Grayson vows to file lawsuit on Cruz citizenship

[MADem]

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/265128-grayson-vows-to-file-lawsuit-on-cruz-citizenship

Florida Rep. Alan Grayson (D) tells The Hill that he will file a lawsuit contesting Sen. Ted Cruz’s (Fla.) U.S. citizenship if the Texan wins the GOP's presidential nomination.

Grayson says Cruz’s citizenship is a “legitimate issue.” Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother.
Watch the video above to hear Grayson in his own words.

[jberryhill]

1. Grayson is an idiot

He does not have standing to bring such a suit.

[MADem]

5. You can sue a ham sandwich. Doesn't mean you'll prevail, but you can do it.

He's a voting citizen--he has standing.

[jberryhill]

7. It's not about "prevailing"

It won't get that far.

"He's a voting citizen--he has standing."

Yes, the filers of over 140 "birther" lawsuits against Obama thought the same dumb thing.

Being a "voting citizen" does not provide standing for a lawsuit to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate.

Your remedy is obvious - don't vote for them.

There is this dumb piece of folk legal wisdom which suggests that anything you file with a court is going to proceed to a decision by a judge. It does not work that way.

[MADem]

16. Did I say it was about prevailing? I said pretty much the opposite I thought--unless

"Doesn't mean he'll prevail" means something else to you.

Alan Grayson may be a flaky loudmouth blowhard who disrespected the mother of his children when he humiliated her after he took up with a sleazy big pharma lobbyist who is now running for his House seat (to the enormous shock and betrayal of one of his long-time principal aides, who was counting on his help for the same purpose), but he's also an attorney.

I think he knows--perhaps even better than an anonymous person on the internet--if he has "standing."

As a Democrat, the so-called remedy you propose is not available to him on a primary ballot. He can't choose a Republican other than Cruz, because he's not in the universe of people who selects a Republican nominee for POTUS.

I say more power to him. Probably the first and only time I'll say that, too--but You Go, Alan.

A taste of their own medicine might slow their roll in future. And if not, it's still a nice bit of payback. Let them be forced to clean up messes and respond from a defensive posture, for a change.

ANYTHING that disrupts that crew of assholes is Fine With Me.

[mythology]

22. Lots of attorneys are dumb

Just today I read an article where a judge dismissed a class action suit calling the attorney "manifestly incompetent". I'm sure that attorney thought they knew what they were doing.

Also Clarence Thomas was a lawyer and I've seen rocks smarter than he is.

[jberryhill]

58. "ANYTHING that disrupts that crew of assholes is Fine With Me. "

Then why give a shit about principles at all?

But I don't get where you get off calling me "anonymous". I post under my real name, am an attorney, and closely followed the birther litigation around Obama for quite for amusement.

Grayson can re-invent the same broken wheel if he wants to, but I am confident that I have spent dozens more hours on the issue than he has.

So, your point is - "We can be as stupid and unprincipled as they can." Good thing to prove.

[MADem]

64. This isn't about "principles." It's a fair question.

What--you think it is RUDE to ask the question when the guy has a Calgary birth certificate?

You think it's rude to question this, when a couple by the name of Eleanor and Rafael Cruz were registered to vote... IN CANADA?

Or are those Canadians just so mellow that they allow non-citizens to vote?

We still haven't seen any evidence that his birth abroad was registered at the embassy.

You are as anonymous to me as I am to you. For all I know, your DU user name is some riff on the Fat's Domino song "Blueberry Hill." That's like me being "offended" because my name is, say "Mohamed Adem" and You Didn't KNOW!!!!! Why DIDN'T YOU??????

For the record, that's not my name--I used my user name for purposes of illustration.

And I can tell you that I'm an underwater thoracic surgeon here, but I wouldn't be annoyed if you looked askance--we can be anything on the internet. We aren't public figures, here. Grayson, though, IS. He is a lawyer, and we know this--he may be a bit of of an ass, too but he has practiced law and we know this is a matter of public record.

This is NOT an "asked and answered" issue. Obama's mom was an American, who wasn't registered to vote in Canada. Obama was born in a hospital in Honolulu--Ted Cruz WAS--no lie--born in Canada.

Trying to equate the two issues is what is bullshit. There is no equivalency. Ted still has some questions to answer. Obama was simply targeted.

[jberryhill]

68. "Or are those Canadians just so mellow that they allow non-citizens to vote?"

What effect would acquiring Canadian citizenship have on one's status as a US citizen?

You seem to believe that when a US citizen acquires a foreign citizenship, that it somehow "dissolves" their US citizenship.

Go tell that to any number of Jewish US citizens who are also citizens of Israel, since that's where this kind of disconnected insular thinking is normally employed.

US law does not give a shit if you become a citizen elsewhere. For the purpose of US citizenship under US law, the laws of other countries don't have anything to do with it.

But you keep repeating this point as if it had any relevance to whether his mother was a US citizen. You can be a US citizen and be recognized as a citizen of as many other countries as will allow it. It doesn't change your US citizenship for the purpose of applying US law to you.

[MADem]

75. It used to be, that if you took "other" citizenship, and swore an oath of loyalty to another nation,

that your US citizenship WAS jeopardized--the Supremes didn't speak to this issue until 1967. And we do not yet know if Mrs. Canadian Citizen Cruz bothered to register her son's birth with an American embassy.

It's not a question of having citizenship based on faith--you don't have to "do" anything to get Israeli citizenship (you simply have to BE) -- ask this kid (well, he's dead, so you can't ask him much of anything):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Sheinbein

The lightbulb about Israeli citizenship didn't go off for him until he was on the run for murder.

If Mrs. Cruz actively applied for Canadian citizenship, and registered to vote, it could be argued that she was settling in, establishing her family as Canadians. Did she register the birth at an embassy? Or did she say to herself, I'm a Canadian mom of a Canadian kid?

It's a fair question. Especially fair, given the fact that Cruz said that Ann Dunham's citizenship didn't matter--Obama was not a citizen because his daddy was Kenyan.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

84. No requirement

to register the birth at the embassy or consulate.

The registered voter issue in Canada? Four years after his birth.

How long did his parents live in Canada before he was born? Long enough to become citizens?

It was beyond stupid when the Republicans made this argument about President Obama and it's beyond stupid for Democrats to do it now regarding Cruz.

[MADem]

88. Really?

http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html

[SickOfTheOnePct]

90. It says "should"

not "must", and was this in effect in 1970?

What is the law regarding how long one has to be a permanent resident of Canada before they become a citizen?

Your stretching to make this seem like a real issue is nearly as laughable as Grayson and his lawsuit.

[MADem]

101. That's the spirit--these are the kinds of questions that need to be asked.

The more of a miasma of FUD that surrounds Carnival Cruz, the better.

What's laughable is that any Democrat would look this gift horse in the mouth--because that IS what it is.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

107. Kind of sad that you're so unsure of the ability of a Democrat to win

that you would support lies and misrepresentations of the type that I'm sure you found outrageous 8 years ago against a different candidate.

[MADem]

110. That sounds like a sea lion if I ever heard one!!!!

"Kind of sad" (yeah sure) "that you're so unsure" (No, I am not--but nice invention) .....

Please.

And I haven't seen any "lies and misrepresentations" -- I've just seen QUESTIONS.

What do YOU have against asking questions? Hmmmm?

Why you're comparing a guy born IN CANADA to a guy born IN AMERICA (and whose birth announcement appeared contemporaneously in the Honolulu newspaper) is just strange as hell to me.

Right there, the argument is moot. Even if Obama's mama was Latvian. If you're born in the USA, you're an American. Why do you think all those pregnant Chinese women hustle over here to have their babies? They're not stupid--they know the law!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

111. They apparently know it better than you do n/t

[MADem]

113. Look up the meme, or don't. nt

[leftynyc]

59. You do realize

that ALL those people who filed lawsuits against Pres Obama on the birther issue were also lawyers. What makes you think lawyers are smarter than anyone else? Grayson needs to keep his fucking mouth shut and let the cons take care of cruz. We don't need him muddying the waters while the circular firing squad continues. Now it will become about Grayson - that asshole.

[MADem]

77. Naaah....Grayson can do what he wants.

This is the most useful thing I've seen him do in EONS!!!

[leftynyc]

83. No - because now

trump and his trumpettes can rail against the Democrats and use them as his foil. We WANT them to destroy each other without our help. Is that really a hard concept?

