Bloomberg BusinessA Houston lawyer, Newton B. Schwartz Sr., has filed suit, seeking a court definition of the term “natural born citizen” to clarify whether Ted Cruz — who was born in Canada to an American mother — can or can’t serve as President of The United States.
“This 229-year question has never been pled, presented to or finally decided by or resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now.”
Claiming that “time is of the essence” because of the rapidly approaching Iowa caucuses and March 1 Super Tuesday primaries, Schwartz asked that the case be expedited for resolution by the nation’s highest court as soon as possible.
Schwartz, 85, said in a phone interview he isn’t connected to any particular campaign, though he personally “probably” supports Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator seeking the Democratic nomination.
“Honestly, I was watching C-SPAN one night when Donald Trump was talking about it and I couldn’t believe no one had thought to just file something with the court,” said Schwartz, a practicing trial attorney and self-described news junkie.
Asked about the lawsuit, Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for the Cruz campaign, said: “I’d refer you to the debate exchange on the issue.”
Schwartz said he filed the paperwork himself with no one else advising him and he said he does not have an opinion for which way the court should rule.
The case is Schwartz v. Cruz, 4:16-cv-00106, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston).
I predict this will come to nothing, but it’s another interesting twist in the election silly season.
Stella's Place 
Does Mr. Schwartz have standing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure, NBC is legally unsettled any US citizen has standing, IMO anyhow 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Mr. Schwartz said, “he personally ‘probably’ supports Bernie Sanders”, we know that he supports the “fundamental transformation” of the United States. Would he be willing to wield the blade when it comes time to enforce that transformation?–because that’s what would be required after enough people come to their respective senses. Someone should ask the fellow.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Just saw this on Drudge:
Quarter of Republicans think Cruz’s birthplace disqualifies him for president: poll
http://news.yahoo.com/quarter-republicans-think-cruzs-birthplace-disqualifies-him-president-120508988.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A quarter of Republicans think White House hopeful Ted Cruz is disqualified to serve as U.S. president because he was born in Canada to an American mother, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.
Republican voters nearly mirror independents and the broader electorate in their belief that Cruz cannot hold the White House, with 27 percent of all voters and 28 percent of independents responding he should be disqualified.
I’m not a member of this group, but if this is true then it is worrisome.
LikeLiked by 5 people
I can believe it, I saw comments on FB the other day by a lot of people, many who like Cruz, some who voted for him in Texas or donated to him that don’t believe he’s eligible. I was actually kind of surprised because 3 out of 4 comments were that he wasn’t eligible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not a member of the group either. Not a Cruz supporter either, but that isn’t relevant.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I believe Trump is correct. In order to ensure that the GOP nominee is not bogged down in legalities, we need to ensure that a determination is completed prior to the general election. While I think Trump will win the nomination by a landslide, it would be a death knell if either Cruz or Rubio are the nominee without being fully vetted. After bitterly complaining that Obozo was not thoroughly vetted, how can we support anyone who’s background isn’t sound?
LikeLiked by 3 people
An interesting albeit left leaning article about NBC featuring Tribe, Trump and Ted,
Trump’s attack on Cruz gets a boost from law professors
Mr Tribe is just mocking his old student’s favoured mode of constitutional interpretation: Mr Cruz could be hoist by his own petard, the Harvard scholar smirks, if he follows through on his principles. But the teacher quickly adds: this would never actually happen in the real world. In his back-handed critique, Mr Tribe inadvertently concedes to originalists one of the central virtues they hail for their theory: its capacity to yield a single clear understanding of each constitutional provision.
I do agree with that article that Tribe is just doing this to annoy Cruz.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think you forgot the linky. 😉
LikeLiked by 4 people
Good gravy 🙄
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/01/natural-born-citizenship
LikeLiked by 3 people
Like everyone else I’ve been reading a lot of articles on NBC. My opinion is that from a strict Constitutional originalist interpretation the simple meaning of the NBC means born of the soil.
It is a complex question and I don’t think there is anyway any court is going to go with its simple meaning “Jus Soli” “of the soil”. I have to believe that NBC was originally intended to safeguard the position of the presidency from loyalist of the king who might come over from England (or other foreign countries with nefarious designs) and use undue influence to take the newly liberated States back from her founders.
Does it come down to an originalists interpretation or a living document interpretation?
The NBC was meant as a firewall against not only an English born interloper but all foreign born interlopers who would have an allegiance to a country equal to or greater than their allegiance to the USA. We are not going to become subjects of Queen Elizabeth, still the very real danger of a foreign born president with nefarious intentions purposefully damaging America exists (look at Obama, whether he is foreign born or not I believe he was born in Kenya).
