John Thomas8 is gauging interest and signing people up for fantasy
football league and pick'ems for the coming football season.
New members, so if you'd like to join the fun, go to:
User Control Panel - -» Usergroups tab, and join Sports Fans.
Otherwise, you can't see the sports forums.
As always, you can dismiss this announcement after reading.

Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

User avatar
bob
Posts: 18452
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [on to SCOTUS!]

Postby bob » Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:15 pm

WPXI: Kasich, Cruz ballot paperwork challenged in Pennsylvania:
Court challenges seeking to knock Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich off the Pennsylvania primary ballot have been scheduled for hearings in March.

* * *

Two Cruz challenges will be heard March 10. One was filed by Carmon Elliott, a Pittsburgh Republican, who says Cruz isn't qualified to run for president because he was born in Canada. The other challenges the signatures collected to put Cruz on the ballot.

“I learned in grade school on what is a natural born citizen,” Elliott said.

The Kasich challenge also involves signatures.

Carmon, you may recall, also challenged Cruz in New Hampshire.


Imagex3 Imagex2 Image Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 18452
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [to be heard Mar. 10]

Postby bob » Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:23 pm

ABC: Pennsylvania judge hears challenge to Cruz’s citizenship:
A Pennsylvania judge says he’ll decide soon on a court challenge that contends Texas Sen. Ted Cruz isn’t a U.S. citizen who is eligible to run for president and shouldn’t appear on the state’s primary ballot.

Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini heard arguments Thursday.

Cruz is among six Republican candidates who filed paperwork in Pennsylvania to run for president. The Pennsylvania primary is April 26.

The challenger is Carmon Elliott of Pittsburgh.


Imagex3 Imagex2 Image Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 18452
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby bob » Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:25 pm

ABC: Cruz’s citizenship case may go to Pennsylvania Supreme Court:
A Pennsylvania judge’s decision to dismiss a challenge to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’ eligibility to run for president could go to the state Supreme Court.

The challenger, Pittsburgh resident Carmon Elliott, said Friday that he’ll appeal the decision.

Elliott argues that the Republican presidential candidate isn’t eligible to run for president because he was born in Canada and shouldn’t appear on Pennsylvania’s April 26 primary ballot.

* * *

Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini ruled Thursday that common law precedent and statutory history maintain that a natural born citizen includes any person born to an American citizen, regardless of where.

Elliott acknowledged that Cruz’ mother was born in the United States and has been a U.S. citizen her whole life.


Imagex3 Imagex2 Image Imagex2

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31007
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby mimi » Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:35 pm

I assumed Carmon Elliott would be a right winger. But, nope.

https://www.facebook.com/carmon.elliott?ref=br_rs



User avatar
bob
Posts: 18452
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby bob » Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:58 pm

The court's ruling.

Interesting: Rules the political-question doctrine does not apply; also surveys the literature (including a CRS report, and the law review articles often discussed here).


Imagex3 Imagex2 Image Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 32989
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby realist » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:01 pm

bob wrote:The court's ruling.

Interesting: Rules the political-question doctrine does not apply; also surveys the literature (including a CRS report, and the law review articles often discussed here).


And takes himself way too seriously. :P


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 18452
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby bob » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:06 pm

Apuzzo!:
Senior Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Dan Pellegrini, gets it right in Elliott v. Cruz, No. 77 M.D. 2016, that it is not an impermissible political question for a court to analyze and determine what an Article II natural born citizen is. I have so maintained for almost 8 years. Note that the New Jersey Federal District Court in Kerchner v. Obama and some other federal and state courts have ruled that it was a political question. Judge Pellegrini does an excellent job in demonstrating through a simple presentation that the courts when presented with a case or controversy involving the question of what is an Article II natural born citizen are not only constitutionally obligated to decide the meaning of the clause, but also well-equipped to do so. It is a breath of fresh air to be vindicated in my position on this issue.

Where Judge Pellegrini errs is in placing his reliance for his definition of a natural born citizen upon Charles Gordon, Jack Maskell, Paul Clement, and Neal Katyal rather than on primary historical and legal sources. As I have demonstrated in by briefs to the courts and in my many articles on this blog, the arguments of these commentators are highly flawed and cannot serve as any reasonable basis for defining a natural born citizen. Also, note how Judge Pellegrini quotes extensively from these commentators (who support his conclusion), but only mentions Professor Mary McManamon (who does not support his conclusion) briefly and states without evidence that hers "is a minority view among legal scholars."


Imagex3 Imagex2 Image Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 32989
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby realist » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:09 pm

bob wrote:Apuzzo!:
Senior Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Dan Pellegrini, gets it right in Elliott v. Cruz, No. 77 M.D. 2016, that it is not an impermissible political question for a court to analyze and determine what an Article II natural born citizen is. I have so maintained for almost 8 years. Note that the New Jersey Federal District Court in Kerchner v. Obama and some other federal and state courts have ruled that it was a political question. Judge Pellegrini does an excellent job in demonstrating through a simple presentation that the courts when presented with a case or controversy involving the question of what is an Article II natural born citizen are not only constitutionally obligated to decide the meaning of the clause, but also well-equipped to do so. It is a breath of fresh air to be vindicated in my position on this issue.

