How Trump put Cruz in eligibility check

by Dr. Ed Berry

Trump has put Cruz in eligibility check. Now Cruz must get out of check! (Bush should have done this to Rubio but he won’t.)

If Cruz can’t get out of check, it will be checkmate. Trump will use the checkmate to remove Ted Cruz from the competition for the Republican nomination.

If Cruz does get out of check, he may resolve the “natural born citizen” issue forever.

Donald Trump said on January 5 that Ted Cruz’s Canadian birthplace was a “very precarious” issue that could make Cruz vulnerable if he won the Republican presidential nomination:

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem. It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.”

On January 7, Trump tweeted,

Ted–free legal advice on how to pre-empt the Dems on citizen issue. Go to court now & seek Declaratory Judgment–you will win!

Fox News reported on January 8, “Trump Ignites Birther Bandwagon Against Cruz.”

On January 13, Trump tweeted,

Sadly, there is no way that Ted Cruz can continue running in the Republican Primary unless he can erase doubt on eligibility. Dems will sue!

To understand what Trump did, we must define the problem.

Many argue about whether Cruz and Rubio are “natural born citizens.” They think they can resolve this issue with endless debate on the Internet. They can’t. Only a court of law can decide on the eligibility issue. But a court cannot resolve the “natural born citizen” issue in time to change the Republican nomination for president.

Until a court resolves the issue, the legal default is Cruz and Rubio are eligible until proven ineligible.

Meanwhile, we have an election in process.

Thanks to Devvy, we know of two filed lawsuits that challenge Cruz’s eligibility. But the courts cannot decide on this issue before the election of the next president.

Will Trump file an eligibility lawsuit against Cruz? Of course not. A lawsuit would not help Trump win votes. The solution is not in the nitty-gritty details of legal arguments. The solution is in the big picture.

The goal is to change voters’ minds before they vote for Cruz, not after. And Iowa votes on February 1.

There is only one way to change voters’ minds and Donald Trump has nailed it. Put the burden of proof on Cruz.

Trump does not claim Cruz is ineligible. He doesn’t need to. Trump says Cruz “may” be ineligible. Trump says the eligibility issue is “unsettled.”

Trump put Cruz in check when he suggested Cruz get a Declaratory Judgment to prove he is a natural born citizen. By this action, Trump changed the burden of proof.

In any eligibility lawsuit against Cruz, the prosecution has the burden of proof. This burden of proof makes it difficult to “prevail” in court to show Cruz is ineligible. That is what most ineligibility claims on the Internet miss. They miss the burden of proof the prosecution side would face in a court of law on this very complicated legal issue.

On the other hand, Trump’s challenge to Cruz to get a Declaratory Judgment puts the burden of proof on Cruz.

Trump put Cruz in “check” and now Cruz must get out of check.

The only way Cruz can get out of check is to get a Declaratory Judgment that shows he is eligible. If Cruz does not get a Declaratory Judgment, Trump will remind voters they should not vote for Cruz.

Trump’s check also tells Cruz that Trump will not consider Cruz for vice president unless Cruz gets a Declaratory Judgment.

The following is an addition to the above.

Will Trump’s eligibility check on Cruz help Trump beat Cruz in Iowa? Yes.

Dick Morris said voters will decide the Republican nominee no later than March 15 and likely before March 1. Morris said the nominee will be either Trump, Cruz, or Rubio with a remote chance another moderate, Christie or Bush, might take Rubio’s place.

Here are more reasons voters should prefer Trump over Cruz. They are not issues that Trump should raise in his campaign. But they are issues we can talk about for him.

First, Cruz can’t beat the moderate candidate for the nomination. I showed in “Why a vote for Carson is a vote for Rubio,” that Cruz cannot beat Rubio or the dominant moderate candidate because

“The GOP’s distribution of presidential delegates gives more weight to voters in the blue states than to voters in the red states.”

Cruz would need to double Rubio’s polling percent to have a chance to collect more delegates than Rubio. This won’t happen.

Rubio will gain votes when Bush, Christie, Kasich, Fiorina, and Pataki fail. Cruz will get Huckabee’s and Paul’s votes. Many Carson votes will go to Trump. Rubio and Cruz will stay about even and Rubio will beat Cruz in delegates.

Therefore, a vote for Cruz is a vote for Rubio.

Second, Cruz has openly associated with Oath Keepers. Oath Keepers leaders, Stewart Rhodes and Chuck Baldwin, are phony conservatives. One could argue Oath Keepers is a machine to elect Democrats.

CruzOathKeepers500Rhodes and Baldwin campaigned against Romney for President. Rhodes asininely called Romney an “Oath Breaker.” Rhodes and Baldwin should take responsibility for the 200 Montana jobs Obama eliminated with his “war on coal.”

Rhodes and Baldwin helped elect US Senator Tester, Governor Bullock, and other Democrats in Montana. Baldwin promoted the Democrat who ran against Ryan Zinke for Congress.

New York State declared Oath Keepers to be “Far Right Extremists.” Oath Keepers 2015 wacko movie Midnight Ride claims Oath Keepers militia will save America’s economy.

If voters know Cruz associates with Oath Keepers, they will not vote for Cruz.

Third, Kelleigh Nelson and Paul Walter provide many good reasons to vote for Trump rather than Cruz or Rubio.

Finally, Trump will beat Bernie or Hillary. Cruz can’t. He’s too far right. Ignore the polls that ask voters this question. Most voters are in dreamland and have little perspective on the reality of who can best beat Bernie or Hillary.

