 2008 was hovering around 30%.
George H.W. Bush’s approval rating in February, 1992 was hovering around 40%.
So Obama is no President Bush, that’s for sure.