[MADem]

89. No, they can't. Trump is on the anti-Cruz bandwagon too--he and Grayson are birds of a feather. nt

[leftynyc]

91. Yes they can

When trump says I'm only doing this because Democrats want to sue - he nothing to back up that bullshit until Grayson opened his trap. I can't believe you're not getting this concept.

[MADem]

93. Look, if they're stirring shit about Ted "Canadian Carnival" Cruz, it's all good.

The more divisive, sketchy, and "other" he is made to appear, the better. Let his shit eat up the news cycle.

And unless Grayson wins his primary, he's out of the picture well before the general elections.

Most people outside of DU -- regular voters who don't live in FL--have no idea who Grayson is. Nor do they care.

I can't believe you're "fretting" over this--it's all good. The only people who should be "fretting" are Republicans.

[leftynyc]

94. I'm "fretting"

(that's a word I haven't heard in a while) because we had the issue in our hands - Trump being trump and his birther self and now he gets to claim he's only protecting cruz and his party because the big bad Democrats will sue. I'm thinking of independents whose votes we need. Now the issue - instead of being a winner for us - is a wash. That pisses me off.

[MADem]

97. Oh please, the vast majority of America doesn't get down in the weeds like that.

It's ten percent on either fringe, on a good day. This isn't an issue that "we" need to have "in our hands" or anywhere, for that matter, because it is not about "us"--it's about THEM--it'll play out within their GOP primary milieu, and people will draw their own conclusions.

This is all about Republicans making a decision about who they are going to vote for--if we can help in any way to bump off Cruz early, that's good. Stop him before he gets to the general election.

That said, there's nothing wrong with throwing the odd log on the fire...no one deserves it more than Canadian Cruz!

As for independents, they're no different than any other voting bloc--they have short memories, and give less of a crap about this kind of thing than people realize.

[herding cats]

8. It's theater.

Unless Cruz won the presidency it has zero reason to even be looked into. Even then the Naturalization Act of 1790 would deem him eligible.

All of this is funny when it's Republicans spouting it against one of their own. When it's a Dem it's not so funny anymore.

[MADem]

20. Maybe it is more than theater. We'll have to see.

Would it still be "theater" if you learned his mother took out Canadian citizenship, or couldn't produce an American birth certificate?

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-06/congressman-readies-ted-cruz-eligibility-lawsuit-with-eye-on-mom

The time to "look into it" is before that idiot is standing up in front of a Supreme Court Justice taking the oath of office, IMO.

It's not a question of "funny" either. Obama's mother was American and he was born in Hawaii.

Cruz's mother was American--or was she? And he was born in Canada. Nothing wrong with asking a few questions, particularly given the fact that Cruz, himself, was one of those Birthers who insisted that the ONLY reason Obama wasn't eligible was because his daddy was Kenyan.

[jberryhill]

52. That still doesn't make Alan Grayson a proper plaintiff to a suit

Who cares whether his mother acquired Canadian citizenship? Canada doesn't require revocation of existing citizenship status in order to acquire Canadian citizenship.

Did she need to immigrate in order to move back to the US? No. The entire thing is just silliness.

[DhhD]

69. But in the 1970s, Canada did require serveral forms to be filled out and turned in to both

the government and the American Embassy within a time limit of about 18 months. It was much different than now with the easy-breezy N-600 form of today.

[jberryhill]

71. What Canada required is irrelevant

Canada can "require several forms" to be sent anywhere they want. Canada does not determine whether someone is a US citizen.

[MADem]

78. I think it depends entirely on what those forms say.

I don't know what they say, but if they say something like "Do you renounce your other citizenship" or words to that effect, I'd say the waters are muddied.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

116. Who actually has standing? Would it be an opponent in the race?

Or is there no one with standing except congress?

My simple non lawyer caveman brain would think a citizen has standing but obviously that is wrong.

[jberryhill]

139. It may be "non-justiciable"

However, another presidential candidate may have standing.

By "non-justiciable", that means that the determination is committed to someone other than the court. As was noted in:

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=mlr_fi

[earthside]

35. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5

Has there ever been a serious suit filed over this part of the U.S. Constitution?
Cruz was born in Canada; so this is not spurious as in the case of the Obama birther fantasies.

Prof. Lawrence Tribe on Lawrence O'Donnell's show last night seemed to indicate that in the Cruz case, we may have a serious issue. Tribe also laid out the differences between Cruz and John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Of course, there is the supreme irony in this situation ... a conservative like Cruz would in any other case be in favor of an "original intent" or "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution, but for himself, he certainly is the lossey-goosey 'liberal', uh?

As to standing, well, we'd have to see how lower courts would rule on that. It seems to me that any qualified voter in the country might have standing since they would certainly be injured by having a duly nominated candidate for President of a major political party be disqualified. Naturally, any citizen would be injured if a person elected President was later deemed unqualified.

[MADem]

44. I think there's nothing wrong with looking into it.

If Cruz's mother was LATVIAN, and his daddy Cuban, and he was born on US soil anywhere, there'd be no issue.

But he was born in Canada, and, apparently, there are reports that his parents were registered VOTERS in Canada...so what's up with that? IOKIYAAR?

[earthside]

53. I think it is a serious issue.

This is a constitutional question ... it isn't a matter of interpreting a regulation or a bureaucratic rule.

Prof. Tribe noted that last night; we don't get to just kind of decide that "natural born" in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is outdated so we can ignore it.

Your point is well taken -- if Cruz's parent were not citizens, but he was born inside the borders of the United States, no one would be talking about this. But there are questions about the founders' intent in the "natural born Citizen" phrase in the presidential qualifications section of the Constitution and there are apparently questions about Cruz's mother's status in Canada.

My gut tells me that there may very well be a problem with Cruz's presidential qualifications status.

We have a right to know the whole truth -- especially if he becomes the Repuglican nominee.

And, disturbingly, I think Trump is correct about this, too. You would think that it would be the Repuglicans themselves that should be most interested in finding out the facts -- it would be a disaster of huge proportions for them if Cruz were disqualified after getting the nomination.

[jberryhill]

60. Where is the SCOTUS ruling that "he" means "she" in Article II?

There is NO Supreme Court ruling that the president can be a woman.

Every reference in Article II is to "he".

That has never been amended, and it is certain the Framers meant it as "he".

Gee gosh, I guess someone needs to file a lawsuit attempting to disqualify Hillary, because the Constitution pretty clearly states the president shall be male.

[MADem]

80. Oh, come off it!

Everyone knows (save you) that "he" means a human person in interpreting those sorts of documents.

In custom and practice, that is the case. Ask all those "He-women" who have been elected to the federal legislatures down the years. No one has crabbed to this point--the horse has long left the barn on that score. The Supremes would laugh at you if you tried to call that one out.

That's a rather desperate stretch!

However, someone born in Canada of a Canadian citizen/Canadian voting mama--that's a horse of a different color altogether. Especially if she made any "forsaking all others" loyalty oaths.

[jberryhill]

138. "In custom and practice, that is the case"

Okay, we know that wasn't the "custom and practice" when it was written.

When did that change? Please provide the date and Supreme Court decision stating as such.

"Especially if she made any "forsaking all others" loyalty oaths."

No. In order to lose your US citizenship, the US has to formally accept your revocation. You can make whatever oath you want to whomever you like, you remain a US citizen until the US says you are not. You cannot unilaterally revoke US citizenship under US law.

[MADem]

142. Hey, go on and file a challenge, if you seriously believe you'll prevail!

Or even if you want to make an issue out of it, knowing you won't prevail....gotta get those women outta the House and Senate, eh? Or force them to refer to themselves, for purposes of work, as "he" and "him?"



Why are you "sea lioning" me with demands for decisions you know don't exist? You're a lawyer, after all--surely you know this?

That's kinda odd, that!


Besides, it's not about HER citizenship--and it's not even about his...it's about his "natural born" status. Did she represent herself as a Canadian mother when she took care from the hospital and signed the birth certificate? Did she ever register the birth? Did she apply for Canadian benefits for her Canadian child?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Why are you fearful of the Supreme Court taking a swing at the definition of this Constitutional term?

[jberryhill]

143. Well poisoning

"Why are you fearful of the Supreme Court taking a swing at the definition of this Constitutional term?"

What "fear" is expressed here. Grayson's rhetorical stunt is stupid.

Several months from now, will you be calling him a "coward" because he didn't file it, and you went hook line and sinker for a piece of moronic political theater. I look forward to your explanation of the absence of this suit.

Why are you so eager to make Democrats look just as stupid as Republicans?

Inquiring minds want to know that too.

