That NYT piece on Ted and Goldman Sach's was a total hit job...most people have come to that conclusion... I thought the entire "birther" issue with Obama was idiotic...but have to say, its kinda funny seeing Cruz squirm bout this issue. Also quite surprising that NO legal challenges have ever been made testing the "natural born" clause in the constitution. If Cruz does get the nomination, it would be very interesting to see how the democrats approach this...
The suit has been filed in Texas, apparently this week. I wouldn't be surprised if Ted didn't ask someone there to file it himself:
I'm betting that if Cruz gets the nomination, Trump will sue to challenge his eligibility. He would definitely have standing for a complaint. If not Trump, than Democratic Rep Alan Grayson has already indicated his desire to sue. I doubt Hillary does the suit herself, when there are proxies at hand.
It's smart to get it out of the way now, but if this was done by the Cruz people, it's a big risk, the court really might find against them.
Whenever suits were filed against Obama for the same, they were all quickly dismissed for lack of standing, as I recall. Nobody should be surprised if that happens here in this instance as well.
The difference being that Obama was born in Hawaii, not Canada. Cruz really was born outside the US so it's a totally different issue.
My own feeling is that any lawsuits against Cruz regarding natural born will be dismissed. At birth he was a US citizen and according to the language of Article II it seems to me that is all that is required for natural born. Just as an aside this further points out the silliness of the Obama Birther nonsense. It doesn't matter if he was born in Kenya since his mother was also a US citizen and as such Obama is a natural born citizen. As far as Hillary filing suit if Cruz and her both are the nominees I strongly doubt she would. My guess is she would prefer running against Cruz than many other Republican nominees.
I agree, that's not relevant to standing. The plaintiff has to show he was harmed. I don't really agree with the courts that joe citizen isn't harmed by an ineligible president being sworn in, but a couple dozen of those courts all agreed with each other, so that's probably a pretty robust position. The only candidate to sue Obama was Alan Keyes. But, Keyes lost in the primary, not in the general against Obama, so that's probably why he didn't have standing. But, someone like Trump (or Bush or Rubio, etc) who loses to Cruz directly in the primary must have standing. If they don't sue, I expect only other candidates in the general election would have standing (i.e., Clinton). But, probably not until after she loses the election, and therefore suffers harm. At that point, it'd be a terribly disruptive thing to do to sue over eligibility after a massive presidential election, so she wouldn't do it. If Trump won't do it, no one will. Alan Grayson thinks he can sue: https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/0...l-sue-ted-cruz-over-presidential-eligibility/. He thinks he can get standing, and he seems like a smart guy and all, but it has literally been tried a dozen times with Obama and gotten nowhere on standing. Which leads to the stupid part -- our rule about being natural-born is completely unenforceable. If joe-blow can't sue and losing candidates are unwilling to sue, then Joseph Stalin could be sworn in.
edit: oops already posted <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I asked <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz">@tedcruz</a> today if he'd apologize to New Yorkers. Here's what he said --> <a href="https://t.co/f88BVmpbR0">pic.twitter.com/f88BVmpbR0</a></p>— Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) <a href="https://twitter.com/HallieJackson/status/688132394868580352">January 15, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Not really. He was born to an American mother, very analogous to McCain being born while his father was in the military. Cruz's mother (is/was, don't know if she is still alive) a citizen, which makes Cruz a citizen.
"Dirt?" "Hit piece?" "Non issue?" If you are an example of a "persuadable" Repubilcan voter, I have to laugh. The Times was reporting an obvious example of corruption and outright lying by a presidential candidate who happens to be a Republican. This isn't a shocking revelation to anyone in Texas who closely follows politics (which doesn't include you, obviously, with all due respect), but is certainly news worthy of nationwide reporting when it concerns a US Senator running for president. As a Texan, and I'm assuming you are, that you simply dismiss this could be seen as speaking to your own values, as it speaks volumes to the values of Cruz and his wife. The hubris of Cruz that he and his wife could do this and expect to get away with it says a lot about the state of politics in the State of Texas, none of it good. That Texas Republicans seem to not give a damn says one hell of a lot about them.
loans were disclosed, prior to his election, Texas Tribune reported on it at the time <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Texas Tribune posted Cruz disclosure including all loans on its own site 20 days before election: <a href="https://t.co/lMYxZLUBVP">https://t.co/lMYxZLUBVP</a></p>— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) <a href="https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/688372864471429120">January 16, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Commodore, next time read the material you're posting to "support" your argument. The Goldman Sachs loan was not reported in the statement you posted, unless I missed it in the fine print. All you did was post yet another example of Cruz not following election law. Oh, did you mean where he mentioned Goldman Sachs giving him over $1,000? Yes, reporting that 20 days before the election certainly highlights Cruz's "honesty." That's sarcasm, in case you're confused about that, as you are confused bout so much else, with all due respect.
A margin loan as a personal loan with no interest? Usually people glance over that as an investment and that's why FEC has strict disclosure requirements so candidates can't hide these special deals. http://www.npr.org/2016/01/14/463093708/the-ted-cruz-goldman-sachs-loan-explained
You look so desperate, Deckard. And of course hypocritical given nobody sees you attacking Hillary for far worse. It's not a good look for you. I laugh out loud knowing that you're represented by Cruz and John Cornyn in the US Senate. Haha!
Different financial reports. One is his personal disclosure and the other is campaign finance. The issue raised in the article was not that he got the loan, but that it was used to finance his campaign, which apparently has to be disclosed. This is silly line of argument anyway, given that the campaign has admitted it hadn't properly disclosed it and will correct that soon.
