Ted Cruz PA eligibility challenge appeal fast tracked in Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Elliott v. Cruz, Elliott represented by attorney David J. Farrell, Cruz a natural born citizen?, PA primary scheduled for April 26

Ted Cruz PA eligibility challenge appeal fast tracked in Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Elliott v. Cruz, Elliott represented by attorney David J. Farrell, Cruz a natural born citizen?, PA primary scheduled for April 26

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

From The Legal Intelligencer March 21, 2016.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has set a quick timetable in the appeal of a ruling allowing Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to remain on the state’s presidential primary ballot.

The court said Monday that challenger Carmon Elliott had until 4 p.m. Tuesday to submit his brief in Elliott v. Cruz. Presidential hopeful Cruz then has until 4 p.m. Wednesday to file his response. There was no indication of whether or when oral arguments would be scheduled in the case. Pennsylvania’s primary is scheduled for April 26. The court did say in its order that the parties could submit the same briefs they submitted to the Commonwealth Court.

Elliott, who represented himself before the lower court, is now being represented by Norristown attorney David J. Farrell, who had initially submitted his own challenge to Cruz’s ballott eligibility but withdrew it in advance of the Commonwealth Court hearing.

Commonwealth Court Senior Judge Dan Pellegrini rejected earlier this month Elliott’s claim that Cruz was not a “natural-born citizen” as defined by the U.S. Constitution because he was born in Canada to a mother who was a citizen of the United States.

Pellegrini spent half of his decision determining whether the judiciary had jurisdiction over questions of eligibility to run for president. Cruz argued it was a question only for the Electoral College or Congress to determine, and that the court should be barred from hearing it under the political-question doctrine. But Pellegrini rejected that contention, finding there was no support for it under various sections of the U.S. Constitution, nor under the 12th Amendment. In doing so, he became what appears to be the first judge in the country hearing Cruz ballot challenges to address the merits of the issue.

The dispute as to whether Cruz was a ­citizen eligible for the presidency came down to the interpretation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “‘no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.'”

Pellegrini said the term “natural-born ­citizen” was not defined and the U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed its meaning within the context of the eligibility of a candidate.

Elliott is a registered Republican voter in Pennsylvania. He argued “natural-born citizen” required a candidate to be born within the geographical boundaries of the United States to be eligible. Cruz, on the other hand, argued he was a natural-born citizen regardless of where he was born because his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born and Cruz was therefore a U.S. citizen from the time of his birth, Pellegrini said.”

Read more:

http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202752679252/Appeal-of-Cruzs-Ballot-Eligibility-FastTracked#ixzz4478Divhp

From the Indiana Law Review:

“D. Whether a State May Refuse To Put a Presidential Candidate on the Ballot Because It Concludes the Candidate Is Not Qualified ”

” If a state chooses to evaluate the qualifications of presidential candidates, there is no inherent power of Congress standing in its way,”

“Just as there was historical precedent for states including unqualified candidates on the presidential ballot, so, too, is there precedent for states excluding unqualified candidates from the ballot. In fact, there has been a trend of state regulation increasingly scrutinizing the qualifications of presidential candidates, even apart from pending legislation in the “birther” context.”

“They arguably have the power to add qualifications to candidates seeking the office of President.359 The less intrusive step of examining existing constitutional qualifications is likely within the purview of state control.”

“The 20th Amendment does not prevent a state from excluding a presidential or a vice presidential candidate who is not qualified to hold the office.”

“A state inquiry into qualifications could take one of several forms.377 It might be simply ministerial, requiring candidates to verify that they are qualified. It could include a certification, such as a signature under penalty of perjury affirming that one meets the qualifications. It may require a low level of verification, such as an attachment of copies of documentary support for proof of residence and citizenship. Or it may require a high level of verification, such as original source documents (like a “long-form birth certificate”). The inquiry might be required as a disclosure when a candidate seeks to file for office, or as one that an election official is authorized to make under certain circumstances. Such state regulations would be permissible as long as they simultaneously existed within other constitutional boundaries.”

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11145&context=ilj

Hat tip to CDR Charles Kerchner.

 

Advertisements

11 responses to “Ted Cruz PA eligibility challenge appeal fast tracked in Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Elliott v. Cruz, Elliott represented by attorney David J. Farrell, Cruz a natural born citizen?, PA primary scheduled for April 26

  1. citizenwells

    “Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.”

    Mary Brigid McManamon, constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School

  2. CW……
    …….and he had the facts long before anyone else has been willing to admit, and I personally believe that he will continue to play that card for as long as it takes for the truth to SOAK IN TO THE RUBBER BRAINS of the NON BELIEVERS.

  3. Mr. Wells … May I have you’re permission to copy and paste you’re comment on Facebook? Excluding …You’re name and the date! Just you’re comment!

  4. Robert Dandrea

    Hi, A state SOS has the authority using, for example, NJ state election laws to declare a candidate or his election to be null and void if the candidate lies, falsifies, or is not Constitutionally eligible. Also the SCOTUS has cases that state who is a natural born citizen and who is a native born citizen. So this judge Pellegrini is wrong to state that the SCOTUS has never stated its meaning. >

  5. citizenwells

    Ginger, you may quote me anytime.