[MADem]

146. Well, if it's stupid, you've nothing to be afraid of then!

You're acting like you are terribly invested in this, and if you ruled the world, you'd prevent Grayson from engaging in this little war of words and definitions. Why you're being so protective of Cruz just escapes me--it doesn't seem like a reasonable stance for a Democrat to take. I'm sure Carnival Cruz can fight his own battles, he doesn't need you running to the ramparts to defend him.

Why you think it's such a terrible thing for the Supremes to chew over the definition of "natural born" is beyond me, too. As I've said, let them earn their pay for once.

Hell, maybe it'll warm them up to tackle really tough phrases, like "well regulated militia!"

I think Alan Grayson is a "fucking idiot," so I am not going to worry about calling him, down the line, a "coward." But even a fucking idiot can play like a stopped clock every now and again, and I am loving the fact that he grabbed a big shitty spoon and stirred the pot on this issue!

Maybe you aren't aware that the DSCC isn't showing AG any love? He's not a "Democratic insider." In fact, Schumer, Tester, Reid et.al. tried to dissuade him from running at all....but hey, you go on worrying about how a fringe flake with no national profile and no support from party leadership is going to make "us" look bad....

[jberryhill]

149. You seem to think I'm a federal judge

I've been an attorney for 16 years. PA bar ID 83911

Oddly enough, I like discussing legal issues. If I were a photographer, I might seem to be inordinately interested in talking about photography.

I see this repeatedly on DU. Someone says some stupid shit, and when someone disagrees and discusses that disagreement, the reaction is "why are you so obsessed with it?" It's a dumb line of discussion.

But I cannot "prevent" anyone from doing stupid shit in courts. I can certainly point out stupid shit when I see it, and I can certainly point out your apparent ignorance of what it means to be a US citizen despite possession of another claim of citizenship elsewhere. Your line of reasoning on that point is normally used to attack Jewish politicians. Perhaps that is the kind of thing with which you are comfortable.

You seem to be bothered by someone who is interested in discussing a subject on a discussion forum, and you seem to delight in using cheap rhetorical devices to impugn the motives of others - as I do above by way of example - as a substitute for reasoned discussion.

Many US citizens are eligible to vote in elections of other countries, under the law by which those other countries run their elections. There is, to be sure, always a cadre of Americans who have some "true blue" definition of "real Americans". I recognize the pieces cut from that cloth when I see it, and suggest you put me on ignore if that bothers you.

[MADem]

154. I don't "think" you're anything. You're a 'bel fromage' representation of la vache qui rit,

I used to buy that on occasion when I lived overseas. Cute little foil wrapped packets of soft cheese!





I don't worry overmuch about what DUers do for a living.

But seriously, I think when you try to liken my curiosity about the definition of "natural born" with "attacking Jewish politicians" and "being comfortable" with what you are plainly suggesting is outright bigotry, you have put your foot in it. BADLY. Trying to smear someone as a racist because you can't make your point isn't cool. It's an emblem of failure, frankly. Talk about "stupid shit" (your term, not mine). And playing it off as an "example?" Naaah. That just doesn't cut it, either. You sought to be objectionable--and you succeeded. But in your success, you failed yourself.

In your eagerness to push in to make your point, you've gone WAY over the line of what most people would regard as civil discourse. I never insinuated that you were stupid or a racist, but that's you're go-to in conversing with me?




I don't GET "bothered" by stuff that goes on here at DU. You apparently do, though, if you have to resort to some of the cheaper tactics (like that beaut of a post, just above) to try and get a reaction out of me (sorry, fail on that 'un, too, sport). I will say I found your comments pretty disgusting and shameful, but that's on YOU, not me! Perhaps that is the kind of thing with which you are comfortable. To quote you!


Let's memorialize your thoughts, shall we? They shouldn't be allowed to disappear into the ether, in all their ugliness:

jberryhill
149. You seem to think I'm a federal judge
View profile
I've been an attorney for 16 years. PA bar ID 83911

Oddly enough, I like discussing legal issues. If I were a photographer, I might seem to be inordinately interested in talking about photography.

I see this repeatedly on DU. Someone says some stupid shit, and when someone disagrees and discusses that disagreement, the reaction is "why are you so obsessed with it?" It's a dumb line of discussion.

But I cannot "prevent" anyone from doing stupid shit in courts. I can certainly point out stupid shit when I see it, and I can certainly point out your apparent ignorance of what it means to be a US citizen despite possession of another claim of citizenship elsewhere. Your line of reasoning on that point is normally used to attack Jewish politicians. Perhaps that is the kind of thing with which you are comfortable.

You seem to be bothered by someone who is interested in discussing a subject on a discussion forum, and you seem to delight in using cheap rhetorical devices to impugn the motives of others - as I do above by way of example - as a substitute for reasoned discussion.

Many US citizens are eligible to vote in elections of other countries, under the law by which those other countries run their elections. There is, to be sure, always a cadre of Americans who have some "true blue" definition of "real Americans". I recognize the pieces cut from that cloth when I see it, and suggest you put me on ignore if that bothers you.

You'd think you would have checked to find out if non-citizens could vote in Canadian elections before you tossed in that little bit about Many US citizens are eligible to vote in elections of other countries, too. I mean, really--a big old finger-wagging lecture, with that as an element of justification, and google at your fingertips... and you couldn't check on that one little fact?

If you are a lawyer, that kind of commentary isn't highly recommending of your talents.

[pintobean]

148. Jury results

On Fri Jan 8, 2016, 07:09 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Where is the SCOTUS ruling that "he" means "she" in Article II?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7511665

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

What a load of sexist horseshit.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 8, 2016, 07:19 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Uh, have a problem with Sarah Palin running?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sexism? Again?
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You put that in the alert comment because you didn't have the guts to post it in the thread? He's being facetious.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I read this as an illustration of how silly it is to read certain parts of the Constitution literally.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There are times I deliberately decide NOT to use the sarcasm smiley, 'cause I figure DUers are savvy enough to figure it out. OF COURSE, it's a stretch to assume that ALL DUers are savvy enough. This is such an instance.

[jberryhill]

150. Some people are pretty thick

I'm surprised that at least three people can't grasp the idea of analogous arguments.

[Kalidurga]

201. Oh dear you think they don't get it

I think it's more likely they have a grudge for getting something something handed to them on a thread where they had to slink off in defeat.

[jberryhill]

50. More than 100 of these suits have been kicked out on standing

"It seems to me that any qualified voter in the country might have standing since they would certainly be injured by having a duly nominated candidate for President of a major political party be disqualified. Naturally, any citizen would be injured if a person elected President was later deemed unqualified."

...which is an argument against standing.

Standing requires a particularized injury to the plaintiff (or group of plaintiffs), and not a general grievance common to everyone else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation

A major obstacle to most citizen suits has been lack of standing. In the initial wave of lawsuits challenging the validity of the 2008 presidential election, the only plaintiff who was a presidential candidate or presidential elector was Alan Keyes. The importance of the doctrine of standing was explained by Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in dismissing one suit. He noted that one of the principal aims of the doctrine is to prevent courts from deciding questions "where the harm is too vague." This was especially true for a presidential election, where a disgruntled voter who suffered no individual harm "would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory."

[MADem]

130. We'll have to wait and see, then won't we? I can stand the suspense....!

[still_one]

76. I agree.

[Rex]

103. You need standing to bring such a suit? I though anyone could file a lawsuit again anyone or anythin

else! You mean my lawsuit again Father Time probably won't go anywhere in a courtroom!? HRUMPH!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

144. I'm suing you for making me laugh.

Prepare to spend your declining years wearing a barrel.

[Rex]

194. Goodluck I already wear a barrel!

Then in that case I am counter-suing to get your barrel!

[steve2470]

190. serious question, who does have standing ?

One of the other candidates ?

[geek tragedy]

2. I've been saying he's the liberal Trump--here's your proof nt

[sufrommich]

3. I'd rather democrats stay away from birther nonsense.nt

[MADem]

162. You'd best alert the White House to your POV, then--they've had a field day with this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/josh-earnest-ted-cruz-donald-trump-birthers_568d7268e4b0cad15e631e31

[ChisolmTrailDem]

4. Fucking stupid. The shine has worn off Grayson's activism. nt

[GGJohn]

6. Why does Grayson continue to embarrass himself this way? eom.

[MADem]

163. Actually, for once in his life, it looks like he's carrying White House water!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/josh-earnest-ted-cruz-donald-trump-birthers_568d7268e4b0cad15e631e31

[GGJohn]

164. Maybe, but when this is debunked, and I suspect it will be,

I suspect the WH will throw him under the bus if this is at the behest of the WH.