Where Judge Pellegrini errs is in placing his reliance for his definition of a natural born citizen upon Charles Gordon, Jack Maskell, Paul Clement, and Neal Katyal rather than on primary historical and legal sources. As I have demonstrated in by briefs to the courts and in my many articles on this blog, the arguments of these commentators are highly flawed and cannot serve as any reasonable basis for defining a natural born citizen.Also, note how Judge Pellegrini quotes extensively from these commentators (who support his conclusion), but only mentions Professor Mary McManamon (who does not support his conclusion) briefly and states without evidence that hers "is a minority view among legal scholars."


Kinda like Apuzzo's bloviations. :blink:


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 36969
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: FEMA Camp 17

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:22 pm

All I want to know is whether Apuzzo won again.


The Sternsig rule: Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to screw things up; Larry Klayman will continue to call attention to a court finding that "on more than one occasion [he] act[ed] in a grossly inappropriate manner with [his] children."

User avatar
realist
Posts: 32989
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby realist » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:41 pm

bob wrote:enior Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Dan Pellegrini, gets it right in Elliott v. Cruz, No. 77 M.D. 2016, that it is not an impermissible political question for a court to analyze and determine what an Article II natural born citizen is. I have so maintained for almost 8 years. Note that the New Jersey Federal District Court in Kerchner v. Obama and some other federal and state courts have ruled that it was a political question. Judge Pellegrini does an excellent job in demonstrating through a simple presentation that the courts when presented with a case or controversy involving the question of what is an Article II natural born citizen are not only constitutionally obligated to decide the meaning of the clause, but also well-equipped to do so. It is a breath of fresh air to be vindicated in my position on this issue.


How, exactly is Appuzo vindicated? Was it not he, the great legal scholar Apuzzo who, when someone would cite to Ankeny, and other "lower court" opinions said that they didn't count? That all that counts is SCOTUS? Huh? Huh? :confused:

So now I suppose that's not longer his position. :think:


Well, it doesn't really count. Some state court judge doesn't get to decide eligibility for anyone, including Cruz, but just sayin'.


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 4967
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby magdalen77 » Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:40 pm

realist wrote:
bob wrote:The court's ruling.

Interesting: Rules the political-question doctrine does not apply; also surveys the literature (including a CRS report, and the law review articles often discussed here).


And takes himself way too seriously. :P


That's Pellegrini for ya. He's kind of a self important douche bag.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 18452
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby bob » Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:31 pm

Apuzzo wrote:Note that the New Jersey Federal District Court in Kerchner v. Obama and some other federal and state courts have ruled that it was a political question. Judge Pellegrini does an excellent job in demonstrating through a simple presentation that the courts when presented with a case or controversy involving the question of what is an Article II natural born citizen are not only constitutionally obligated to decide the meaning of the clause, but also well-equipped to do so. It is a breath of fresh air to be vindicated in my position on this issue.

I was just thinking: the political-question doctrine is essentially about jurisdiction. Specifically, Article III. Which does not restrict the jurisdiction of state courts. :think:


Imagex3 Imagex2 Image Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 4934
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby Notorial Dissent » Sat Mar 12, 2016 11:57 pm

bob, I think you may be right here, as the political question issue seems to be more a Fed issue than state one, but then being a state court their jurisdiction can only go so far in to what would then be a Federal issue if I understand it right.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 18452
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby bob » Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:20 pm

Apuzzo!:
Judge Pellegrini bought into the Obot misinformation campaign which promotes that Minor v. Happersett (1875) left open the question of what is a natural born citizen. He quotes Minor saying that "[r]esort must be had elsewhere," meaning that we "must" look to the common law for the definition of a natural born citizen, but he says that it was only a "suggestion" of the Court. He then writes "Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1874) (suggesting this approach to interpretation but ultimately not reaching the issue)." So, according to Judge Pellegrini, not only did Minor only make a suggestion that we look to the common law for the definition of a natural born citizen (but the Court said that resort "must" be had elsewhere), but the Court also did not reach the question of what is a natural born citizen under that common law (when in fact it did).

[Apuzzo :yankyank: snipped.]

This is easy stuff, but judges like Judge Pellegrini continue to get it wrong.


Imagex3 Imagex2 Image Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 32989
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby realist » Sun Mar 13, 2016 4:13 pm

It is just mind-boggling that these morons continue to insist that Minor holds the definition of natural born citizen.

:brickwallsmall:

It's the same with never understanding standing.

:smoking:


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 4934
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby Notorial Dissent » Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:27 pm

It's the only USSC opinion that comes even close to saying that they want it to say, even though it doesn't. They don't like WKA because it rejects their fantasy outright and plainly. So they will stick with a misreading and misinterpretation of Minor. So they will continue to go there.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 18452
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby bob » Mon Mar 14, 2016 4:33 pm

Apuzzo!:
There is no modern-day policy reason that can justify Judge Pellegrini's expanded meaning of an Article II natural born citizen. Surely, a personal desire that Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio be eligible for the Office of President is not such a policy reason.