Interpreting the NBC law under current world politics is the bread and butter of the likes of Laurence Tribe.
I’ll stand with Scalia and say that the SCOTUS has been wisely hiding from deciding NBC.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I did my own little unscientific poll because I can honestly say it’s never been a conversation at my dinner table. Since the other day when I read so many comments on FB I’ve asked several family members what they believe about Natural Born Citizen, without mentioning anything about the current election.
Each one has said, born in the U.S. to a legal citizen. My immediate family, are all conservative minded. However, some extended family I’ve asked are democrats. What I did find interesting though is when I asked the conservative and republican family members, what if Cruz was the nominee and it was him or Hillary, who would you vote for, some I had to tell he was born in Canada to an American mother. (Yes I have family members who live under a rock.lol) All but one said they would vote for Cruz, the one who said they wouldn’t clarified by saying they couldn’t vote for someone who wasn’t eligible. One, changed their mind what natural born was after they learned Cruz wasn’t born in the U.S. I found that interesting, for one that the candidate they like they had no idea where he was born and for two that they changed their opinion of what they believed after they found it out.
Some of my democrat family members who I don’t discuss politics with because it’s not good for my health, did tell me they hoped Trump won because they didn’t like Hillary or Bernie and wanted someone to vote for and that if he didn’t win then they weren’t voting. I did inform them they needed to change their registration so they could vote for him in the primary.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I began attempting to understand this issue two days ago when I went over there after stella mentioned that she was being treated poorly. My first take was a summary, to Laura Bernard Mielcarek, of the question of Ted Cruz’s eligibility:
—————————
From Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: “…natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,…”
It is indisputable that two forms or types are being identified and our inference–based upon the implication–is that there exists a distinction to be made and it was made in this clause.
Let’s assume that Cruz doesn’t violate the remainder of the clause.
Does Ted Cruz satisfy one or the other of the types of Citizen defined in AII,S1,C5?
Provide the definitions of each and there is no dispute.
—————————
She responded, “Cruz meets neither”, and gave a lengthy account of original intent and a reference to the 14th amendment. I was reminded–I kid you not–of Bill Clinton’s infamous point, “depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” My response was:
—————————
I stopped after your three words and asked myself, Ted Cruz is not “a Citizen of the United States?”
On what basis do you make this assertion?
—————————
I was bad because I had read entirely her reply, then I said (to myself), what?, and began to read again, after which I wrote that question. I did this because, at this point, I had read only AII,S1,C5 and her subsequent focus on original intent. Prior to this, I had been relying on Mark Levin’s opinion about this issue, which was that there is no issue. When I understood her response, I asked myself, who the bleep would insist on using an original-intent argument in 2016 in the middle of this stage in the primary process?
Before composing my next reply to her, I read this in an unrelated context:
This odd trait of mind and emotion, this perverse wish to hide a bad motive underneath a good one, permeates human affairs from top to bottom. This subtle and elusive kind of self-righteousness can underlie the smallest act or thought.
I always had my suspicions that those on our “side” over there (and elsewhere) were and are taking a faux-principled stand and using the sanctity of the Constitution as a form of phony respectability. My next reply to her:
—————————
In some small way, I misled you when I stated prior, “Provide the definitions of each and there is no dispute”, as I was hiding what would become the substance of my argument.
In my view, the only reason to seek and argue about the original meaning of the phrase, “Citizen of the United States”, is if the contemporary definition of that phrase is in dispute. Hence, my question to you, is Ted Cruz “a Citizen of the United States?”, which I posed in different words. (I didn’t ask whether Cruz satisfies the original definition of that phrase.)
With no dispute over the contemporary meaning of, “Citizen of the United States”, we judge Cruz’s–and everyone’s–citizenship based on nothing other than whatever definition is employed in 2016, in all it’s conditions and sub-conditions, whatever they may be, as applied presently.
My goal is to prevent a Democrat from taking the oath of office in January, 2017. This goal does not address whether a President Jeb Bush will or will not be a disaster. Any plan or strategy that reduces the chance of defeating whomever the Democrats nominate, I reject.
I am undecided about these things at this stage of the primary-process.
————————–
She never addressed directly “my view”.
This is day three for me, and I have not yet heard or read anything to make me change “my view”.
LikeLike
I will just say this, that is over there, this is over here.
As to over there, I believe on the issue of NBC there is an abundance of unwarranted certainty and a bushel full of confirmation bias. Most of them did not even realize that Tribe believes that Cruz is a NBC.
That said if I wanted to argue against emotions I’d be posting over there. I’d rather deal in the real world and be consistent with my views regardless of what that means to a candidate who I like or dislike. Intellectual honesty is important to me.