[MADem]

165. Did you read the headline? The WH is TROLLING Cruz.

I'll bet the word went forth....and Grayson, for once, grabbed the clue.

They want to jerk his chain.

Paybacks are a mutha.


This is how a PRO trolls--and Donald Trump was the victim, here:

[GGJohn]

171. You're right, I mis-read your post.

Anything that causes Cruz problems is good for the country.

[KamaAina]

9. Grayson, meet shark

[MADem]

177. Uh oh....that's what TED CRUZ tried to say on his twitter feed.....

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/684512629726011392?lang=en


Didn't solve the problem for him, though, did it?

As for Grayson, it looks like he is following the White House's lead:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/josh-earnest-ted-cruz-donald-trump-birthers_568d7268e4b0cad15e631e31

[KamaAina]

186. What the hell would Ted Cruz know aboot sharks, eh?

There are no sharks in Canada. Orcas, maybe.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. OK, now he's just looking like an idiot.

I never could warm to him.

[greg1024]

11. Teds MOM became a Canadian citzen.

Ted Cruz mother, "may have forfeited her U.S. citizenship by taking a Canadian oath of citizenship."


"if his mother, who clearly worked in Canada for years and years, did so while becoming a Canadian citizen and taking an oath, which is how you do it in Canada, she lost her citizenship by U.S. law, specifically Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act."


"Section 349 says Americans can lose their citizenship if they take loyalty oaths to foreign governments."


http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-06/congressman-readies-ted-cruz-eligibility-lawsuit-with-eye-on-mom

[MADem]

17. Grayson's not lookin' so stooopid now, is he!!!!!!

If she didn't register his birth abroad, there'd be questions there, too. The combo of Canadian citizenship plus failure to report a birth abroad would be a strong clue.

I say send Canadian Cruz on his merry way--he can hang out with Stephen Harper...I understand he has time on his hands these days, too!

Your link is quite rich with material:

Grayson says Cruz may have forfeited her U.S. citizenship by taking a Canadian oath of citizenship, and that he’s seen no evidence she actually was born in the U.S.....


“There’s a counter-argument, there are some court cases that have watered down Section 349,” Grayson concedes. “It’s up to some court to decide whether Section 349 means what it say or not or whether it applied to her circumstances. We need more information at this point.”

“Another open question,” he says, “is why is there no record of her birth in the U.S.? Both the senator and others say she was born in Delaware, but there’s no record of it.”

What goes around, comes around!!

[csziggy]

33. Cruz's mother seems to have been living in Delaware in 1940

Wikipedia lists his mother as Eleanor Elizabeth (Darragh) Wilson - Darragh would be her maiden name and Wilson a married name previous to Cruz.

In the 1940 Federal Census in Bellefonte, New Castle County, Delaware, Edward J. and Elizabeth Darragh are living with two daughters, Eleanor, 5 years old and Carolina, eleven months old. (There is another Eleanor Darragh in New Jersey born in 1932.)

The Darraghs continued living in Wilmington, Delaware for a number of years. Elizabeth E. Darragh had a number of land dealings in the state through the late 1940s. Edward J. Darragh worked for DuPont according to city directories.

13 Feb 1997 Eleanor E. Cruz divorced Rafael B. Cruz in Texas. In the index her birth date is listed as 1935, verifying that she is the Eleanor in Delaware.

In 1974, Rafael Cruz and Mrs Eleanor Cruz were registered to vote in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. While this could be a different Rafael and Eleanor Cruz, that fact that a couple by that name were registered to vote is very interesting.

As was said above, if the Cruz's held Canadian citizenship when Ted was born that would indicate that he is NOT eligible to be president! Being registered to vote indicates citizenship - but I'm not sure what year they got it.

[Retrograde]

34. Is Canadian voting based on residency or citizenship?

There are some places that do allow non-citizen residents to vote: the US is not one of them. I have no idea about Canada.

[awake]

129. I do not know about the time when she voted

but for quite a while (maybe always) one has to be a citizen to vote in Canada, and to be a citizen one has to swear loyalty to Canada's head of state - the Queen of England! As I understand it Ted had not renounced his Canadian citizenship till just a few years ago.

[csziggy]

135. As of 1960 Citizenship apparently was required to vote

The Canadian Bill of Rights[1] (French: Déclaration canadienne des droits) is a federal statute and bill of rights enacted by Parliament of Canada on August 10, 1960. It provides Canadians with certain quasi-constitutional[2] rights at Canadian federal law in relation to other federal statutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights

I can't find without a lot more research if it insured the right to vote and if that was restricted to citizens

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (French: La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés), in Canada often simply the Charter, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, along with the rest of the Act.

<SNIP>

Under the Charter, people physically present in Canada have numerous civil and political rights. Most of the rights can be exercised by any legal person (the Charter does not define the corporation as a "legal person&quot ,[3] but a few of the rights belong exclusively to natural persons, or (as in sections 3 and 6) only to citizens of Canada.

<SNIP>

Democratic rights

Generally, the right to participate in political activities and the right to a democratic form of government are protected:

Section 3: the right to vote and to be eligible to serve as member of a legislature.
Section 4: the maximum duration of legislatures is set at five years.
Section 5: an annual sitting of legislatures is required as a minimum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

[jberryhill]

152. Don't bring in facts, you rabid Cruz supporter you

You don't understand. This is an attack against Cruz. If you think it is stupid, you are a Cruz supporter.

Or so I hear.

[csziggy]

159. Actually I originally thought this was silly

But the more I read about his parents' lives, the more I wonder if there is something to it. If anyone can throw the Cruz campaign into disarray, it would make me very, very happy. Cruz and his brethren scare me.

[jberryhill]

167. Bernie Sander's brother is running for office in the UK

How far do you want to push this hokum?

[csziggy]

169. I have no interest in how the UK runs their elections nt

[jberryhill]

173. Ah, but what about his family's foreign interests?

The birther shit is toxic.

[csziggy]

174. Raw Story can take it over

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/ted-cruz-produces-mothers-birth-certificate-after-both-parents-found-on-canadian-voter-list/

I was just curious and had the ability to do some research. What I found opens more questions. If facts bother you, then don't read them. I haven't really expressed an opinion other than to say there seems to be something to the questions. Nothing I posted was hard to find, took only a few minutes. I've spent more time responding to your comments than I have on Ted Cruz's citizenship.

No more.

[MADem]

181. Your contributions to this thread have been nothing short of SUPERB.

I wish there were more DUers with your skillset!!

[csziggy]

192. Thanks - I just like finding the facts

And with Ancestry access finding them is not hard. Since I have been involved with genealogy for much of my life it is easy to find this stuff.

The only questions left are if the Rafael Cruz and Mrs. Eleanor Cruz who were registered to vote in Calgary in 1974 are Ted Cruz's parents; if they were then were the laws the same during that period as they are now - that they had to be Canadian citizens in order to register; and if so exactly WHEN did the Cruz parents become Canadian citizens? Even if they took Canadian citizenship if they did not until after Ted Cruz's birth he could still be an American citizen.

I don't see any data on his mother resuming American citizenship if she did give it up - but I have no idea what the process might be for that or if it is part of the public record.

I don't really care except that it would be delicious if Cruz were ineligible because his mother gave up her citizenship.

[jberryhill]

151. This is an adapted anti-Semitic smear

Many US citizens are eligible and do vote in Israeli elections.

MADem has merely adapted this set piece of anti semitic lore.

If he wanted to, Bernie Sanders could vote in Israeli elections, in case you want to know where this train reaches the station.

[MADem]

168. MADem has merely adapted this set piece of anti semitic lore.

How low WILL you go?

Now you're calling me an anti-Semite? REALLY?

jberryhill
151. This is an adapted anti-Semitic smear
View profile

Many US citizens are eligible and do vote in Israeli elections.

MADem has merely adapted this set piece of anti semitic lore.

If he wanted to, Bernie Sanders could vote in Israeli elections, in case you want to know where this train reaches the station.

[jberryhill]

172. No. I said it is a modified anti-Semitic smear

What you are saying - voting in a foreign election causes loss of US citizenship - is used against Jews all of the time.

That is a fact.

I am talking about the logical structure of your argument, and its necessary implications. That is not a comment on your character.

It is not deniable that this is a modified form of the "Jews aren't loyal citizens" smear.

[MADem]

182. Anyone reading this thread can see what you're trying to do, and you really are disgracing yourself.

jberryhill
172. No. I said it is a modified anti-Semitic smear
View profile
What you are saying - voting in a foreign election causes loss of US citizenship - is used against Jews all of the time.

