It's his right to seek dismissal, and the judge's right to deny it...or let it happen.  There wouldn't be a hearing if a judge thought there wasn't the slightest hint of merit behind it. Why would Cruz care if he's so sure about eligibility? A bit of fear, perhaps? He should let it happen, then gloat when he's declared eligible...then an instant one-up on Trump for sure.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cruz-seeks-dismissal-of-case-challenging-us-presidential-eligibility/ar-BBpTlMw?fullscreen=true#image=1

Nice spin Troll. Fact is, it's a frivolous lawsuit, and killing it slaps Trump upside the head and embarrasses his ass publicly for abuse of our legal system.

Quote from: Traninit on February 23, 2016, 05:04:08 PM
It's his right to seek dismissal, and the judge's right to deny it...or let it happen.  There wouldn't be a hearing if a judge thought there wasn't the slightest hint of merit behind it. Why would Cruz care if he's so sure about eligibility? A bit of fear, perhaps? He should let it happen, then gloat when he's declared eligible...then an instant one-up on Trump for sure.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cruz-seeks-dismissal-of-case-challenging-us-presidential-eligibility/ar-BBpTlMw?fullscreen=true#image=1

Ok lets take this one point, by one point. And in doing so I'll demonstrate why the term "troll" is the right one.

Number one, It's now blue above.

Flatly untrue. A hearing is held for both the plaintiff as well as the defendant to make oral arguments for or against motions being made.

Number two, It's now green above.

That's actually also factually untrue. When you are absolutely sure, that a suit in which your named the defendant is frivolous, without merit.

When you are absolutely sure that you are in the right within the law. The very first thing you do, is petition the court for a dismissal.

Number three, It's orange above now.

He has better things to do, like actually campaign, meet the electorate face to face etc...than to spend his time in a court room, wasting his time, and our tax money, to settle what is clearly a frivolous case without merit.

See that's what the Trumpette troll brigade simply cannot get through their pretty little skulls.

This is not some new, unsettled law. It's not some law we just enacted five years ago. 

This is a case, dealing with law that's long been settled. Unless there's some new, Earth Shattering argument of merit, the Federal courts are going to reject it.

The Supremes always do in that situation. That's why it's called "settled law" in the first place. 

Oh btw, why does the word troll apply? Because that's what you are, when you misrepresent the facts, as you did with number one and two up there. 

Quote from: Traninit on February 23, 2016, 05:04:08 PM
It's his right to seek dismissal, and the judge's right to deny it...or let it happen.  There wouldn't be a hearing if a judge thought there wasn't the slightest hint of merit behind it. Why would Cruz care if he's so sure about eligibility? A bit of fear, perhaps? He should let it happen, then gloat when he's declared eligible...then an instant one-up on Trump for sure.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cruz-seeks-dismissal-of-case-challenging-us-presidential-eligibility/ar-BBpTlMw?fullscreen=true#image=1

Activist judges.

Quote from: daidalos on February 23, 2016, 06:08:57 PM
Ok lets take this one point, by one point. And in doing so I'll demonstrate why the term "troll" is the right one.

Number one, It's now blue above.

Flatly untrue. A hearing is held for both the plaintiff as well as the defendant to make oral arguments for or against motions being made.

Number two, It's now green above.

That's actually also factually untrue. When you are absolutely sure, that a suit in which your named the defendant is frivolous, without merit.

When you are absolutely sure that you are in the right within the law. The very first thing you do, is petition the court for a dismissal.

Number three, It's orange above now.

He has better things to do, like actually campaign, meet the electorate face to face etc...than to spend his time in a court room, wasting his time, and our tax money, to settle what is clearly a frivolous case without merit.

See that's what the Trumpette troll brigade simply cannot get through their pretty little skulls.

This is not some new, unsettled law. It's not some law we just enacted five years ago. 

This is a case, dealing with law that's long been settled. Unless there's some new, Earth Shattering argument of merit, the Federal courts are going to reject it.

The Supremes always do in that situation. That's why it's called "settled law" in the first place. 

Oh btw, why does the word troll apply? Because that's what you are, when you misrepresent the facts, as you did with number one and two up there. 

"This is not some new, unsettled law. It's not some law we just enacted five years ago"

You are correct, the law is not new, but it only allows for a "Natural born citizen" to be POTUS. The law is not unsettled, but the meaning is. Why do you suppose all the fervor? "Natural born"...by law, what is the settled definition of that term? Please, if the courts have decided on the exact definition, please share that information with me, I'll cower and relent.

Quote from: Traninit on February 23, 2016, 07:34:46 PM
"This is not some new, unsettled law. It's not some law we just enacted five years ago"

You are correct, the law is not new, but it only allows for a "Natural born citizen" to be POTUS. The law is not unsettled, but the meaning is. Why do you suppose all the fervor? "Natural born"...by law, what is the settled definition of that term? Please, if the courts have decided on the exact definition, please share that information with me, I'll cower and relent.

WHAT???   That has got to be the dumbest, incoherent, contradictory thing I've ever read on this entire forum, system, or whatever - except the JOKE page.

This suit hasnt been brought by Trump.  Which reminds me....where is the loudmouth?  Cruz told him to bring it on.  Why hasnt he?

