Image 01 Image 03

New York Appeals Court Nixes Suit That Would’ve Removed Ted Cruz from State’s Ballot

New York Appeals Court Nixes Suit That Would’ve Removed Ted Cruz from State’s Ballot

Another one bites the dust

Yet another attempt to end Senator Cruz’s White House bid was shut down in courts Thursday afternoon.

A New York appellate court upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a case involving Senator Cruz’s birthright.

Reuters reports:

The New York Appellate Division agreed with the lower court ruling that the suit should be thrown out because it missed the deadline for filing an objection to Cruz’s appearance on the April 19 ballot. Lawyers for Cruz successfully argued that the objectors had filed their petition nearly three weeks late.

The appeals judges said they would not address the merits of the case, saying they were “academic.”

Roger Bernstein, a lawyer for the petitioners, said his clients intend to appeal the decision.

New York residents Barry Korman, 81, of Manhattan, and William Gallo, 85, of Manhasset, had filed the suit, arguing that because Cruz was born in Canada, he is not a “naturally born” citizen as the Constitution dictates for a U.S. president.

Cruz has defended himself against similar claims in multiple states, saying he was a U.S. natural born citizen at birth because of his mother’s U.S. citizenship at the time.

Cruz was born in 1970 in Calgary, Alberta.

In February, Professor Jacobson blogged about a similar case in Illinois:

And his research on the birthright citizenship issue is here.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


So who paid for the appeal? I’m guessing Reince Priebus.

Doesn’t matter. Cruz will lose here.

Here’s my question. Supposedly – if you are the child of an American citizen, you are a NBC no matter where you are born. So let’s say a female exchange student from country X get’s knocked up in college by an American student. Things don’t work out and she goes back home and has the child. Her child is an NBC? If her child grows up in their country (yet this child is a US citizen)and has a child – is that child also an NBC? Even though neither he or his child ever grew up in our country? Could that child move to the US and be eligible to be president? Should he be?

    Zachary in reply to labrat. | March 24, 2016 at 8:54 pm

    It’s wacky isn’t it. I’m not a fan of the idea that non citizens give birth inside US and their progeny are automatically citizens aka birth tourism. Luckily neither of these situations represent Cruz’s situation. It’s quite clear his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth and therefore he is one.

      labrat in reply to Zachary. | March 24, 2016 at 9:08 pm

      If Ted Cruz moved to the US in 2010 instead of 1975 would you still think he would be eligible to be President?

        quiksilverz24 in reply to labrat. | March 25, 2016 at 12:04 am

        Please read this little document called the Constitution. Article II Section V:

        “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.”

        2010 and he couldn’t be legally running. If you’re going to play the NBC card, at least understand all facets of the article and section.

          Thanks for the snark. FWIW I don’t claim to be a constitutional scholar or an expert on US citizenship and I don’t give a damn about Ted Cruz’s eligibility. I am curious about how far a person’s citizenship extends out to one’s progeny out of my own intellectual curiosity. It’s an interesting exercise to me.

          If my very NBC US citizen daughter goes to study abroad and falls in love with a guy in a foreign country and decides to stay over there, would my grandchildren be US citizens? Would they be natural born citizens? What about my great grand children? My great, great grandchildren? If they moved to the US and lived here for the required period, would they be eligible to be president? Does anyone know how that would work?

          Milhouse in reply to quiksilverz24. | March 25, 2016 at 12:43 pm

          If my very NBC US citizen daughter goes to study abroad and falls in love with a guy in a foreign country and decides to stay over there, would my grandchildren be US citizens? Would they be natural born citizens? What about my great grand children? My great, great grandchildren? If they moved to the US and lived here for the required period, would they be eligible to be president? Does anyone know how that would work?

          Yes, your grandchildren would be born US citizens, and therefore eligible for the presidency once they turned 35 and had lived in the USA for 14 years. If one of your grandchildren came back to the USA, lived here for five years, at least two of which were after the age of 14, and then returned to his/her country of birth, then his or her children born after that would be born US citizens, and so ad infinitum. But any child born to one of your grandchildren who had not lived in the USA for the required time would not be born a US citizen.

        Milhouse in reply to labrat. | March 25, 2016 at 12:38 pm

        No, if he had moved here in 2010 he would not be eligible, but if he had done so on 19-Jan-2003 he would be.

    Anonamom in reply to labrat. | March 24, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    “Things don’t work out and she goes back home and has the child. Her child is an NBC?”

    In a word, yes. That is why there is an industry referred to as “birth tourism.”

    And I agree that it is something we ought to change.