That is a fact.

I am talking about the logical structure of your argument, and its necessary implications. That is not a comment on your character.

It is not deniable that this is a modified form of the "Jews aren't loyal citizens" smear.

Do you think using the word "modified" makes all that "anti-Semite" shit you were tossing smell sweeter, or something? And that little "I'm not talking 'bout your character" caveat buried deep in this post?

That's supposed to make me forget all the maligning and impugning you've been doing up to now?

REALLY?

You'd think you'd quit while you were behind....but NOOOO! Your judgment in attacking me with accusations of bigotry was not a smooth move at all--you might be forgiven if you were posting from a barroom, but even at that, your insinuations are both vicious and unfounded. Sucks to be you, I'd say.

I wouldn't want to have a reputation that involved saying the kinds of things you've said to me in this thread, over such a small matter... involving a member of the opposition, too! Lucky Ted, though--to have YOU in his corner, thus, defending him so ardently on DU and even throwing JEWISH SHADE--as anyone can see, you were the one who brought the "Semitic" commentaries to the debate, and EVEN dragged in "DWS" to boot-- to accomplish your mission!

Press on, smartly, now, Lawyer! Press ON!

[MADem]

37. Wonder where they were living in 1935? North or south of the border?

What's the connection to Canada on that side? And where was Eleanor born?

There are a ton of Canadian-American families in New England. I've no idea if there are Acadian or other Canadian communities in Delaware, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that a family with Canadian connections could end up there.

Before passports, it was common for people to just pop over the line for this reason or that--hell, there were a ton of crossings where there was no 'guard' and people went back and forth all the time. Dad's American, Mom is Canadian...or vice versa. No one worried or cared, back then. I had a friend who lost his license (pocket picked) who was able to TALK his way back over the line into America with just a bit of pleading. That was a long time ago, though~!

Now, it's tighter, but even these days, with a passport card, there's lots of cross border activity. If you go up to northern Maine you see Canadian license plates in front of all the chain stores. People hop over the border to do their shopping, even today.

If Rafael and Eleanor were VOTING in Canada, I think there's more than enough reason to start asking questions. This isn't really "birther" shit--we KNOW he was born in Canada. This is "citizenship" shit--where and when did Canadian Cruz get his. It's all fair game, and now, rather than later, is the time to sort it out.

Are you using ANCESTRY to get that info? You should pass it to one of the better reporters covering this story!

[csziggy]

132. On April 1, 1935 the family was living in the "same place"

The census came from FamilySearch.org: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VRZN-64F

The other info is from Ancestry.

My great great grandfather's family including my great grandfather and my grandmother moved to Canada for a while, 1890-~1894. One of my great uncles was born there and in biographies he is listed as Canadian - he was pretty famous for his football playing both for University of Michigan and in the early NFL and he became a sought after football official. I have never found any passport information for the family, never found any paperwork to "naturalize" that great uncle, nothing. He ran for office as a Republican in the post war years and I think he may have been a city councilman in Buffalo, NY for a while.

No one ever questioned that he was an American. His entire family was American, never applied for citizenship in Canada, and returned to Michigan after a few years going bankrupt with a sawmill on Vancouver Island. But that was a long time ago and borders were more porous and things were very different.

[MADem]

133. Yes, there used to be a ton of back-and-forth. Heck, New Hampshire, in my lifetime, was

regarded as a "bilingual" State owing the the number of French Canadians that lived there.

The city of Worcester MA used to have a number of French speaking enclaves, too.

I have a friend who was raised in Madawaska, ME and went to a French language school as a child--she spoke French in the home and English was her 2nd language--she still has an accent after nearly a half century away from those influences!

Very different times, indeed....

[SickOfTheOnePct]

86. Yeah, he still looks stupid n/t

[MADem]

170. Does the White House look stupid, too? nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

176. If they're saying that Cruz's eligibility to be President should be questioned

Then yes, they look stupid too.

[MADem]

188. I'm glad that most liberals that I know aren't humorless scolds.

I also think the White House has always looked very, VERY smart!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

191. I'm glad that none of the liberals I know are birthers n/t

[malaise]

141. What goes around comes around and Obama was born

in an American state. Anything that exposes these scumbags is good enough for me.

[tammywammy]

12. It's been a while since one of his staffers posted a fundraising thread on here.

[MADem]

134. The staffer that did that is probably the same one who is now running against his girlfirend

for his old seat.

She's probably a bit pissed at him nowadays (seeing as she had to find out the girlfriend was running from the PRESS, and not from her boss, from whom she'd hoped for support and an endorsement after years of faithful service) --maybe enough so she didn't give anyone the password to access "his" DU account!!

[saturnsring]

13. good for grayson

[NCTraveler]

14. Just replace your first "Grayson" with "Florida Man."

I say that as a Floridian.

[MADem]

18. Would you still say that if it's determined his mother took out Canadian citizenship? nt

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-01-06/congressman-readies-ted-cruz-eligibility-lawsuit-with-eye-on-mom

[NCTraveler]

19. Yes. That comment reflects how I view Grayson at most times. Not just this instance.

Don't you think he has something better to do with his time?

Let the Republicans duke it out.

[MADem]

21. He DOES have "something better to do with his time."

He's running for the Senate, AND his girlfriend is running for his House seat.

I'd not be surprised if the White House approves of this. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

[NCTraveler]

23. I don't think Grayson cares one single bit about what the White House wants.

And I think Obama is bigger than to give a crap about the birther stuff.

Sorry. I have a seriously low opinion of Grayson as a human being.

"He DOES have "something better to do with his time.""

Clearly he doesn't.

Shit. I agree with you on damn near everything. Grrrrrrr.

[MADem]

24. Are you kidding?

I think he DOES care--in a huge way.








Still confused? Look in the mirror, above...and check this out:





One hand washes the other, and both wash the face.

[NCTraveler]

25. Not sure what a picture of him being sworn in has to do with any of it.

Grayson is in it for Grayson. I know many don't agree with me on that.

[MADem]

26. Let me try again. Look at THE WOMAN. nt

[NCTraveler]

30. Have fun. nt.

[MADem]

38. You don't know who she is, do you? nt

[NCTraveler]

42. Yes, I do. Nt

[MADem]

46. Then you should be able to pull the $tring and make the connection$. nt

[NCTraveler]

47. Correct. Grayson is always about Grayson.

I feel the argument you put forward backs my point.

As far as following the money, the Caymans are a little too far away for me.

[MADem]

51. That's not the point. Follow the money. nt

[KatyMan]

48. Who is she? NT

nt

[NCTraveler]

55. Went with the first unadvertised link when I googled her.

Dr. Dena Minning - romantically linked to Alan Grayson - files to run for his Congress seat

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-dena-minning-to-run-for-beau-alan-graysons-post-20150725-post.html

[MADem]

66. She is an EXTREMELY wealthy woman, with deep pockets, who is a "friend" to many Democrats.

She is an ENTERPRENEUR.

She is a doctor and a biochemist.

And she's the reason that Alan Grayson suddenly decided that his wife of a quarter century and the mother of his five kids was a "bigamist." And he decided to throw Suzannah Randolph, his faithful senior aide, under the bus.

But wait...there's more....

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-dena-minning-to-run-for-beau-alan-graysons-post-20150725-post.html

[MohRokTah]

29. That's about as credible as the "Obama's mother went to Kenya to give birth" bullshit.

Birtherism is the height of stupidity and Grayson is a fucking moron. He should be thrown out of the Democratic Party over this idiocy.

[MADem]

39. Not the same at all. We KNOW Cruz was born in Canada. We KNOW it.

Now, it looks like his mother may have been registered to vote in Canada.

Still think this is nothing?

[MohRokTah]

41. We KNOW his mother is and always has been a US Citizen. We KNOW it!

It's Birther bullshit from a fucking moron who thinks he should be a Senator.

[MADem]

49. That's why she was a registered voter in CANADA....??

See--we don't "know" it.

[MohRokTah]

54. She WASN'T a registered voter in Canada.

Made up bullshit like the made up bullshit Kenyan birth certificates all over the internet.

It was stupid against Obama and even stupider now against Cruz because we should fucking well know better.

[jberryhill]

63. It wouldn't matter anyway

MADem does not understand how US citizenship works.

Under US law, if you are a US citizen, it doesn't matter whatever other citizenships you may acquire.

By virtue of his birth, Barack Obama - even though he was born in Hawaii - was also eligible for UK citizenship because his father was a citizen of a UK territory at the time.

