Breaking: VT Judge may have to toss Cruz, Rubio & Jindal off of state's ballot

Breaking: VT Judge may have to toss Cruz, Rubio & Jindal off of state's ballot

I tried to find a more mainstream news source for this, but there was none to be found. This challenge to Cruz/Rubio/Jindal is apparently being ignored by the MSM just like the challenge to Obama.

After the Secretary of State and Attorney General were duly served on December 11, 2015, they had 20 days in which to file a response to the court which made the deadline December 31, 2015 by close of business at 4:30 pm.

The defendants did not file a response by the deadline. Hence, the judge may now rule in favor of the plaintiff by default, which would keep Cruz and Rubio's name off the ballot.

And for what it's worth, these plaintiffs challenging today's Republican candidates also challenged Obama's candidacy.

Paige v. Vermont

Justia Opinion Summary Plaintiff, a Vermont resident and voter, filed a complaint seeking declarations that Barack Obama is not a "natural born Citizen" as required for eligibility to be President in Article II, Clause 4, of the Federal Constitution and was thus unqualified to be on the ballot for the Office of President, and that Mr. Obama's Petition for Nomination for the primary election and filings for the general election were "null and void" because of his ineligibility to hold office. In addition, plaintiff sought an injunction against the Vermont Secretary of State to bar the Secretary from including Mr. Obama's name on the election ballot in Vermont. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit because the claim was "an impermissible generalized grievance." Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal, and subsequently filed a motion in late 2012 for an expedited hearing before this Court in advance of the Joint Session of Congress that would take place on January 6. This Vermont Supreme Court denied the motion. Plaintiff argued this case was not moot because the Court could provide relief by declaring that Barack Obama was not a natural-born citizen, and asserted that a controversy continues through plaintiff's efforts to safeguard his life, liberty and property. The Vermont Court held this case was moot.

Other candidates whose eligibility has been challenged include McCain, Romney, Goldwater, and I believe the first was Chester A. Arthur.

I'm curious to see how these cases are handled in comparison with Obama's eligibility challenge, specifically if anyone will cite/invoke Obama as precedent-setting case law...

ETA: The "Breaking" was in the title at the source... it's not me being dramatic. I just copied and pasted

a reply to: Boadicea

The only one I thought there was a question about was Cruz. And not because he was born in Canada, but that necessary paperwork wasn't filed at the American Embassy in Canada at the time by his parents.

But from here I can see that the issue is a moot point, Cruz does fall under natural born US citizen. The Republicans deserve getting a hard time though, for how they went after Obama, who was actually born here.

a reply to: Boadicea

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un il said in an annual New Year's press release that John McCain is not related to him in any way shape of form .Aside from his war hawkish nature , but that is all . :>)

I knew it...backroom legalities to save Bush and narrow the competition.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Boadicea

The only one I thought there was a question about was Cruz. And not because he was born in Canada, but that necessary paperwork wasn't filed at the American Embassy in Canada at the time by his parents.

You've looked into it more than me then! I've seen the questions about their eligibility before, and I followed all the legal twists and quirks of Obama's challenges, and I've found that the law is so vague (at least for these purposes and today's definitions), that I could make a case either way...

I wonder now if when the people voted for Obama, knowing full well that his father was never a citizen, the voters set a precedent and nullified the natural born clause. If, for example, the voters had voted under false pretenses -- believing that Obama Sr was a citizen -- then I would feel differently. Or if the election itself was hijacked and Obama really did not "win."

But for now I just wait and watch.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Haha! That's funny -- thank you!

Brothers by different mothers so-to-speak. I love it.

originally posted by: olaru12
I knew it...backroom legalities to save Bush and narrow the competition.

How sad -- but not surprising -- that we should both have that thought. Says much for our esteem for the political class, eh?

a reply to: Boadicea

After a cursory search of the net, I see that Jindal and Rubio are also natural born citizens, both born in the US.

Not all presidents have had both parents be US citizens.

source

Chester Arthur, whose father was an Irish citizen at his birth. See also presidential candidates Bobby Jindal (whose parents had just landed from India), Bill Richardson (whose parents lived in Mexico but came to the US to give birth to Bill then returned to Mexico), or Woodrow Wilson (whose mother was born in Scotland). Herbert Hoover (1929-1933, mother was born in Canada.

a reply to: Boadicea

This was filed in 2013?

