Well maybe.
The Donald Trump Twitter publicity machine put out a threat to sue Ted Cruz over his eligibility. One photo that appeared in response:
It seems on the surface that a competitor in a political race can reasonably claim harm from an ineligible opponent—it hurts their chances of getting elected and the courts have recognized what they call “competitive standing.” See Tex Dem. Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582, 586-87 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2006); Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 53 (2d Cir. 1994); Fulani v. Hogsett, 917 F.2d 1028, 1030 (7th Cir., 1990).
Showing an injury in fact, however, is not the only requirement for standing. Another requirement is that the Court must be able to grant the relief requested. We do not know what a hypothetical Trump v. Cruz lawsuit would demand, but at a minimum it would include a declaration that Ted Cruz was ineligible to be president. If, as some judges have suggested (see, for example, Keyes v. Bowen 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 661 (2010)), the definition of natural born citizen is delegated to Congress in certifying the vote of the electoral college, then courts may well be unwilling to grant even a declarative judgment for or against Cruz.
In the unlikely event Trump brought a lawsuit, and in the unlikely event that he won some judgment against Cruz, an appellate court could simply reverse the lower court, saying “you can’t do that” and avoid any resolution of the Cruz eligibility question.
I think it nearly certain that Trump will never sue Cruz because he would likely lose the suit, and that would make him look bad. In my opinion, Trump is no more likely to sue Cruz than he is to shoot someone on 5th Avenue.
Read more:
Trump won’t sue because he’s a bully who just like making threats.
Congress’s authority under the 20th Amendment is to determine whether the person elected by the Electoral College is qualified. I would agree that courts are unlikely to interfere in that. At present, there is no President-elect, so there is no role for Congress and the courts could justify getting involved if they wanted to (though they likely do not want to). Could federal courts order states to exclude Cruz from ballots if they decided he was ineligible? I don’t know.
Of course, Trump could sue in various state courts, as others have, to exclude Cruz from the ballot. I doubt he will, because odds are he would lose, and that would make him a loser.
That’s his MO. The more he looks bad to sane folk the better he looks to the not sane folk.
Remember that he bragged about being able to shoot people in New York and gain popularity
La Rump makes lots and lots of noise and seldom if ever, at least in my experience, follows through on any of it, he really is a huckster.
I can’t imagine any court really wanting to get in the middle of this since it is basically a political question and one they really don’t have authority over. I can see them taking a reluctant and limited role if there were an actual question of law, but not otherwise.
I don’t see Trump suing in state or federal courts during primary season. His claim of standing isn’t very strong, since he’d have to prove that all the Cruz voters would jump to him rather than to another candidate.
The challenge would come at the convention…
Once a candidate is chosen, the chairman of the convention notifies all 50 secretaries of state who the GOP candidates for President and Vice President are, and certifies that said candidate meets the legal qualifications to be president under Article two.
If Cruz is going to be on the ticket, expect a floor fight questioning the certification of eligibility.
That would make Cody Robert Judy the polar opposite than right.. A man of profound courage.
@tedcruz @glennbeck @realDonaldTrump @thehill
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/698927394053173248
Let’s not forget that the Principle Issue of damages is set between two Presidential Candidates and the Legislature is not delegated the authority to try Cases as the Judicial Branch Courts are, or should be.
Damages include more than said “office” when your financing your own Campaigns I assure you.
Judy v. Obama 12-5276 Judy v. Obama 14-9396
Would it really surprise any one if we saw Justices perverting JUSTICE, to start dropping like flys?
They would be responsible for flipping the finger to God in their seats of authority created by said U.S. Constitution?
Any bets on whose going to fly off the Crows nest next?
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/698903430291558400
Trump is a bully.
Judy is a convicted terrorist.