There is this childish notion that one can only be considered a citizen by one country of a time. I don't know where it comes from.

Each country gets to decide who is a citizen of that country. If you go and apply for Canadian citizenship, that's Canada's business, the US doesn't give a shit.

[MADem]

81. You're sure? nt

[jberryhill]

61. Here is a fact you don't understand

Canada does not require naturalized citizens to revoke any other citizenship they may have.

Even if his mother had hypothetically acquired Canadian citizenship, it has no bearing on whether she remained a US citizen under US law.

If your grandfather is Irish, you can apply for Irish citizenship and receive it. Lots of US citizens do that as a convenience for visiting Ireland, since they can go to the quicker citizen line on entry.

Doing that has zero, none, zilch, zip effect on your US citizenship status as far as the US is concerned.

HOWEVER, if you do move abroad and revoke your US citizenship, which is a very difficult thing to do because the US often refuses to recognize the revocation (it's a common tax dodge), then the other thing the US does is NOT LET YOU BACK IN. Not even for visits. Again, the reason for that is that wealthy people "move abroad" to a second home, and then have the idea that they can continue to reside in the US as "tourists" each year for the allowed 180 days a year. They can't. US citizens who have revoked their US citizenship are in a special class as far as permitted re-entry to the US goes.

[MADem]

85. If he was born of a Canadian citizen-mother in Canada, and his birth wasn't registered at an embassy

where does that leave him?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

92. Where is your proof that his mother was a Canadian citizen? n/t

[MADem]

95. You'll have to get that from the wingnuts--they're the ones who are publishing the

Canadian elector's list showing Mrs. Cruz as a registered voter.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

96. Four years after Cruz was born

Any other ideas? Because you keep stating it as though you know it to be true, and I'm assuming you wouldn't take the word of the wingnuts, so what else ya got?

[MADem]

99. What else YOU got?

Good grief, your defense of Cruz is touching, but odd.

What I've got is a vested interest in knocking him out of the primary mix. He's dangerous and he needs to go, now. Not as a 'general' combatant--NOW. In primary season.

The more people get fired up about this guy on the right, and the more they are divided as to his bona fides, and the more it impacts his electability, the happier it makes me. That's what I've 'got.'

[SickOfTheOnePct]

104. It has nothing to do with defending Cruz

and everything to do with Democrats not acting like dumbass Republicans.

So in other words, you aren't really interested in the truth as to whether or not he's eligible, you just don't want him able to run.
Not sure why you're so invested in who the Republicans nominate - that's their circus, not ours.

[MADem]

108. I'd love to see Democrats spend as much effort "not defending" Democrats....!

As someone downthread said, this ain't "settled law." Not yet, anyway.

Might as well light the candle!

And if you actually think "their circus" doesn't affect OUR circus, you don't understand the process.

[jberryhill]

153. DWS is eligible to vote in Israeli elections

The problem with stupidity is that once you let it out of the box and feed it, you don't know where it will lead.

If "voting in foreign elections" is some disqualification from retaining US citizenship, when would you like to start deporting the US Jews who vote in Israeli elections?

http://www.reformjudaism.org/blog/2015/03/17/israeli-elections-are-here-and-american-jews-can-vote-too

[MADem]

155. Wow--now you're being OVERT! Who knew?

jberryhill (41,336 posts)
153. DWS is eligible to vote in Israeli elections

The problem with stupidity is that once you let it out of the box and feed it, you don't know where it will lead.

If "voting in foreign elections" is some disqualification from retaining US citizenship, when would you like to start deporting the US Jews who vote in Israeli elections?

http://www.reformjudaism.org/blog/2015/03/17/israeli-elections-are-here-and-american-jews-can-vote-too

As a lawyer, are you telling me that Canada is just like Israel, or are you comparing Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Jewish American woman, to Eleanor Cruz?

Inquiring minds want to know.....

Good grief. This takes the cake!

[jberryhill]

166. I'm saying that when you deploy the xenophobic genie

...you don't know where it goes.


YOU are the one saying that voting in a foreign election is some kind of disqualifying condition relative to US citizenship.

YOU are the one making the argument that a substantial number of US Jews should not be citizens.

It is the necessary implication of the argument you are making.

If voting in a foreign election somehow causes people to lose their US citizenship, then how do you avoid the conclusion of that breathtakingly inane comment.

I am pointing out what your argument necessarily implies.

This is the same shit the birthers would put out - if Barack Obama was adopted by Ann Dunham's Indonesian husband, then he "lost" his US citizenship and became an Indonesian citizen. It's based on the same set of broken ideas.

For all I know, Indonesia did consider the stepson of an Indonesian citizen to be one. Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter.

Because whether you are a US citizen is entirely between you and the US. If you were born here, then the US has to accept your voluntary adult revocation. You cannot lose birthright citizenship by ANY transaction conducted with a foreign government.

[MADem]

175. Oh, let's not be cute. I see what you're doing, and it is ugly. Tsk, tsk--and you're a LAWYER?

Do you make it a habit to smear people by insinuation on a regular basis?

This kind of thing can't POSSIBLY be an ad for your business!

I'm really quite astounded that you PERSIST, too! Talk about no filter!

FWIW, I'm not--unlike you--SAYING anything. I am not being declarative. I'm wondering. Speculating. Seeking more information. And --unlike you, apparently-- I don't see a problem with having the Supremes tell us what the Constitutional definition of "natural born" is. This is giving you conniptions for some reason, based on your posts--and your rather pointed and deliberate accusations and insults directed straight at ME.

jberryhill
166. I'm saying that when you deploy the xenophobic genie
View profile

...you don't know where it goes.


YOU are the one saying that voting in a foreign election is some kind of disqualifying condition relative to US citizenship.

YOU are the one making the argument that a substantial number of US Jews should not be citizens.

It is the necessary implication of the argument you are making.

If voting in a foreign election somehow causes people to lose their US citizenship, then how do you avoid the conclusion of that breathtakingly inane comment.

I am pointing out what your argument necessarily implies.

This is the same shit the birthers would put out - if Barack Obama was adopted by Ann Dunham's Indonesian husband, then he "lost" his US citizenship and became an Indonesian citizen. It's based on the same set of broken ideas.

For all I know, Indonesia did consider the stepson of an Indonesian citizen to be one. Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter.

Because whether you are a US citizen is entirely between you and the US. If you were born here, then the US has to accept your voluntary adult revocation. You cannot lose birthright citizenship by ANY transaction conducted with a foreign government.

So....is the White House full of cough--xenophobes--cough, too? Are they making "Jewish aspersions" or any of that other ugly nonsense you trashed me with? Hmmmm? Where in hell did I say Jews should not be citizens? You made that up! What utter nerve!

Or is it desperation? Is this how you argue in COURT?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/josh-earnest-ted-cruz-donald-trump-birthers_568d7268e4b0cad15e631e31


You've about worn out your little shovel with the hole you're digging, there!

[countryjake]

185. I don't get what's so knuckle-headed hard about this whole thing...

MADem reported on the fact that Alan Grayson has said that if Cruz wins the GOP nomination, he may just sue in order to determine if Cruz actually qualifies as a "natural born citizen", a requirement our nation decided on long ago for anyone seeking to hold the office of President.

Don't see why you're insisting on reading more into that than is actually here?

I think that it's cool that Cruz is now getting his just desserts; that man has been a total asshole and a thorn in our President's side for years, now, not to mention that he'd be a frightening prospect as an actual candidate, considering the ideology he espouses and the mindless minions who have always frothed at the mouth, frantically repeating every iota of the bullshit he's spewed. Anything that gives the guy a little grief at this point in the Primary season is a point in our favor, I'd say.

I've got nothing against either one of you, but the tiff that's developed between you and MADem concerning this topic is getting a tad outlandish, wouldn't you say? Falderal never ends well, does it?

[TipTok]

15. What a tool...

[HassleCat]

27. Oh, geez!

I suppose this is to point out the idiocy of the whole birther thing. Wasted effort. Just drop it.

[MohRokTah]

28. Grayson is a birther moron.

He's now put himself in league with the likes of Scaife, Taitz, and Donald Trump.

[unc70]

72. I believe you are mistaken. Very mistaken!

Grayson may or may not have standing in his suit, but the legal issue is real and quite significant. And far from settled law. Cruz is certainly a citizen under the relevant statutes enacted by Congress under its Constitutional power to set uniform rules for naturalization. But those rules do not convey "natural born" status; that status can only be obtained by birth within the US.