    Milhouse in reply to labrat. | March 25, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    The answer is no, the grandchild will not be a US citizen unless the child lived in the USA for at least five years, including at least two years after the age of 14.

      labrat in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2016 at 7:02 pm

      Thanks for your replies, So it’s a combination of parental citizenship and residency? If US citizens progeny never live in the US, then they are not citizens until they live here 14 years? Are they automatically eligible to move here because there is US citizenship in their ancestry?

One of the Mullahs had an anchor baby American wife (born in America but spent most of her life in Iraq/Jordan). I guess that Mullah can be President too.

    Zachary in reply to rotten. | March 24, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    If he vowed to make America great again you’d vote for him I’m sure.

    Milhouse in reply to rotten. | March 25, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    No, of course he can’t. Why would you think his wife’s status affects him? But if she ever leaves him and comes back to the USA, 14 years later she’ll be eligible for the presidency.

Yep. As predicted.

I have seen videos showing Ted Cruz surrounded by known prostitutes.

These were taken on the Senate floor when they were in session.

This is not a substantive decision.

…thrown out because it missed the deadline for filing an objection to Cruz’s appearance on the April 19 ballot

Yep not a decision on the merits of whether Cruz is an NBC or not.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | March 24, 2016 at 10:55 pm

    Because there are no ‘merits’.

    It’s all T-rumpian dirty tricks.

      janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | March 25, 2016 at 12:14 am

      It doesn’t matter anyway, because the GOPe now is using Cruz as a tool to try to achieve a contested or brokered convention. They don’t want him. He was a tool in the first place to split up the vote to make a path for Jebbie, just as they did for Mittens four years ago. So were most of the others, whether they understood that or not.

      That is your opinion. The court did not express an opinion on whether Cruz is NBC or not.

        And the Court NEVER, EVER will, because it’s:
        1.) Non-Justiciable;
        2.) a Political Question;
        3.) that no one actually has ‘standing’ to bring; and
        4.) within the dictates of CONGRESS to determine as to what qualifies as a “Natural Born Citizen” for immigration purposes (i.e. those who do not need to be “naturalized” to be recognized as citizens).

        This is one that the Court will NEVER, EVER second guess.

        The more you go on about it, the more desperate you begin to sound. It’s FIRST-YEAR law school Civil Procedure for crying out loud.

          Those are all your opinions only. None of those opinions were expressed by the trial court or appeals court in this case which is all I have said. Discerning the difference between your opinions and want the courts have written is even more elemental than 1st year civ pro.

          OK then, Gary. Why don’t YOU properly draft the suit, in a state that has yet to vote and where you can still procedurally make the claim under state law, find a plaintiff willing to nominally stand in the dock and make the argument about Cruz not being a Natural Born Citizen.

          You can then be OFFICIALLY told that you’re a moron by a COURT (which you so seem to crave), and that the proposed complaint is all of the things that I listed above (and then you can likely be sanctioned by the Texas Bar for bringing a frivolous action even though it’s prepared in another state, on the grounds that you made an argument, even in another state’s Court, without basis in law, fact, or that had any reasonable extension of existing law or fact).

          Go do that and tell me how it works out for your Law License.

          You repeat yourself below. Send me a check for $50,000 and I’ll get right on the lawsuit for you. I don’t work for free.

          Why should I put up so much as ONE PENNY to have you go, make a fool of yourself, and have you get bench-slapped? It’s a fools errand to try, but it’s the ONLY way that your “Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen” bullshit will ever go anywhere.

          You REALLY must not believe your own position. If you really believed it, you’d actually, you know, FIGHT for it in the only place that you believe has any ability to make a decision: the COURTS.

          It’s not my position that is in challenge. I believe that Ted Cruz fully qualifies as a Natural Born Citizen. It’s your position that he is not a Natural Born Citizen, and if you had ANY integrity, you would file your constitutional challenge. But, you don’t have standing to even bring the question. waa-waa-waa. Boo-hoo.

          You’ll just be a blow-hard here and make poorly thought-out arguments and then pontificate about how “the Courts should settle it” when you know full well they NEVER will.

          Chucky get a grip. You are putting up various completely false positions and statements I’ve never said, even going so irrationally far as putting statements I’ve never said in quotes and then arguing against them. Its no wonder you do mediation because your ability to think clearly seems quite impaired.

          The only thing I have said in this entire LI post is the quite accurate statement that the court’s decision was not a decision on the merits. You have tried to claim otherwise arguing that you know exactly what the judge was thinking but did not say out loud. And on your claimed powers of telepathy I have quite rightly called BULLSHIT.