Let’s not get off the subject here Buddy and make this Post about Cody Robert Judy again? I know how you guys hate to READ: it attest to Facts of Evidense DENIED to the Defendant and the Public through FOIA Request., but FACTS are things we do need to embrace in Trials as well as unlawful prosecutions.
http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2015/02/fight-over-forgiveness-lds-church.html?m=1
BEFORE THE STATE RECORDS COMMITTEE OF THE STATE OF UTAH UNITED TELEVISION, INC., a Delaware Corporation, d.b.a. KTVX CHANNEL 4, Appellant, v.
UTAH BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLE, Appellee DECISION AND ORDER, Case No. 94-13 By this appeal, United Television, Inc. seeks an order compelling the Utah Board of Pardons to release to it a copy of a video tape regarding an incident at Brigham Young University regarding an assault on Howard W. Hunter, an official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The video tape sought by United Television, Inc., was supplied to the Utah Board of Pardons by the Utah County Attorney’s Office in response to a request of the Board of Pardons to supply information on Cody Judy, an inmate at the Utah State Prison who had pled guilty and was incarcerated for an assault on Howard W. Hunter at a Church Educational System young adult fireside for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 2. The portion of the video sought by United Television, Inc. had been blacked out of the live broadcast and had never been published by the Church Educational System.
Help me out here. Are you complaining because they’re talking about you or because they’re not?
Well.. When they talk about me using half-baked evidence and framed jobs it makes it personal and I’m obliged to retry the Case with Facts, Evidence , and the U.S. Constitution.
I don’t Mind, but it just seems people here are offended with the evidence that relieves me of a true conviction : IT WAS a unlawful prosecution.
Justice Reform is indeed a BIG subject in PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS so perhaps I should not mention @Bob’s complaints about ruining Post when I chime in about very relevant and active cases in the considerations of this Blog.
I suppose if I’m damned if I do, and demand if I don’t to some, it shouldn’t matter. I think we all here have experienced a little bit of that, so I may be preaching to the Choir.
Incidentally, that Picture in this Post is Hilarious Doc. I love it! Lol
IANAL but since there is, AFAIK, no federal law banning ineligible candidates from a ballot and since each state is responsible for handling elections within it (except when actual constitutional issues are at stake, like voting rights limitations), that would be an issue for state courts IMO (this is part of the reasoning why courts refrain from weighing in on the issue; red state courts banning blue candidates and vice versa would create chaos that only SCOTUS could end).
What most birthers forget is that the Constitution only bars ineligible candidates from *becoming* President, not from running for President. This is, if at all, only done by state provisions regarding their ballots.
And while it may seem unfair that votes for an ineligible candidate go to waste, that in itself does not create a legal right to have such a candidate removed before the elections.
Two questions for a hypothetical case:
(1) Let’s assume Cruz clinches the GOP nomination and wins the general election, then is declared ineligible.
By my understanding, since the Democratic candidate did not win an actual majority of Electoral College votes (i.e. 50%), the rule where the House chooses the President would kick in, correct?
12th Amendment:
“The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.”
I.e. the House could then choose another candidate among the top 3 (although that would probably be a write-in).
(2) Let’s assume Cruz clinches the nomination but Trump runs as an independent. While most pundits seem to agree this would guarantee Hillary wins, it’s still possible she misses the 50% mark, so the House would choose between Cruz, Trump and Clinton – so unless the House GOP is divided between Cruz and Trump, this would mean a Republican becomes President (either Cruz or Trump).
You are correct. In 2008, Roger Calero ran for the Socialist Workers Party. He was born in Nicaragua and may not even have been a citizen of the US. Either way, he was clearly ineligible, yet he was on the ballot in some states. I don’t believe anyone challenged him, presumably because he had no real chance of winning.
Under the 20th Amendment, if the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice-President serves as President until he does. In the case you laid out, there is nothing Cruz could do to make himself eligible, so his running mate would be President for the full term.
Argh. You are correct. I was so much into my birtherist what-if scenario that I involuntarily assumed their position that an ineligible President-elect invalidates the entire ticket. 🙁
Wait… did Donald Trump just complain that someone was being mean to him?
Yes, that’s exactly what @realDonaldTrump #whiner #SoreLoser did.