Quote from: Hoofer on February 24, 2016, 06:45:11 AM
WHAT???   That has got to be the dumbest, incoherent, contradictory thing I've ever read on this entire forum, system, or whatever - except the JOKE page.

We have deleted some drive by trolls off the wall confused ramblings. 

Quote from: walkstall on February 24, 2016, 07:25:09 AM
We have deleted some drive by trolls off the wall confused ramblings.

 

You anti-Trumpers are a hoot! Read and learn...then know that you are the "trolls" here and will not even attempt to have a rational discourse when there is a difference of opinion. Nah, I won't get nasty like you. Everyone is entitled to their own viewpoints. For shame, for shame.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/natural-born-issue-ted-cruz-not-settled-not-going-away-n499226

Quote from: Solar on February 23, 2016, 05:11:00 PM
Nice spin Troll. Fact is, it's a frivolous lawsuit, and killing it slaps Trump upside the head and embarrasses his ass publicly for abuse of our legal system.

"Fact is, it's a frivolous lawsuit"

Fact? You must have more insight than congressional scholars.

Quote from: Traninit on February 24, 2016, 08:59:34 AM


You anti-Trumpers are a hoot! Read and learn...then know that you are the "trolls" here and will not even attempt to have a rational discourse when there is a difference of opinion. Nah, I won't get nasty like you. Everyone is entitled to their own viewpoints. For shame, for shame.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/natural-born-issue-ted-cruz-not-settled-not-going-away-n499226

Lets see if you have the intellectual capacity to understand the law, and why we see you as a tool of the left for having not bothered to comprehend the issue.


Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen as per our Constitution.

Like it or not, it was the 14th Amendment that made that possible.

Here is the short reference, but I'll go into detail for those wanting to understand the truth.

a. Section 1993 (48 Stat. 797) was amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, to permit American women to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad, regardless of the father's citizenship.

b. The amended Section 1993 was in effect from May 24, 1934, at noon Eastern Standard Time until January 12, 1941. The text of the amended law is shown in 7 FAM 1135.6-1. It was repealed, and superseded by the Nationality Act of

In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment as follows...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Only natural born citizens are eligible to serve as President of the United States or as Vice President. Though the text of the Constitution does not define the meaning of natural born, in particular it does not specify any distinction to be made between people whose citizenship is based on jus sanguinis [parentage] or those whose citizenship was based on jus soli [place of birth]

So here's the thing, Cruz was born to an American mother beyond the sea, and according to the Constitution, her afforded Rights allows her to pass on citizenship Rights to her son.

Quote from: Solar on February 24, 2016, 09:22:00 AM
Lets see if you have the intellectual capacity to understand the law, and why we see you as a tool of the left for having not bothered to comprehend the issue.


Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen as per our Constitution.

Like it or not, it was the 14th Amendment that made that possible.

Here is the short reference, but I'll go into detail for those wanting to understand the truth.

a. Section 1993 (48 Stat. 797) was amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, to permit American women to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad, regardless of the father's citizenship.

b. The amended Section 1993 was in effect from May 24, 1934, at noon Eastern Standard Time until January 12, 1941. The text of the amended law is shown in 7 FAM 1135.6-1. It was repealed, and superseded by the Nationality Act of

In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment as follows...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Only natural born citizens are eligible to serve as President of the United States or as Vice President. Though the text of the Constitution does not define the meaning of natural born, in particular it does not specify any distinction to be made between people whose citizenship is based on jus sanguinis [parentage] or those whose citizenship was based on jus soli [place of birth]

So here's the thing, Cruz was born to an American mother beyond the sea, and according to the Constitution, her afforded Rights allows her to pass on citizenship Rights to her son.

She's playing the Bill Clinton game. "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

This time it's "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'natural born' is."

Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 24, 2016, 10:05:13 AM
She's playing the Bill Clinton game. "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

This time it's "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'natural born' is."

These libs aren't smart enough. Amazing, isn't it?
The Founders had a reason for being concise and not wordy, they knew there would be idiots attempting to make inferences into what they said, and or, didn't say.
There's a reason they didn't use the term "Native Born", because they meant "Natural Born" as in birthright Americans via parental Rights.

Quote from: Solar on February 24, 2016, 09:22:00 AM
Lets see if you have the intellectual capacity to understand the law, and why we see you as a tool of the left for having not bothered to comprehend the issue.


Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen as per our Constitution.

Like it or not, it was the 14th Amendment that made that possible.

Here is the short reference, but I'll go into detail for those wanting to understand the truth.

a. Section 1993 (48 Stat. 797) was amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, to permit American women to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad, regardless of the father's citizenship.

b. The amended Section 1993 was in effect from May 24, 1934, at noon Eastern Standard Time until January 12, 1941. The text of the amended law is shown in 7 FAM 1135.6-1. It was repealed, and superseded by the Nationality Act of

In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment as follows...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Only natural born citizens are eligible to serve as President of the United States or as Vice President. Though the text of the Constitution does not define the meaning of natural born, in particular it does not specify any distinction to be made between people whose citizenship is based on jus sanguinis [parentage] or those whose citizenship was based on jus soli [place of birth]

So here's the thing, Cruz was born to an American mother beyond the sea, and according to the Constitution, her afforded Rights allows her to pass on citizenship Rights to her son.

Did you have the "intellectual capacity" (I know, you just couldn't help yourself) to read the link? There is still an unsettled question that remains, is there not?