If I want to watch sh!t being rolled around I’ll find a National Geographic special on Dung Beetles.
As I’ve said before, I stand with Trump on the NBC issue there has been no statutory ruling, it is unsettled law.
Stella if you’d rather I not offer a critique of over there over, here, you can delete my post.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As long as you aren’t cussing, I have no problem with it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lovely! “S$it rolling around, by dung beetles”! That’s priceless!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey Col. 🙂
Alan Dershowitz, calling himself a proud NY value’s person, is arguing Ted Cruz’s case and stated that he believes that Cruz is a NBC and that the issue of NBC is “unjudicateable” so there will never be a statutory ruling.
Dershowitz also stated that the judge will throw the current lawsuit out the door because as you stated the attorney who brought it does not have standing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will say that it is probably better not to rehash conversations “over there”, unless there is some special reason to do so. It could cause bad feelings, and that is never a good thing. I say that for the benefit of all of us (that means me too), not just you and scherado.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is unsettled law is what I wish the focus would be on.
I for one lean towards he’s eligible, however it doesn’t matter where I lean. It has became an issue and imo would have became an issue whether Trump had ever said anything or not. Far too many voters who believe NBC is born on this soil whether to one or two American citizens and the Democrats would have gleefully been waiting to make it an issue.
Anyone can say how the courts will rule, but I remember many who were confident Obamacare would be thrown out, regular folks as well as Constitutional attorneys and unless I missed it, never predicted they would rewrite the law, including liberals who believed they would rule in it’s favor.
For the sake of voters I want Cruz to address the issue. The burden of proof might not lie with him, but for the sake of not only his supporters, but all voters he should do it. I would hope he would not be okay with winning the nomination and allow the democrats to put his fate and our country’s fate in the hands of an unpredictable court.
I say this as someone who had him as my number one choice before Trump and he’s still my number two choice, although like I said last night he really rubbed me the wrong way last night.
I just want it taken care of before it’s put in the hands of the democrats and the SC after it’s too late for voters to choose their nominee.
LikeLiked by 2 people
lovely, my only purpose was to bring what I began over there, over here to begin a contribution to an exploration of the issue over here. I apologize if I gave the wrong impression. I have no intention of transplanting poop from over there to draw flies over here.
I continue over there because I’m trying to save my country and somebody has to clean-up the trash on “our side”, among other things. Over at frontpagemag I’ve caused so much turmoil that my posts are flagged for moderation by default when they weren’t before I caused a fascistic right-winger to bust a head-gasket.
LikeLike
We have no objection to the conversation. I just don’t think it helps to quote word for word the comments of numerous people (other than yourself). You could paraphrase or describe the conversation instead.
I have been guilty of this myself, and will be moderating my own behavior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Stella I was typing while you responded so my post is a bit of a repeat of what you said.
LikeLike
No apology required. Your comment is a good one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Scherado,
My apologies I don’t want to come across as a nanny, that was not my intention. I simply thought it might not be a good idea to bring whole conversations from any other board to this board and since I’m familiar with what is going on over there I just gave a brief synapsis of what I am seeing and why it in my opinion it isn’t a good idea to bring specifics over here. One can never win an argument when the opposition is emotion based rather than fact based.
My reason for my thoughts on the matter is in my first response to you.
I’m happy that you are continuing over there. I hope you open some minds. I’m happy you are posting other places and trying to bring reasonable rational persuasive arguments to the table. Just remember in a crowd in a room full of irrational thought the rational person is the loon 😉
LikeLike
Thanks and I appreciate that. I wanted by fully open that I was reproducing something I wrote elsewhere–which is a forced habit to avoid charges of “cutting and pasting”. As I type this, heads are exploding and the more unstable are going on suicide watch “over there”.
For the record, one CAN win an argument with someone who is emotion-based. Notice I didn’t write “convert someone”. Often, a person will flee the discussion and go think about what happened.
LikeLike
True there is a difference between win and convert, I stand corrected.
LikeLike
Please, I wasn’t trying to “correct” you. I spent the last two years debating biological evolution, origins and religion with a very tough crowd at a Christian forum. Prior to that, I debated on philosophy boards. I’ve dealt with a mighty tough crowd and I was banned from only one forum.
LikeLike
Your statement as a stand alone statement is true, I have no problem with clarifying my use of words. I don’t find any satisfaction in perpetually arguing with folks who I think are dysfunctional thinkers. “Winning” an argument in the wind might be personally satisfying but in my opinion there are better uses of my time.
Often, a person will flee the discussion and go think about what happened
On this we disagree, in an intellectual discussion you have a point but when an emotional foundation is challenged the vast majority of people do not retreat to their corner and think about what has challenged their foundation, they react to the information by digging in their heels. That is the simple truth about human nature.