After Trump wins the Republican nomination, Trump will dominate Bernie or Hillary. Donald Trump is the 2016 version of Ronald Reagan.

A recent NBC online poll has Trump 35, Cruz 18, and Rubio 13 percent. This NBC poll does not count offline voters and blue-collar workers and Democrats who back Trump for president. These voters don’t play on the Internet. So this NBC online poll understates Trump’s potential votes.

The same NBC poll shows Trump gets 33 percent of evangelical votes, Cruz 20, Carson 12, and Rubio 10. Trump dominates evangelical votes. Don’t worry if some evangelicals leave the Republican Party. They will still vote for Trump.

Iowa has almost twice the percentage of evangelical voters as other states. If Trump gets 33 percent of the evangelical votes in Iowa, Trump will win and the game will be over. Trump will sweep the other primary elections. Trump also can win New York.

Other nationwide polls are more realistic. Trump leads Cruz and Rubio by about 40 to 13 and 13 percent.

I predict Trump will win the Republican nomination and go on to win the presidency by a landslide.

11 thoughts on “How Trump put Cruz in eligibility check”

  1. Hi Dr. Ed, it's me again. In your reply to my earlier comment (Oath Keepers/Cruz) you said "The lawsuits against Obama do not set a precedent for determining the eligibility of Cruz or Rubio because they did not define NBC. It’s the lack of a legal ruling on that definition that causes the debate." I know a lot of the Obama suits were thrown out for "lack of standing" (sic). However, I never conceived that the whole judicial system sidestepped the actual question. I was under the firm understanding that there is some precedents under which all the allegations about Obama's eligibility prove to be without merit. THIS IS NOT SO??

  2. Dear Duane, Unfortunately, no lawsuit against Obama ever go far enough to define NBC. Of course, Congress could define NBC but they are not going to. If Cruz actually gets a Declarative Judgment, that should help define NBC. Now the question is whether Cruz will do that.

    1. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

      The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

  3. Before obama election , I think no one ever thought about a candadate not being a citizen of the Country. But because obama was a democrat ,the courts left it alone. Then on the same note, most Americans could care less about the Constitution, the same for congress, executive branch and the supreme court. If I had it my way , they would all be in jail, for violating there Oath to the Constitution. Domestic Enemies are worst then foreign enemies.

  4. Duane,

    Here is a link to a list of cases involving challenges to Obama's qualifications:

    A search for the phrase "Finding Obama is NBC" found 21 hits.

    Dr. Berry,

    In criminal cases, the party bringing the action is usually called the "prosecution". In civil cases, such as actions brought to obtain a declaratory judgement, the party bringing the action is called the "plaintiff".

  5. I've done a lot of reading on this issue in regards to Obama, and have come to the following conclusion:

    The Framers relied heavily on Vattel's "The Law of Nations", for legal theories and terminology, and the reason why the term "Natural Born Citizen" is not defined in The Constitution, is simply because, at the time, everyone knew what the term meant. In the simplest of terms, it meant someone born here to citizen parents. But the real key to it is the nationality of the child's father.

    Women didn't enjoy the same legal status as men in the 18th century, & this is shown by the fact that they couldn't even vote. But it goes much deeper than that, and we can see this in several key areas. One is the fact that a child bears the Father's last name, never the Mother's. In fact it goes all the way back to Biblical times when a child was referred to as (for example) William, son of Joseph.

    In terms of our current Constitutional dilemma, this means that both Cruz and Rubio are ineligible, as both of their father's became American citizens AFTER they were born.

    The strangest part of this issue to me, is that Obama, might in fact have been a Natural Born Citizen at birth, if, as I suspect, his real biological father was Frank Marshall Davis, and not Obama. Just look at the resemblance and decide for yourself.

    Of course having Davis on your resume as your father, isn't the best lineage for a potential political aspirant, since Davis was an admitted communist, a pornographer, and a pedophile. But even if Davis was his father, Obama gave up his citizenship when he became a citizen of Indonesia, so the point is moot.

    In the run-up to the 2008 election, Hillary was one of the sponsors of a challenge to McCain's eligibility on the same grounds, as he was born at the US Naval Hospital in the Panama Canal zone. There's was never any question over McCain's status however, as his parents were both US citizens, and because the US Naval Base in Panama was considered US sovereign territory. The challenge however was merely misdirection on the part of the Progressives, designed to shield Obama from similar attacks. I suspect that we're going to see a lot more of that kind of dirty politics in the coming weeks.

    Unless Trump gets in and does everything we're hoping he might be able to do, I'm afraid that we're in for rough seas over the next few decades…


  6. Dr. Robert C. Laity

    This issue is not "complicated". The Constitution requires a President to be a "Natural Born Citizen" the definition of which is established,affirmed and which has been reaffirmed 6 times by SCOTUS. An NBC is one born IN the US to Parents who are BOTH Americans themselves- Minor v Happersett, USSCt. (1875) and five other cases. Obama usurped the Presidency and Chester Arthur before him. Now comes Cruz,Rubio,Jindal and Sanders who all fail to meet the legally decided standard criteria and definition of "Natural Born Citizen". The issue is settled law. There is NO "President" Obama:

  7. Dear Dr. Laity, Indeed you may have a "simple" argument for your case.

    However, I will guarantee you that if this issue ever reaches a court of law that will consider it fairly, the case will not be simple. It will be a long, complicated case. The arguments on both sides will be extensive. No one can predict the outcome.

  8. Pingback: Republican debate will determine who wins Iowa

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.