# Who can sue Ted Cruz **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 12, 2016, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968 "2016-01-12T21:37:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![sbunny8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@sbunny8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sbunny8)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/81 "2016-01-14T20:04:41Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > It’s only “let the voters decide” if it’s not clear cut. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Is he a natural born citizen? Let the voters decide if he’s a natural born citizen. Is he 35? We don’t have to let the voters decide, since his age is unambiguous. Has he resided in the United States for 14 years? We don’t have to let the voters decide, since his residency is unambiguous. The only reason you have so many Republicans saying they have no opinion on Ted Cruz’s status is because they can’t stand him, and they think it’s funny. I disagree that residency is clear-cut. It’s a whole other can of worms. You might have a candidate who moved to the USA in 2002 but someone wants to argue that he hasn’t lived here the whole 14 years because he likes to visit his grandmother in Canada for six weeks every summer. Or what if someone became a US citizen, got a driver’s license in South Dakota using a rented PO Box for a home address but actually spent all their time living in an RV, traveling all across Canada in the summer and Mexico in the winter. Would that count as being a US resident? FWIW, I read a short story (fiction) years ago about a man running for public office who was accused of not being a resident of the district. His opponent got the story published in the local newspaper. It was a bogus charge, but made just enough of a difference that people hesitated before voting for him. So much for “letting the voters decide”. _sigh_ ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/82 "2016-01-14T20:13:16Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Here’s the problem with “Let the Voters decide” that means the whole section of Qualifications for President (a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.) is meaningless. A 18 yo who is not even a US Citizen can then still run and be elected. Not meaningless, just not enforceable in a court. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/83 "2016-01-14T21:26:19Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > He **SAYS** he didn’t even know he was Canadian until 2014. That’s an utterly unprovable statement, and one that quite frankly I have a hard time believing (even I know that Canada had birthright citizenship, same as the U.S., and I’ve never been to the Great White North, or Harvard Law). Here’s the thread I was thinking of, where one poster, **jtur88** , argues that his children had to chose to maintain either Canadian or American citizenship. Another poster, **Dr Drake** , who is a dual citizen, mentions that he had also been told that was the case. The idea that someone has to opt to maintain citizenship definitely seems to be floating around out there. If Cruz always assumed he was an American, because he didn’t take any steps to claim Canadian citizenship, it doesn’t strike me as unusual. [Ted Cruz abandons his Canadian political ambitions](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=730957&highlight=canadian) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/84 "2016-01-14T21:29:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Not meaningless, just not enforceable in a court. So, how are they enforced? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/85 "2016-01-14T21:36:00Z")
… by the voters. As I said, it’s a variation of the political question doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/86 "2016-01-14T21:46:21Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > … by the voters. As I said, it’s a variation of the political question doctrine. So why have the rules at all? The people can elect anyone, no matter the qualifications then. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/87 "2016-01-14T22:04:02Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Here’s the thread I was thinking of, where one poster, **jtur88** , argues that his children had to chose to maintain either Canadian or American citizenship. Another poster, **Dr Drake** , who is a dual citizen, mentions that he had also been told that was the case. > > The idea that someone has to opt to maintain citizenship definitely seems to be floating around out there. If Cruz always assumed he was an American, because he didn’t take any steps to claim Canadian citizenship, it doesn’t strike me as unusual. > > [Ted Cruz abandons his Canadian political ambitions](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=730957&highlight=canadian) That’s a different argument, though. jtur88 thought that his children were citizens of both Canada and the U.S. in childhood, and at the age of 24 they had to decide which one to _ **maintain** _. Cruz’s argument was not that he had it and lost it at 18 or 21 or 24 or whatever, but that that he never knew he was ever a citizen of Canada, despite knowing he was born in Alberta. "“Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. “To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship.”