Judy’s ego “obligates” him to spew his usual lies. And refuse to take responsibility for the terror that he inflicted upon thousands.
Judy pleaded guilty: Judy admitted that he threatened thousands with an explosive device. But Judy — ever the coward — whines that he was somehow unlawfully prosecuted.
Judy filed challenges to his conviction, and they were unsuccessful. Imagine the odds of a convicted criminal complaining the justice system was mean!
Judy also desired copyrighted material that was not subject to public disclosure. Unsurprisingly, no one thought Judy was entitled to another’s private property.
Too late: Judy has ruined yet another otherwise intelligent conversation by making it all about him.
ok, so let me get this straight….
trump doesn’t like cruz being mean to him – too bad, so sad, that’s politics.
but the’s sent out a tweet saying that if he doesn’t stop being mean to him, he’ll sue him for not being NBC?
so he `knows’ cruz is not NBC but will not do anything about it unless he doesn’t stop being mean to him….or wins the nomination and/or presidency.
do the trump supportes really want someone like that running the country?
Yes, they do.
Ugh. I can deal with Trump being a hateful, bloviating gas bag pandering to the worst people in America. I can’t so much deal with Trump being a hypocritical coward who can dish it out but not take it.
Gerbil Report posted this quote from Trump:
“I’m thinking about it very seriously,” the GOP front-runner told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America Tuesday. “I already have a lawyer, we’re looking at it very seriously, we’re thinking about it.”
This is a typical bullying tactic. I’ve seen this in my country where lawyers send cease-and-desist letters to file-sharing users who allegedly violate the copyright of their clients. Usually they send a couple of increasingly threatening letters (“if you don’t pay, we will sue”, “we’re already preparing the complaint”, “we are about to file the complaint”) to pressure the other side into paying their fees. In most cases, they don’t sue (since it’s cheaper to reap the money from those who get intimidated and pay).
In this case, all parties have deep pockets and excellent lawyers. I dunno how effective that tactic would be.
If Trump sues I assume it would be purely as an exercise in PR / campaigning (“Trump stronger than Hulk… trump smashes”) I’d guess his lawyers must have told him it would be pointless, from a pure legal standpoint, so it would be merely another volley of ammo to pander to his base.
My point wasn’t Trump is bullying Cruz with legal costs. My point was he is bullying him with claims that may influence the public against him.
(It’s a common smear tactic, similar to falsely filing a criminal complaint and then using “he’s being investigated” as a propaganda argument.)
By German law, it would be easy: Cruz could file for negative declaratory judgment, effectively forcing Trump to put up or shut up, including a switch of the burden of proof (Trump would have to prove Cruz ineligible, not Cruz prove himself eligible).
What? Ohhhh, so the pick of an ineligible Constitutionally unqualified Usurper gets to decide who the hell is going to run the Country?
Think you Better rethink That..
The Congress/Senate can pick a pro tempore President if the Vice President is [ineligible on the basis of being a Usurpers Choice] they don’t like until a new election.
I’m sorry Bob, but that was not the purpose of the KTVX Ch4TV Request they spent $10,000 dollars on.
The interest was in obtaining the evidence that was being Covered Up in a Union of Church and State in a State Procedure.
I know it’s probably above your pay grade to Comprehend and figure out. . but please try.
It is THAT witness that should confirm the Cover Up and Unconstitutional Frame job.. Intelligent people could see it plain as day.
Why doesn’t Sen. Cruz sue Donald Trump for sabatoging his Campaign by making “false statements” of his [not being eligible] and this damaging his Campaign?
Because Cruz knows he’s not eligible, he also knows Obama’s not eligible but he’s making the same presumptive argument. It’s harder to prove he’s not, then he is.
Shoe can work both ways. The sad thing is Justice is being schemed over with Valdes and fraid.
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/699740389062803457
Trumps totally trashing a Cruz base with fear he’s not eligible. Cruz could sue for damages of libel and would not be asking the Court for a simple declaration.. The Court would have to determine eligibility to make traction for libel. .but with Triumps net worth it could easily pay out.