  6. Mr. Wells…Thank You
    Back from shopping and walking through the nature walks. I’m pooped. 🙂

  7. CW,
    Are we missing something here?
    Pennsylvania Federal Courts, BAD!
    Think we’ve been down this road before.

    Berg Response to Defense Motion for Protective Order, Jeff Schreiber explanation, October 9, 2008, Obama’s citizenship, constitutional requirements for the presidency, Obama campaign donations
    Posted on October 9, 2008 | Leave a comment
    Philip J Berg filed a motion in federal court today, Thursday, October 9, 2008 to dismiss the motion from Obama and the DNC to stay discovery until after the judge rules on a defense motion to dismiss. Jeff Schreiber, a law student, legal writer and blog owner has provided an explanation of Mr. Berg’s motion. Here are some exerpts:

    “This morning, Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg filed a response in opposition to the motion for protective order, a measure intended to stay discovery until after the judge rules on a defense motion to dismiss, filed by Barack Obama and the DNC on Monday.

    In the response Berg insists, among other things, that he is not seeking the documents specified in his motion for expedited discovery for any improper purpose, that the information requested through discovery is of extreme importance and a matter of public safety, and argues that Barack Obama and the DNC

    1. have not pointed to any “legitimate privacy concerns.”
    2. have not pointed out any “substantiated specific examples” showing that disclosure of the information requested through discovery would “cause and defined and serious injury.”
    3. have not effectively demonstrated “any risk that particularly serious embarrassment will result” from turning over the requested documents.
    4.have failed to show “good cause” and are not entitled to a protective order.

    On the latter, Berg cites a 1994 decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals–the appellate court sitting here in Philadelphia and the natural next step in this case should the losing party in District Court choose to appeal–in which the court held that “good cause” exists when the moving party can specifically demonstrate “that disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury” based upon a seven-factor test:

    1. Whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests;
    2. Whether the information is sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose;
    3. Whether disclosure of the information will cause a party embarrassment;
    4. Whether confidentiality is sought over information important to public health and safety;
    5. Whether sharing information among the litigants will promote fairness and efficiency;
    6. Whether a party who would benefit from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and
    7. Whether the case involves issues important to the public.

    Read More
    https://citizenwells.com/philip-j-berg-lawsuit/

  8. BREAKING: Ex-Obama Intel Head Defects! Reveals Obama’s Plan to Force America into Muslim Appeasement!

    Scott Osborn — March 26, 2016

    Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency just defected and spilled the beans on Obama’s true plans for America!

    He revealed what he believed to be an inordinately misguided plan by Obama to force America into “multicultural appeasement.”

    “Countries are going to have to get off this dime of this multiculturalism appeasement that we are seeing, particularly in Europe, and frankly, we apologize too often in this country for going after a political ideology that is hiding and masking itself behind a religion,” he told Fox News host Brian Kilmeade.

    Fmr Obama DIA Head Flynn: Countries Need To ‘Get Off’ ‘Multiculturalism Appeasement,’ US Apologizes Too Often

    See the full interview at Breitbart!

    Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (Ret.), who served as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama, and has advised Republican presidential candidates Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Donald Trump argued that President Obama’s reaction to the attack in Brussels was “a pretty sad day for US leadership” and “countries are going to have to get off this dime of this multiculturalism appeasement that we are seeing…we apologize too often in this country for going after a political ideology that is hiding and masking itself behind a religion” on Wednesday’s “Fox & Friends” on the Fox News Channel.

    Flynn said, “I think it’s a pretty sad day for US leadership. I think while President Obama wants to bury the Cold War, from Havana, Cuba, we’re in the middle of a very, very hot war. … I mean, we are watching an Islamic State, that is unfolding their campaign plan in front of our eyes, and we’re — we see the president doing waves down at a baseball stadium in Havana. I mean, it’s — come on, let’s get real with what we’re facing, and we need to do far more about it than what we’re seeing.”

    http://joeforamerica.com/2016/03/breaking-ex-obama-intel-head-defects-reveals-obamas-plan-force-america-muslim-appeasement/?utm_source=USH&utm_medium=shr&utm_campaign=USH

  9. A Crazy Old Coot

    I still wonder why he is referred to as Ted Cruz. It should be AKA Ted Cruz since that is not his legal name

    If I lived in Texas, I would be very upset that he ran for the Senate in the USA and did not reveal that he was a Canadian citizen at that time.

  10. citizenwells

    “While it is not undeniable evidence that something more than a professional relationship took place between Amanda Carpenter and her former boss, Senator Ted Cruz, the prompt cleaning up of her social media account did not go unnoticed by some and is now leading to yet further speculation as to the potential validity regarding allegations of somewhat recent sexual relations between Mr. Cruz and women outside of his marriage.

    This now-deleted tweet is perhaps the most interesting of the bunch:”

    http://dcwhispers.com/alleged-ted-cruz-mistress-promptly-deletes-twitter-history/#bC5qGQCPAxicsiB4.99

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s