9 Responses to “UT eligibility case against Cruz was thrown out due to lack of standing. Contact all GOP presidential candidates, especially John Dummett and Andy Martin and ask them to file an eligibility case against Cruz”

1. Kevin J Lankford
   March 20th, 2016 @ 8:18 am

   One would think that any and all courts,judges, and government officials, whether federal or state, would be obligated to prosecute any and all crimes, regardless of the source from which that crime is brought to their attention.

   I see nothing in our Constitution that provides for such discretion over truth and justice.I think,just the opposite.

2. Rich
   March 20th, 2016 @ 9:06 am

   I learned in about the fifth grade that the ultimate authority for enforcing the law is vested in we the people. Words mean things and I learned that in kindergarten. The last resort is what the 2nd amendment is all about. For a citizen not to have standing amounts to abolition of our Constitution. This all started with the tax and spend revolution. We amended The Constitution out of existence with taxes. We did it in violation of the basic document since they didn’t first abolish the article that states: Congress shall pass no Bill of Attainder. I was told by those with law degrees that that means you cannot take a citizen’s money or property without due process.That is an individual civil right that cannot be taken away by by law bythe rest of the people. But then so are all the rest of our individual rights taken away by the liberals in order to give special rights to the various voter blocs.

3. Jerry G
   March 20th, 2016 @ 11:33 am

   Corrupt judges will pull anything out of their bag of tricks to evade their responsibility to hear the cases they don’t want to hear. I’d love to see Trump enter an eligibility suit. What would a judge do to wriggle out of that?

4. Rhonelle
   March 20th, 2016 @ 1:46 pm

   But why DOESN’T Trump file an eligibility suit? He’s got great lawyers and he has the media’s attention. What am I missing?

5. Veritas
   March 20th, 2016 @ 3:14 pm

   Drudge reporting that a Soros pal is in charge of Utah online voting machines …the plot thickens….

6. HB
   March 21st, 2016 @ 5:47 am

   I read the 1898 decision US vs Wong Kim Ark. It states that Congress has the sole standing on immigration questions.

7. Veritas
   March 21st, 2016 @ 9:53 am

   Number 6: absolutely correct! And says parents must be here legally doing business. In other news Drudge reminds us all that Cruz and Beck are being rather duplicitous:FLASHBACK: Cruz joined Beck in passing out teddy bears to illegals surging across border…

8. Kevin J Lankford
   March 21st, 2016 @ 1:02 pm

   @ #6&7

   Still the decision in wong kim ark was erroneous.
   Especially then, the judges should have been keenly aware of the ramifications of the 14th amendment. The parents of wong kim ark were never “under the jurisdiction of the United States” as defined by the 14th amendment, meaning their citizenship was never under the jurisdiction of the United States,which is what is required (at least one of them), along with birth in the U.S. for wong kim ark to have been a citizen. They never renounced their chinese citizenship or became naturalized U.S.citizens.It is also my understanding that china considered it a crime for chinese citizens to renounce their citizenship on penalty of death.

   I suppose we could say wong kim ark was the progenitor of the grand “anchor baby” lie. Our courts have a long history of ignorance of our Constitution, or at least arbitrary.

9. HB
   March 22nd, 2016 @ 12:11 am

   Kevin, I never said it was right. Congress should get off their collective butts and do their job. They know Cruz is a Canadian citizen, and they don’t care.

Leave a Reply