Personally I think it is a waste of time to run around the internet looking for arguments and then talking about what you consider are your victories on another part of the internet.
To each his own, I’m happy you enjoy your way of going about life.
“I will not let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
LikeLike
[Placed here due to nesting limits.]
I took this as a kick to the groin: “run around the internet looking for arguments and then talking about what you consider are your victories on another part of the internet.”
Is this the result of you hearing what I sent stella?
Did you read something that intruded into your psychic edifice supporting Donald Trump?
Both?
LikeLike
??? What does this have to do with me?
LikeLike
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Sorry my words are not meant as a kick to the groin, you are here posting about your victories on other boards, you are posting about how many arguments you have won, to what end?
Isn’t your victory on other boards enough for those who watched it happen on that board? I am perplexed as to the point of what you are trying to communicate here.
LikeLike
My only goal is to save my country. I have been banned over there. I failed in that regard.
LikeLike
Thanks and I appreciate that. I wanted by fully open that I was reproducing something I wrote elsewhere–which is a forced habit to avoid charges of “cutting and pasting”. As I type this, heads are exploding and the more unstable are going on suicide watch “over there”.
For the record, one CAN win an argument with someone who is emotion-based. Notice I didn’t write “convert someone”. Often, a person will flee the discussion and go think about what happened.
LikeLike
I think Cruz is imploding. I just caught the tail end of it but a reporter asked cruz if he would like to apologize for his remarks about NY.
Cruz said, “Yes I’d like to apologize to the citizens of NY who have had liberal politicians take over.”
Amazing obtuseness on Cruz’s part.
LikeLike
I drop this link not for the comments, but because it shows the entire Cruz statement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Tessa, as a Cruz supporter what do you think about Cruz’s statement? I’ll offer my opinion but I’d like to hear yours.
The short of my opinion is that if Cruz had any chance he has lost the nomination with his pig headiness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think he has lost anything. I loved his response. He hit at the Dems and what they have done to NYC and will have a lot of those NY’s agreeing with him. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but I see no downside to this. He is going to have to fight to beat Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cruz’s apology reminded me of the Pastor who said an evil man was a saint 🙂
In a small town, there were two brothers who, over the course of many years, cheated, swindled, robbed and generally stole from everyone that they ever did business with.
The entire town and surrounding community reviled and despised these two brothers as everyone was aware of just how disreputable and dishonest they were.
One day, one of the brothers mysteriously died.
Although they had never attended church, the one remaining brother went to the local pastor and offered vast sums of money if he would come to the funeral and say the appropriate words, AND, a large bonus, but ONLY if he would – during the course of the eulogy -refer to his brother as “a Saint.”
The pastor was troubled by the request, however, it was a very poor church and the church desperately needed repairs.
The Parishioners had heard about the pastor’s dilemma and were curious as to what he would do.
The Funeral began, the church was packed, and the pastor started with the usual prayers and followed the rites and traditions as required by the churches teachings. In closing, after referring to the man in the box, he paused and turned to face the remaining brother.
He began, “As you all know, the departed was an awful individual who robbed, cheated, swindled and stole from everyone he ever did business with.
However, compared to his Brother, he was – “a Saint!”
LikeLike
LOL
LikeLiked by 1 person
So to you, it was a crafty little sidestep. I can see your point, I just don’t agree, and considering all the sidestepping I have seen from Trump, I figure this is tit for tat. Not that I particularly like it from either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know if anyone remembers but George Bush made some rude comments about Arkansans when he was running against Clinton. A lot of Americans were very turned off by it, not just Arkies. I personally know of Republican voters across the country who refused to vote for him because of it.
Americans are like siblings, they might say things about other states but they will defend that state if they hear it out of a politician’s mouth.
There is no reason when you run for the highest office in the land and if you succeed will be the President of all states to insult a state.
It of course is true there are a lot liberals in NY and a lot of Republicans that come out of NY are liberal, but the same can be said for my state and it would never be considered a liberal state.
LikeLike
Well written though liberal leaning article with an opinion on NBC.
Yes, Ted Cruz is Constitutionally Eligible to Be President
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/03/23/yes-ted-cruz-is-constitutionally-eligible-to-be-president-n1974967
LikeLike
I just read something in comments on one of the blogs that any Secretary of State could refuse to put Cruz’s name on a ballot claiming him to be ineligible and Cruz would have to sue to be on the ballot. Anyone know if there is any truth to that?
LikeLike
It looks like Rubio is also facing a lawsuit in Florida.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/14/report-rubio-fights-a-florida-lawsuit-claiming-he-has-a-birther-problem/
LikeLiked by 2 people