          Now if we go to other LI posts where Cruz’s NBC status is discussed, I have argued just as Laurence Tribe that under an originalist conservative interpretation of the constitution that Cruz is NOT an NBC. However I have also said several times that I believed that today judges would not follow the originalist conservative interpretation and would likely rule Cruz is a NBC.

          So get a grip, regain your rationality and stop trying to put words and statements I have never made upon me so you can then do your agitated blowhard attorney routine arguing against shadows that exist only in your own confused conciouness.

          Your bullshit strawmen and false attributions and quotes might impress the simple minded but it just ain’t good enough with adults. Get your head out of your ass and be sure and engage your brain before throwing out the clutch on your mouth. You will avoid looking so childish and stupid if you do.

The first thing I will observe is that it was tossed on a technicality, a missed date. So the merits were never discussed.
So anyone who is saying “I told you so” is full of it.

I’m surprised that, given the states of the election, the court didn’t find someway of repackaging this and sending it down for a hearing. I’m sure that the deadline for the November election has not yet been missed. Cruz is not on the November ballot but he is one of a group, maximum size around five, that will be on the ballot.

Whatever, I don’t think it much matters. Cruz, whatever his status is closer to a NBC then Barry. That ship has sailed.

What does bother me is that his birth records are sealed.A routine birth, why would that be? Strange since there are major portions of Heidi’s arrest report redacted. Amazing how Cruz hides these things which are no big deal.

    Sanddog in reply to RodFC. | March 24, 2016 at 10:51 pm

    Major portions redacted? She wasn’t arrested. She wasn’t accused of a crime. She’d broken no laws and if she was going through a bout of depression or just pissed of at Ted, it’s really none of your freaking business.

      RodFC in reply to Sanddog. | March 24, 2016 at 11:25 pm

      1. She was detained by police.
      2. An arrest report was filled out. Public record.
      3. I do not attest to the rest of the article, however halfway down you can find a copy of the first page of the arrest report, heavily redacted.

      If you do not like the daily mail, you can do what I did and google “Heidi Cruz arrest report”. If you are more enterprising than me, you can search smoking gun. You will probably find the whole redacted report there.

      As for none of our business, check my post below where a Cruz campaign staffer tells Neil Cavuto that first ladies background is our business.

        Milhouse in reply to RodFC. | March 25, 2016 at 2:05 pm

        You are a liar. The Daily Mail article does not claim she was arrested or that any arrest report exists.

        And everyone’s birth records are sealed, aren’t they? You can’t just get someone else’s records without their permission. There are privacy laws.

        It wasn’t an arrest report. She was never arrested. It was just a general “incident” or “occurrence” report they have to fill out every time they’ve been called out.

    Courts ALWAYS (without fail) look for technicalities to toss suits on first when they don’t have any authority to rule on the merits, because the Judges don’t want to look impotent before the public.

    Judges would much rather say “well, we don’t have to actually decide this thing because the party bringing the suit didn’t follow the rules in order for us to make a decision.” The subtext the Judges leave out is: “and that we’re not actually authorized or have any right to decide this case” (which those trained lawyers here that aren’t nutjobs like Gary Britt recognize as a basic form of Civil Procedure, otherwise known as justiciability).

      You were correct up till your last sentence that begins “the subtext” that sentence is wrong and complete bullshit. Again you appear incapable of discerning the difference between what you think was in the mind of the judges with what may or may not be in the minds of the judges. Your law school must have had some courses on mind reading and pontifications therefrom that mine didn’t.

      I try to refrain from making guesses into public pronouncements of fact. You seem to prefer the I’m a lawyer blowhard method.

        Well then, why don’t YOU go try it, and we’ll see exactly how quickly you get bench-slapped with a sanction.

        Come on Gary. Use that big-shot law practice that you’ve got and put your ability to practice where your mouth is, and get a ruling on if Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen.

        Come back and tell us exactly how that turned out for you.

          Send me a check for $50,000 retainer and I’ll get right on it. I don’t work for free.

          Don’t get mad at me just because you can’t tell the difference between your opinions, which I have neither said may be accurate or inaccurate, and the court’s written opinion.

          As above, it’s not MY position that is not being respected by the Courts and the States.

          It’s YOUR position that he doesn’t qualify as a Natural Born Citizen.

          I guess the big question is: what are you going to do if (when) he is elected as President? Claim he isn’t legitimate?

          I’ll send you a nice tin-foil hat and you can take your place with the “9/11 truthers,” the “Sovereign Citizens” and the “Flat Earth” society.