Just another perspective. Seems the Clerks of SCOTUS will be defending their false statements of representing in the Judicial Branch my Writ of Certiorari was denied Oct 5 when it was not. A Motion for forma Pauperis was. Big difference!
The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, …
Even constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment rights do not exonerate affirmative false statements.[8] As the Court in Brogan v. United States
Read the 20th Amendment and take up any complaints you have with those who wrote and ratified it. It’s very clear-if the President-elect fails to qualify, the VP becomes Prez. THE END.
Am I the only one who finds it amusing that CRJ actually thinks he’s important enough to conspire against?
Typical speech from Trump with the b.s. about “we’re thinking about it, we’re looking at it very seriously.” He’s said this about so many situations that I find it difficult to believe there are so many people in this country that are willing to vote for him. It’s frightening to realize there are so many ignorant voters willing to overlook his many lies and lack of substance.
Who was discussing a TV station’s intent? I was discussing Judy’s desire.
Says Judy, who now claims to be a spokesperson for a TV station.
Says the person who can’t even correctly fill out a simple IFP application.
I read the committee’s order: The videotape is private property and therefore not subject to a public-records request. End of story.
Really, it is just Judy’s usual refusal to take responsibility: Judy terrorized thousands, and he acknowledged in court that he had committed a crime.
But, decades later, Judy whines there was some mystical “cover up” and “frame job.” As if it wasn’t really Judy who told thousands that he had an explosive device.
And, as expected: Judy derails yet another coversation into one all about himself.
* * *
Because there’s no legal basis for that lawsuit. Unlike Judy, Cruz doesn’t waste the court’s scarce resources with frivolous lawsuits.
EARTH TO JUDY: It was a form letter. The imprecision was not material; it wasn’t a crime. Placing form over function will have no effect, other than for Judy to stroke his own ego.
* * *
Judy’s undeserved vanity is amusing. Judy’s insistence on ruining conversation here — to say nothing of the damage he is doing to his children’s futures — is less so.
Once again you prove that as a layman you make a pretty poor attorney.
Cruz is a public figure. He can’t win a libel lawsuit against Trump (or anyone else, for that matter) unless he can prove that Trump knows that his statements about the eligibility of Cruz are false. That would be impossible to prove, particularly since there are some (a small minority, but some) Constitutional scholars who agree with Trump.
If Cruz were to sue Trump it would be a waste of judicial resources, much as has been the case with your lawsuits.
Just imagine the the predicament of his children when they get married and their spouses want to know why their father-in-law is never invited to family gatherings.
Hardly.
Based on Trump’s past behaviour, there is another explanation for his threat to litigate. He is not interested in getting a result but is simply interested in forcing the Cruz campaign to spend its money on litigation rather than the political campaign. Trump has enough money to hire attorneys to bring actions against Cruz and still campaign. On the other hand, every dollar Cruz spends on lawyers is one less dollar to buy advertising.
In any event, Trump may gain and does not lose. If Cruz is found ineligible, Trump has eliminated his chief rival. If Cruz is found eligible or the courts decline to rule on the issue, Trump has another grievance – “See, the courts are fixed.” What was Trump’s explanation for his loss in Iowa? Cruz had cheated, right?
Of course Trump has no intention of suing Cruz. The last thing he wants to do is run the risk of a ruling that Cruz is eligible, because that would be the end of it. By threatening to sue while doing nothing about it he keeps the issue alive.
It’s more likely he has enough money to get 50 yokels in 50 states to bring ballot challenges etc. against Cruz (if the Obama birthers don’t do it for free already). I doubt he’d get his own name involved in this.
The demand letter for Trump’s threatened “defamation” lawsuit says that he definitely will file if Cruz doesn’t take down the offending ads.
Cruz is demanding that he do so, and threatening to depose Trump personally instead of having his lawyer do it.
Definitely much amusement potential there…