Judge Pellegrini's holding is also in direct violation of binding precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett (1875). The Court there said that at common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution, children who were born in a country to parents who were its citizens were not only “citizens” like their parents, but “natives, or natural-born citizens,” and that all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners.” The U.S. Supreme Court expressly informed that that was the Framers' constitutional definition of a natural born citizen and lower courts are not free to disregard that U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Judge Pellegrini’s definition of a natural born citizen which includes any person who is a United States citizen “from birth” has no constitutional validity and is to be rejected.

And:
brygenon wrote:Your theory loses yet again in Court, but still wins in your head. Yes, I think we're all used to that.
Apuzzo wrote:You said the same with respect to standing and political question, but yet Judge Pellegrini comes out on my side. My position on the meaning of a natural born citizen does not lose until you can show that you have a better position than mine.

Apuzzo is really, really pleased that a court said a challenger had standing, as if that vindicates his frivolous filing in Kerchner. Yet Apuzzo can't grasp this lawsuit didn't involve an Article III court. :brickwallsmall:


Imagex3 Imagex2 Image Imagex2

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 4967
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby magdalen77 » Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:32 pm

And Pellegrini is no legal scholar. He's a blowhard.



User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 4934
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby Notorial Dissent » Mon Mar 14, 2016 8:23 pm

bob wrote:Apuzzo is really, really pleased that a court said a challenger had standing, as if that vindicates his frivolous filing in Kerchner. Yet Apuzzo can't grasp this lawsuit didn't involve an Article III court. :brickwallsmall:

Puzzi finally got what he wanted, but it wasn't what he wanted. The other half is that regardless of what the state judge ruled, it ISN'T precedential as far as the Federal circuits are concerned, so it really isn't a win either.


The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 18452
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [heard Mar. 10]

Postby bob » Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:36 pm

Legal Intelligencer: Appeal of Cruz's Ballot Eligibility Fast-Tracked:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has set a quick timetable in the appeal of a ruling allowing Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to remain on the state's presidential primary ballot.

The court said Monday that challenger Carmon Elliott had until 4 p.m. Tuesday to submit his brief in Elliott v. Cruz. Presidential hopeful Cruz then has until 4 p.m. Wednesday to file his response. There was no indication of whether or when oral arguments would be scheduled in the case. Pennsylvania's primary is scheduled for April 26. The court did say in its order that the parties could submit the same briefs they submitted to the Commonwealth Court.

Elliott, who represented himself before the lower court, is now being represented by Norristown attorney David J. Farrell, who had initially submitted his own challenge to Cruz's ballott eligibility but withdrew it in advance of the Commonwealth Court hearing.


Imagex3 Imagex2 Image Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 36969
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: FEMA Camp 17

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [SCoPA briefing due 3/23]

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:10 pm

Farrell has been provided these mined quotes to add:

"Citizenship under section §1409(a) is retroactive to the date of birth, but it is a naturalization under section §1421(d) nevertheless." Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 72 (2001). (Section 1409(a) is the jus sangunis statute.)

"Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency." Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913).


The Sternsig rule: Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to screw things up; Larry Klayman will continue to call attention to a court finding that "on more than one occasion [he] act[ed] in a grossly inappropriate manner with [his] children."

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 36969
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: FEMA Camp 17

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [SCoPA briefing due 3/23]

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:58 am

I am sending the brief to bob since it's too big to attach. I don't know what happened to Farrell. He's on the signature page but nowhere else on the brief. You'll see when bob attaches it.


The Sternsig rule: Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to screw things up; Larry Klayman will continue to call attention to a court finding that "on more than one occasion [he] act[ed] in a grossly inappropriate manner with [his] children."

User avatar
bob
Posts: 18452
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [SCoPA briefing due 3/23]

Postby bob » Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:54 pm

Perfesser Elhauge, fresh off his victory in New York, files an amicus brief in SCoPA.

H/t: Doc C.!


Imagex3 Imagex2 Image Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 36969
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: FEMA Camp 17

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [SCoPA briefing due 3/23]

Postby Sterngard Friegen » Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:02 pm

To be fair the New York loss was based on procedural issues.


The Sternsig rule: Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to screw things up; Larry Klayman will continue to call attention to a court finding that "on more than one occasion [he] act[ed] in a grossly inappropriate manner with [his] children."

User avatar
bob
Posts: 18452
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Elliott v. Cruz [Pa. challenge] [SCoPA briefing due 3/23]

Postby bob » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:16 am

I keep thinking about this case and these three cases from 2012, in which veeery similar challenges were dismissed because the court lacked jurisdiction to determine Obama's natural-born citizenship. (See, e.g., Schneller's dismissal.)

Mewonders if SCoPA will vacate the trial court's denial of Elliot's objection, and order the trial court to instead dismiss it.

And, query: Where's Kerchner and Schneller now? (That's partially rhetorical because I know where Kerchner is: listening to himself :yankyank: .) (Berg never bought into the two-citizen-parent "rule," so I can understand him not bothering with Cruz. Plus, he has a cab Lyft to drive.)


Imagex3 Imagex2 Image Imagex2


Return to “State Ballot Challenges”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests