Walter Wagner US Supreme Court response due by May 5, 2016, Ted Cruz eligibility petition for a writ of certiorari, Cruz not natural born citizen born in Canada
“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
“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln
Utah lawyer Walter Wagner has a petition for a writ of certiorari before the US Supreme Court in his challenge that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen. The petition is on the docket and a response is indicated by May 5, 2016.
|Docketed:||April 5, 2016|
|Lower Ct:||United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
|~~~Date~~~||~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|Mar 29 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due May 5, 2016)|
From UPI April 9, 2016.
“A Utah lawyer has appealed a lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging Republican presidential candidate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is not a “natural born citizen” and therefore ineligible to become president.
Legal scholars say there is virtually no chance the high court will consider the appeal, partly because they do not want to encourage a wave of similar suits.
Cruz has faced questions about his eligibility to become president from his chief rival, Donald Trump. Cruz was born in Canada, though his mother is a U.S. citizen.
The U.S. Constitution sets only a few standards for presidential eligibility. Candidates must be 35, have lived at least 14 years in the country and be a “natural born citizen.”
To some, legal vagaries exist surrounding the constitutional language. Congress has never passed a law explicitly defining the term “natural born citizen” and the nation’s founding document does not specify what qualifications someone must have.
For centuries, the courts have fallen back to the British common law explanation, that a “natural born citizen” is anyone who is granted citizenship at birth and, therefore, does not have to undergo any naturalization process later in life. Traditionally, that has included anyone born on American soil and the children of American citizens born abroad.
But that definition has generally not been tested in courts because federal judges are first bound to consider whether a plaintiff has standing to bring a lawsuit. To establish standing, someone making allegations has to pass the threshold they have been personally injured in some way.”
“”Like the courts that have ruled on this question, this court holds that Mr. Wagner lacks standing to bring his claim,” Parrish said in her ruling. “It is not enough for an individual to bring a lawsuit based on his status as a ‘citizen’ or a ‘taxpayer.'”
“The harms alleged by Mr. Wagner are conjectural and hypothetical at best,” Parrish concluded.”