[MohRokTah]

74. The issue is not real and is completely insignificant.

There are two forms of citizenship in the United States. One is natural born or a citizen at birth. The other is naturalized.

Cruz was a citizen at birth.

End of discussion.

The courts won't touch it. Not a single court in the federal system ruled on whether or not Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. More than 140 cases questioning that status were thrown out due to a lack of standing and the SCOTUS rejected certiorari on every case.

It is not a question of law. The actions of the courts make this clear. This is a matter of politics. In fact, the constitution is very clear, the courts have no jurisdiction in determining eligibility. It is the Congress that makes that determination at the reading of the electoral votes. IT would be in fact, unconstitutional for the courts to make a ruling on eligibility.

[unc70]

82. There was no question that Obama was natural born.

Obama was born in Hawaii; end of discussion. It was not so clear with John McCain. Even though his parents were citizens, he went to great pains to present the case that being born in the Canal Zone made him natural born.

I suggest you read the BU law review analysis. You might not be so certain in Cruz's case afterwards.

[MADem]

119. +1,000! nt

[former9thward]

189. It was clear with McCain.

There was a court case filed against him and it was thrown out. The same with George Romney who was born in Mexico and Barry Goldwater who was born in Arizona when it was not a state. It is all birther nonsense. Now DUers have joined the birther crowd.

[unc70]

210. Those suits dismissed for lack of standing, not merits

All of these cases so far have been dismissed because the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit. Probably need someone like an opposing candidate as plaintif.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

31. This can only help Cruz. stupid, stupid, stupid.

[ananda]

32. Yeah, get it out there!

Show the hypocrisy of the GOPers.

Good for Grayson for doing this!

[840high]

36. Stupid Grayson.

[bigwillq]

40. Dumb. Grayson is just a much a fool as Cruz is. (Nt)

[countryjake]

45. Giving that bastard back exactly what he's served up is fine, in my book!

After listening to all of the bullshit spewing from Cruz's piehole, going after Obama for ridiculous, made-up reasons all these years, it's about time somebody turns the tables on him.

If he gets the nomination, I shudder to think what a Cruz presidency might look like...making Fascism popular in a neighborhood near you...so more power to Grayson for this brilliant idea.

[arely staircase]

56. That is fucking stupid.

Let the pukes eat each other.

[leftynyc]

57. STFU Grayson

The Democrats don't need you getting involved in this. This clown can't keep his mouth shut even when it hurts his party.

[steve2470]

62. Grayson needs to drop this nt

[MADem]

161. If the WHITE HOUSE can "troll" Cruz over this issue, then even Grayson can, too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/josh-earnest-ted-cruz-donald-trump-birthers_568d7268e4b0cad15e631e31


I find some of the finger wagging on this thread astounding. Since when is it "against the rules" for Democrats to have a laugh at the expense of a guy who was on the Birther Bus from the git-go, and is now getting a deserved taste of his own medicine?

I'm also amazed to read here, on this thread, the very same "Fonzie Jump the Shark" pooh-poohing that NONE OTHER THAN TED CRUZ put out on Twitter!!

Makes ya wonder!

[Reter]

65. Grayson's politics are very good, but he is a mean-spirited, rotten human being

I can't stand him as a person.

[summerschild]

67. My step daughter was born in Peru.

Her mother and father (my late husband) were both American citizens. He worked in Peru for about two years.

She and her parents were told all her life that she was ineligible to run for the Presidency of the United States.

[jberryhill]

70. I know people who were told all their life that cats take away babies' breath

People are "told all their life" a lot of things.

[summerschild]

73. Yep. I've heard that one but never believed it.

On the other hand I've also heard nobody likes a smart ass.

I do believe that one.

[MADem]

115. People who are older remember this--it was a common thing that was told to those born abroad.

And as someone else has said, it's not "settled." Never has been. The Supremes have yet to address this portion of the Constitution.

Christian Herter was mentioned as a possible VP for Ike--but he was born in PARIS of ex-pat American parents, which some believed made him "ineligible" for the job.

This isn't the first time this has come up, and unless it is "settled" it likely won't be the last.

Even John McCain was on TV asking the question!

[countryjake]

123. McCain even used the term "foreign soil" when he was talking about Cruz.

Saw a clip of him yesterday on CNN (along with Cruz's rebuttal, if that's what it could be called) and I did a spit-take when he mentioned foreign soil.

The matter is most assuredly not settled, not as long as the GOP is populated by loud-mouthed "wacko-birds" (to steal a term that McCain is so fond of).

I think it's a riot that this issue is being raised, at all. Just desserts for Cruz, I say.

[MADem]

126. Especially since Cruz was one of the goader-baiters re: Obama being born on US soil to a

Kansas-born mama!!!

He didn't care about that at all....he was only worried about the Kenyan deddy!!!!

[countryjake]

128. Yup!

See here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7511582

[restorefreedom]

79. oh, help me rhonda

one thing cruz is not is dumb. hard to imagine someone on his team hasn't researched this in his behalf. he seems confident of his status, so i am going to guess this goes nowhere.

so when did grayson team up with trump?

[DefenseLawyer]

87. It's not settled law. Period.

The Goldwater case isn't analogous. I don't know whether it's good politics or not, but those who just say "it's settled" need to show me a case. Otherwise, it's perfectly legitimate to seek a ruling.

[MADem]

105. That's ALL I'm sayin' too! I've never seen anyone actually take this kind of thing to court!

Hell, everyone said Chester Arthur was born in Canada, too...but no one really did anything about it!

[libodem]

98. Damn

There ya go!

[Rex]

100. Wait...why? His mommy is Made in America.

However, anything that gives Ted "The Chosen ONE' Cruz problem I am all for! I don't see a case here, but more power to Grayson! I could file a lawsuit against a Vegemite sandwich for what it's worth.

[MADem]

102. That's the spirit! At last--someone 'gets' it! nt

[Rex]

106. I guess my suit against Father Time won't make it very far in a courtroom.

Grievances you ask? Having to get up TWICE now to pee at night! Sometimes that tile floor is cold!

[MADem]

118. No, but you have every right to sue Father Time if you'd like!!!

Even if the ruling is "Keep the fluffy slippers by the bedside--case dismissed!" at the end of the day!

[Rex]

121. Land of the Free! Personally I like knowing I can bring suit against the dodo bird!

And I probably have a good chance too (the dodo bird is extinct and cannot hire a lawyer...brilliant!) seeing also how birds don't use currency.

[MADem]

124. Who is Obama chasing in that gif in your sig line?

I'm ing looking at it--I can't look away!!!!!!

[Rex]

136. He is after Teddy. It is great...HAD to add it to the collection!

[MADem]

137. Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chase him back over the border!!!!






That is even funnier writ large!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

145. That was after Cruz made some comment about Obama "saying it to his face"

Fricken hilarious

[MADem]

147. It gave me my Good Laugh of the Day, that gif!!! nt

[guillaumeb]

109. Why must Democrats compete with Republicans as to who is more ridiculous?

If a person is born in Canada to two parents, and one parent is a Canadian citizen and the other is a US citizen, that person has dual citizenship. That is Canadian law and US law.

One who knows, one who is.

[MADem]

112. Who's competing?

Nothing wrong with asking questions.

Your remarks are replete with IFs. What IF some of your IFs aren't accurate? What IF both parents were not US citizens?

Let's find out the answer, and go from there.

[guillaumeb]

114. Only one parent must be a US citizen to confer citizenship on the children.

Either parent. And that was one of my points. Both parents do not have to be US citizens for the children to be US citizens.

That would be like someone questioning Trump's qualifications because he looks quite like an orangutan with the orange hair and all. How do we know that he is not an orangutan? Should we waste time wondering?

[MADem]

117. Now let's find out if that parent was a US citizen, and registered that birth abroad!

I'll bet Trump can put his greasy paw on his birth certificate, and the certificates of his parents, too...!

What's wrong with getting a Once-and-for-all determination of what "natural born" means?

[guillaumeb]

120. The birth does not have to be registered immediately.

What do you take "natural born" to mean?

Here is one interpretation:

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”1×

1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

[MADem]

122. Look at that--ONE interpretation!!! Think there might be others?

You can be a US citizen...and STILL be ineligible to run for POTUS.

Let's have the Supremes define "natural born" once and for all--make those bums EARN their money, for once!!!

[guillaumeb]

125. It sounds to me like the Framers already decided.

35 years old, 14 year residency, and in no need of naturalization.

What interpretation can you offer that differs?