In the meantime, the Cruz slimemobile keeps rolling on. Look at how this campaign staffer ( at around the 4:10 mark ), after the main point is done ( about lying about Rubio dropping out ) just has to get in digs about Melania.

( date of segment, March 8 IIRC )

In fact I think WJ owes Donald Trump an apology. he wrote a blog article impugning Donald Trump’s character for attacking Cruz’s wife, when Cruz staffers were appearing on cable news shows saying “we should be looking at first lady candidates”.

Whether he issues such an apology or not, is, of course, up to him.

Never mind the fact that Ted Cruz BBF Glen Beck has been calling Melania a “lesbo porn model” for months.

Oh and to tie this back to this article. There is a NBC requirement for President. There is no requirement for First Lady. So why is the Cruz camp talking about the “first foreign born first lady in 100 years”?

    Ragspierre in reply to RodFC. | March 24, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    Apart from the thread-jack by you T-rump suckers…

    Put up the link where you got the bullshit about any “birth records” being sealed.

    Put up link where you got the bullshit about “redacted arrest records”.

    Put up an actuality where Beck called Mrs. T-rump III a “lesbo porn model”.

    You lying SOS.

    Milhouse in reply to RodFC. | March 25, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    You lie once again. No Cruz staffer has attacked Mrs Trump. No Cruz staffer has said “we should be looking at first lady candidates”. You made that up because you’re a lying liar who lies. Nor is anyone in the Cruz camp talking about “the first foreign born first lady in 100 years”. (Actually she’d be the first in 188 years, and the second ever, but nobody in the Cruz camp is talking about it.)

The ultimate arbiter on the issue likely is to be voters, not Supreme Court Justices. Prof. Jacobson. This is basically the conclusion that I reached long ago. It is all any of us can do.

Looks like Amanda Carpenter might be one of the girls in the #CruzCrew #CruzSexScandal.

I need to get my copy of National Enquirer.

    janitor in reply to janitor. | March 25, 2016 at 12:27 am

    Although… maybe this will help him when he bucks up against the primary voters with their “New York values”.

    Milhouse in reply to janitor. | March 25, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    How about something from a reliable source? All I’m seeing are unfounded rumors made up by sleazy blogs and quoted by other sleazy blogs.

    Funny, though, because your Donald is not only known to be a multiple adulterer, he’s not even ashamed of it. So how you think this helps him is a mystery.

From Rags:

Apart from the thread-jack by you T-rump suckers…

Thread deserves to be jacked. Consider it a peaceful free speech protest.

    Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | March 25, 2016 at 7:22 am

    I consider it a bunch of lying, T-rump sucking pigs coming together to slime this site with anything salacious and low they can immerse their poor, sick-phuc heads into.

Will Cruz give a Jimmy Swaggart type speech?

This is one of the first political sex scandals which happens in our modern social media infrastructure. It is interesting to see it develop.

    Milhouse in reply to RodFC. | March 25, 2016 at 2:46 pm

    What scandal? The only sex scandal I’m aware of is Trump’s, which is a matter of public record and he doesn’t even try to hide it because he’s a shameless pig.

This just in: Mystery Girl No. 4 is Sarah Isgur Flores. Sarah was Carly Fiorina’s Deputy Campaign Manager. She previously worked as Political Director for Texans for Ted Cruz in 2010.

    forksdad in reply to janitor. | March 25, 2016 at 11:25 am

    Half a mil was given from a Cruz pac directly to Fiorina’s campaign fund. Nothing to see here, move along.

Trump supporters continue to insult anyone who differs from them. I hope they weren’t counting on those people to vote for Trump when this is over, because they won’t.

    janitor in reply to Matt_SE. | March 25, 2016 at 1:58 am

    Please point out on this thead where Trump supporters are “insulting anyone who differs from them”. Because what you have written, which is a common refrain, is, in fact false, and is itself the insult, especially when for months now, the typical nonsubstantive Cruz-supporters’ comments go like this:

    T-rump suckers…



    You lying SOS

      Zachary in reply to janitor. | March 25, 2016 at 12:11 pm

      I have to give you guys that. You only insult the opposing candidate, not his supporters directly. Although you do insult our intelligence by constantly spewing and regurgitating propaganda and spin. And it feels like an insult when you assault reason and good taste, proper civil conduct, etc. Let’s not beat around the bush, there is a faction that has come to drown out reasoned discussion on this site with a slander and disinformation campaign. Hijacking threads, spamming tweets, cross posting any negative articles with any tangential connection to the candidate they oppose. It’s transparent and, frankly, lame.

    amwick in reply to Matt_SE. | March 25, 2016 at 9:16 am

    I personally think it is wrong to insult people for their opinions…I really dislike that kind of lame back and forth name calling. It is incumbent upon me to disregard this, and try to view(follow) the substance of the message. Trump supporters get their share of attacks, as do the Cruz fans. On LI it works both ways… I do admire the passion that is expressed, even if some of the terms are plain nasty. Anything beyond that is up to Prof. Jacobson.