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Boadicea

After a cursory search of the net, I see that Jindal and Rubio are also natural born citizens, both born in the US.

Not all presidents have had both parents be US citizens.

source

Chester Arthur, whose father was an Irish citizen at his birth. See also presidential candidates Bobby Jindal (whose parents had just landed from India), Bill Richardson (whose parents lived in Mexico but came to the US to give birth to Bill then returned to Mexico), or Woodrow Wilson (whose mother was born in Scotland). Herbert Hoover (1929-1933, mother was born in Canada.

I think the problem is citizenship, rather than simply place of birth.... and one's definition of "natural born citizen." If I remember right, Arthur's father eventually became a citizen, but was not a citizen at the time of Arthur's birth. Some say a "natural born citizen" must be born on U.S. soil AND be born of two citizen parents... jus soli and jus sanguinis... some say it's one or the other, but not both... some say something different. Unless and until a court rules, it's just a matter of opinion without the force of law.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Boadicea

This was filed in 2013?

My apologies. I stupidly posted the wrong link for the OP source article. Thank you for bringing it to my attention!

And to answer your question: No; the lawsuit against Obama was ruled on in 2013. The lawsuit against Cruz and Rubio was filed in December of 2015.

a reply to: Boadicea

Just hope it's applied evenly across the board..you have no complaints here..

a reply to: Boadicea

??????????????????????????????
But the issue of Obama's father not being a US citizen is irrelevant. His mother was a US citizen, plus he was born in Hawaii.

Had a math PhD. friend joke one day that someone should claim the "natural born" wording would preclude those born by cesarean or induced by drugs from running as well.

There really should be a simple background check that covers this for every candidate and put any of this nonsense to rest up front.

a reply to: chrismarco

Just hope it's applied evenly across the board..you have no complaints here.

Me as well. I just want it handled it fairly, honestly, and transparently. For what it's worth, the challenge against McCain in 2000 was dismissed for lack of standing, so I wasn't surprised to see the cases against Obama dismissed for the same reason. It was a little disappointing though, because I would like to see a definitive standard established.

I'm also wondering if any of the cases brought against Obama (or McCain previously) will be cited as case law and setting a precedent in this case, and for candidates to come. We'll see.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

But the issue of Obama's father not being a US citizen is irrelevant. His mother was a US citizen, plus he was born in Hawaii.

In your opinion, apparently. And, apparently, in the opinion of those supporting Cruz and Rubio. However, as evidenced by this lawsuit and others, and as I've already explained previously, that opinion is not universal, nor has an official definition of "natural born citizen" been definitively established by any authority for legal purposes. Therefore, it is just an opinion, and thank you for sharing.

It's worth pointing out that if the ballot papers in Vermont do not indeed have these candidates it might not have a massive impact on the selection of the GOP candidate. Vermont has its election on Super Tuesday, or March 1st. It's going to be one small state amongst many others. Although that said, primaries can be very odd creatures and it might have an impact in the unlikely event of a brokered convention.

originally posted by: Halfswede
Had a math PhD. friend joke one day that someone should claim the "natural born" wording would preclude those born by cesarean or induced by drugs from running as well.

LOL! Good he had a sense of humor about it!

There really should be a simple background check that covers this for every candidate and put any of this nonsense to rest up front.

That ^^^ and official definitive criteria established for exactly what a natural born citizen is. This shouldn't be allowed to be a political football with so much at stake -- and at risk!

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Although that said, primaries can be very odd creatures and it might have an impact in the unlikely event of a brokered convention.

That's very true, and I hadn't thought about that. I half suspect that Cruz and Trump have struck a deal for VP if either wins the nomination... but if I'm wrong, or if Trump decides to renege on that deal -- or the pledge not to run as an Independent -- he'll use that as a sledge hammer over their head. Haha! I'd almost like to see that...

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
It's worth pointing out that if the ballot papers in Vermont do not indeed have these candidates it might not have a massive impact on the selection of the GOP candidate. Vermont has its election on Super Tuesday, or March 1st. It's going to be one small state amongst many others. Although that said, primaries can be very odd creatures and it might have an impact in the unlikely event of a brokered convention.

That is correct, if the defendants do not show or have their representative attorney show, it is often found in favor of the plaintiff. Always in small claims court. But, I have a feeling the judge will throw this whole case out as being without merit.