[MADem]

127. Then you shouldn't be 'worried' about what the Supremes might say, then!

[DefenseLawyer]

131. The Constitutional requirement isn't "U.S. Citizen"

If it was you would be absolutely correct. He is without any question a U.S. Citizen. The requirement is that he is a "natural born citizen". That term isn't defined in the Constitution. Congress has not passed a statute which defines the term. No court, and certainly not the United States Supreme Court, has ruled that a person in Mr. Cruz's circumstance is a "natural born citizen" for purposes of Article 1, Section 2. He might very well be, in fact he probably is, but it's certainly not a settled question of law.

[jberryhill]

140. There are only two species of citizen

[DefenseLawyer]

158. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution

Last edited Fri Jan 8, 2016, 10:53 PM - Edit history (1)

You assume that "natural born citizen" as used in Article 1, means the same thing as a citizen that isn't naturalized. While that may be, and probably would be, how the Court would interpret the clause and apply it to Senator Cruz, the fact is they haven't made such a ruling before. Until they do, your assumption, however logical, doesn't really matter. It's still not a "settled" legal issue.

[guillaumeb]

196. Male and female?

Was I correct?

Do I win a prize?

If "natural born" means a natural born person (as opposed to a corporation or other legal construct) who has no need to be naturalized, would that not cover Rafael Cruz?

[Iliyah]

156. How is Cruz able to run for President of the USA?

Were any of any parents in the USA Arm Forces and was he born in an USA Arm Forces facility like McCain? Birthers claim Pres O was born in Kenya, and his mother was a USA citizen (sane people know Pres O was born in Hawaii) BUT per them he did not qualify.

But Cruz does, with verification that his birth was in another country????????

Double standard.

[Historic NY]

157. Does Grayson need attention...I'm so over this guy.

let the Republicans eat their own, our own Democrats are doing enough to each other.

[MADem]

160. No one (outside of DU) has ever heard of him. He's a big splash in a small pond.

The very liberal wing of the Democratic Party has heard of Grayson for his "Die Quickly" tirade in the House, and a few other stunts, as well, but most people don't know him, don't know what party he affiliates with, they don't know jack about him save that he's sartorially deficient.

He's just some pudding-faced guy making comments about Cruz in an online magazine video clip. And he's not the only one--he's just one of a loud and growing chorus.

Sauce for the goose, I say--particularly a goose named CRUZ, who wasted no time trashing the POTUS that WAS born in the USA. No wonder the WH spokesman is (rather like me) getting a kick out of this little imbroglio:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/264953-white-house-teases-cruz-over-us-citizenship

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said “it would be quite ironic” if, after years of questions surrounding Obama’s U.S. citizenship, Republican primary voters were to choose the Canadian-born Cruz as their nominee.

Earnest noted Cruz is "somebody who actually wasn't born in the United States and only 18 months ago renounced his Canadian citizenship.”
Asked whether Obama is enjoying watching Cruz deal with questions about his birthplace, Earnest replied, “I don’t know if he does, but I sure do.”

If Cruz has nothing to worry about, he shouldn't fear a legal challenge.

But the fact that his sanctimonious little chain is being jerked (just like he jerked Obama's)? That's just PRICELESS.

[Hoyt]

178. I think it's a mistake acting like GOPer Birthers. Can't stand Cruz, but such threats are chilldish.

[DefenseLawyer]

179. There is a difference

Birthers made an illegitimate claim that the President was disqualified based on a lie- that the President was not born in the United States. Ted Cruz was not born in the United States. That's not some crazy conspiracy theory. No one disputes it. The issue about Cruz is an unsettled legal issue. While it is an issue likely to be decided in his favor, I'm not sure how examination of the issue makes one a "birther".

[Hoyt]

183. I'm tired of GOP dirty tricks. Our doing the same, won't help. I'm sure Trump or other

GOPer candidates will go after this if necessary.

[DefenseLawyer]

193. I guess I just don't see the "dirty trick" aspect to it

It would be a dirty trick to claim he was born in Canada when he was actually born in Hawaii. It would be dirty to claim he was ineligible if he had been born in a U.S. Territory, because that is settle law (based on the Goldwater case). I just see it as an abstract legal question for which there isn't existing precedent. There's nothing dirty about it, although I realize that abstract thought isn't everyone's forte.

[MADem]

180. The White House is having fun with this....why can't you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/josh-earnest-ted-cruz-donald-trump-birthers_568d7268e4b0cad15e631e31

Even the wingnuts are coming up with clever (for them, anyway) commentaries:

[Hoyt]

184. Grayson gives us a bad name, nothing funny about him. I admit Born Near USA is hilarious.

[MADem]

187. He's just a member of the Cuban Calgary Canadian Carnival Cruz Chorus.

One of MANY-to include the WH press secretary!

And, like a stopped clock, he's on this rare occasion, Right On The Money!


There are a lot of amusing images out there....this is actually quite a bit of fun!

[hughee99]

195. Sweet! We have our own birthers now.

[DefenseLawyer]

197. If I say Arnold Schwarzenegger is ineligible to run for President of the United States

does that make me a "birther"?

[hughee99]

198. No, that makes you right. n/t

[DefenseLawyer]

199. There is no legal precedent

That says a person born in Canada to an American mother meets the requirement of Art. 1, Sec. 2. I don't see how pointing that fact makes one a "birther".

[hughee99]

200. Which is why your "governator" example

is completely irrelevant. If I remeber right, the catch-all defense for the Obama birth era was that one of his parents was a US citizen, so it didn't really matter if he was born in Hawaii, Kenya or on Mars. The "birther" argument was that just having 1 American parent wasn't enough. That's the argument you're using now.

[DefenseLawyer]

204. That doesn't make any sense.

It didn't really matter if he was born in Hawaii? The whole point of the birther movement was the crazy and provably false claim that the President wasn't born in Hawaii. HAD the President been born in Kenya his qualification for President would not be settled law any more than it is for Cruz. It was of course a moot point because the President was obviously born in the United States. While that may have been the "catch-all defense" to the birther claims, that only made it to the court of public opinion, not a court of law (precisely because he was born in the United States so there was no basis to go to court). Do you seriously think that if the President had been born in Kenya there wouldn't have been litigation? My point about Arnold was that simply posing a Constitutional question about eligibility does not make one a "birther".

[hughee99]

205. While Cruz has a claim, Arnold has none, that's why the two

Situations aren't comparable. And while Obama was born in the US, dozens of suits were filed anyway, so of course there would have been some if he was born in Kenya.

[DefenseLawyer]

206. All of which were summarily dismissed.

Because the President was born in Hawaii. I'm done with this but thanks for the discussion. Since I don't think "general consensus" is the same thing as binding precedent, I guess you can call me a birther.

[hughee99]

207. As the "Kenya" theory lawsuit would have been, or lawsuits against McCain were.

Someone will file suit on Cruz's eligibility and that too will be summarily dismissed.

[DefenseLawyer]

208. You don't know how the law works.

But that's okay.

[hughee99]

209. Yes, but I have a great sense of how condescension works.

Please feel free to bookmark this thread and come back when the court decides to move forward with the Cruz case. My guess is that you're going to hear the phrase "lacks standing" a few times.

[403Forbidden]

202. Where are the pictures of Ted Cruz's mom (Eleanor Darragh Wilson)

Does anyone find it strange that Ted Cruz's mom seems to be a ghost in the media? I have search for anything about her, and can't find one single picture of her or anything that she personally wrote.

[MADem]

203. I have only seen one....

Eleanor Darragh Wilson Cruz, with husband and little Canadian Cruz!

[question everything]

211. Might as well

And, I've heard today that even Cruz' mother was not an American? She was registered to vote in Canada?

As much as I'd prefer him to be the nominee - will be so much easier to defeat him, he really is done.

[MADem]

212. I don't think much of Grayson, given the way he screwed over his staffer in favor of his

new girlfriend, and screwed over the mother of his children in favor of his new girlfriend, and the fact that he plays at being "for the people" and a "liberal fighter" when he's playing house with a frigging Big Pharma/Biotech LOBBYIST with deep pockets and no political experience who thinks she can buy his old Congressional seat. And then, there's all that offshore Hedge Fund shit. He just comes off as a poseur and a phony to me.

But, all that notwithstanding, if he wants to pick up the shit-stirring spoon and stir up some shit with Cruz, it's fine with me. The more the merrier when it comes to flinging poop at Canadian Cruz!!!


I think people should look into Momma Cruz's ancestry even further--I wonder if her parents or grandparents were from Canada to start with? Was she returning to her ancestral home?

Stir, stir, stir!!!!