      RodFC in reply to amwick. | March 25, 2016 at 12:34 pm

      So you object to Ragspierre?
      He’s the only poster that I was warned about when I got here.

      Milhouse in reply to amwick. | March 25, 2016 at 2:49 pm

      They’re not being insulted for their opinions, they’re being insulted for their damned lies and their general sleaziness.

Just to let people know.
Brietbart is down

Possibly meltdown from the scandal. All you get on the main page is a blank page.

Breitbart is back up. Was down for about half an hour.
For those who are interested in some final facts of what has happened:

Things to note that have not been said here today.
1) Apparently there were rumors for a long time.
2) Breitbart had the story and sat on it.
3) A mysterious campaign donation to Carly Fiorina now has an explanation. Cruz was sending hush money. The importance of this is that John Edwards went to jail for this.

I am not sure where getting the good professor to apologize for anything is remotely related to the subject matter at hand.
I guess since things did not go your way in NY, throw anything against the wall and hope something sticks. Your comment reminded me of this 2007 article from the Weekly Standard about Roger Stone; noted Nixonphile and currently a Trump advisor.

His mantra has always been, “Above all, attack, attack, attack–never defend.”
Such is the life of Roger Stone, political operative, Nixon-era dirty trickster, professional lord of mischief.

    spartan in reply to spartan. | March 25, 2016 at 9:19 am

    This was supposed to be a response to RodFC to his comment made at 10:14PM last night. Mea culpa … I am not sure how it ended here.

    RodFC in reply to spartan. | March 25, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    I am not sure where getting the good professor to apologize for anything is remotely related to the subject matter at hand.
    I already said that I can only say that WJ should apologize. It is up to him whether he thinks he should apologize and whether he will.

    I do know that most people who:
    1. Impugn someone. Suggest that they cannot be trusted with government agencies because they attack a candidates wife ie HillaryHeidi Cruz.
    2. It’s turns out that the opposing candidates campaign has not only said that attacking wives is fair game, but has already attacked the others wife.
    often feel that an apology is called for. It’s called politeness.

Nice 10 point summary of #CruzSexScandal

Question: if this sex scandal was about Trump and not Cruz would kimberlee Kaye already have a post about it on front page of LI?? Or the professor?

    Gunstar1 in reply to Gary Britt. | March 25, 2016 at 12:42 pm

    Trump isn’t squeaky clean either.

    Question: when a sex scandal about Trump comes out would Gary already have a comment on it about how great Trump is?

      RodFC in reply to Gunstar1. | March 25, 2016 at 1:06 pm

      The difference is that Trump does not hold the bioble up while his supporters proclaim he is the face of GOD and his BBF insinuates that he is the rider of the White Horse.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | March 25, 2016 at 12:44 pm

    First, there is no “sex scandal”.

    There IS an effort by slime pigs like you to create a “scandal”. You are a liar. We all know this.

    IF it were about the poor, sick child that is Der Donald, it would just be seen as more of his effort to establish himself as a “man”. Instead of the per-pubescent girl he IS.

    Gunstar1 in reply to Gary Britt. | March 25, 2016 at 12:56 pm

    Ok, just read the link…
    What a bunch of nothing. There is no proof, nothing at all. It is just alligation. The 8 things I need to know, one of them being a hashtag is trending on twitter! I really needed to know that. That changes everything.

    Milhouse in reply to Gary Britt. | March 25, 2016 at 2:58 pm

    Scandal about Trump? His entire life is one big scandal.

The courts are essentially useless, actually detrimental, because they are packed with judicial activists who ignore the clear meaning of the Constitution and the meaning of words and phrases as understood by the Founders and supported by their other, rather prolific, writings during their debates during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Roghts.
The Constitution was written to be understood directly and widely by farmers, shopkeepers, blacksmiths, etc., without reliance on ANY “interpretation from on high” by an “elite” class of black-robed oracles.
Anyone who cares to can easily understand it’s clear meaning. It takes real effort to go through the gyrations and distortions that result in most of the interpretations that have been rendered by our judiciary since the early 1900s.
Jefferson’s references to the maintenance requirements for the “tree of liberty” have been neglected for far longer than his recommended maintenance interval.