–[Dallas Morning News, 18 Aug 2013.](http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130818-ted-cruz-born-a-citizen-of-canada-under-the-countrys-immigration-rules.ece) The guy studied law at Harvard, and birthright citizenship isn’t exactly some obscure and never-mentioned topic on the political scene these past few years. Cruz knew his birth certificate said Edmonton, Alberta–he never wondered about the implications of that? he never made any effort to investigate those implications? ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/88 "2016-01-14T22:08:59Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So why have the rules at all? The people can elect anyone, no matter the qualifications then. [Appeals court upholds ballot ban on 27-year-old presidential hopeful](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/appeals-court-upholds-ballot-ban-on-27-year-old-presidential-hopeful-peta-lindsay-california-vote-2012-election/) The argument that anybody can run, and nobody can stop them from running, does not appear to be well-supported in the case law. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/89 "2016-01-14T22:17:51Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So why have the rules at all? The people can elect anyone, no matter the qualifications then. They could, sure. And in countries that don’t have judicial review (and it’s possible that we were intended to be such a country, for the record), the legislature can pass whatever they like, no matter what the constitution says; they are deemed to be the final arbiters of constitutionality. In fact, we _don’t_ have judicial review available for a number of legislative acts, but nobody says we just just drop the underlying constitutional provisions. > [@slash2k](#): > > [Appeals court upholds ballot ban on 27-year-old presidential hopeful](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/appeals-court-upholds-ballot-ban-on-27-year-old-presidential-hopeful-peta-lindsay-california-vote-2012-election/) > > The argument that anybody can run, and nobody can stop them from running, does not appear to be well-supported in the case law. The argument is not that anybody can run, and nobody can stop them from running. The argument is that courts will not remove someone from the ballot. That case was a little different since the court was being asked to require California to put someone _on_ its ballot. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/90 "2016-01-14T22:24:50Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > [Appeals court upholds ballot ban on 27-year-old presidential hopeful](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/appeals-court-upholds-ballot-ban-on-27-year-old-presidential-hopeful-peta-lindsay-california-vote-2012-election/) > > The argument that anybody can run, and nobody can stop them from running, does not appear to be well-supported in the case law. Right, that what I thought. They can stop you from being on the ballot in the first place. So, it\* isn’t\* up entirely to the voters. What I dont think has been answered is what happens after the election has been held, and a candidate was found unqualified. Here’s a nice article. [http://www.electionlawissues.org/Resources/~/media/Microsites/Files/election/ChapterTwo%20-%20Proofed2.pdf](http://www.electionlawissues.org/Resources/~/media/Microsites/Files/election/ChapterTwo%20-%20Proofed2.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/91 "2016-01-14T22:39:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > They could, sure. > > And in countries that don’t have judicial review (and it’s possible that we were intended to be such a country, for the record), the legislature can pass whatever they like, no matter what the constitution says; they are deemed to be the final arbiters of constitutionality. > > In fact, we _don’t_ have judicial review available for a number of legislative acts, but nobody says we just just drop the underlying constitutional provisions. > > The argument is not that anybody can run, and nobody can stop them from running. The argument is that courts will not remove someone from the ballot. That case was a little different since the court was being asked to require California to put someone _on_ its ballot. That article I quote disagrees. It specifically sez you can sue to remove someone from the ballot, prior to the election. A. COMPLIANCE-BASED CHALLENGES Compliance-based candidate ballot access challenges usually occur in one of two forms. First, a prospective candidate could sue on her own behalf, alleging she was denied ballot access even though she satisfied all ballot access requirements, and asking the court to order election officials to place her name on the ballot. Second, a voter, political party, or opposing candidate87 could sue, alleging an ineligible candidate was granted ballot access, and asking the court to order election officials to remove the allegedly unqualified candidate’s name from the ballot or asking the court to enjoin election officials from counting ballots cast for the candidate if his name cannot be removed. Under either circumstance, the plaintiff may need to pursue administrative remedies with the local board of elections, or its equivalent, before filing a lawsuit. Challengers may also need to file within a statute of limitations period or else lose the opportunity to challenge the decision. 84 Or who decide to become candidates after petition or other deadlines have passed. 85 See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992). 86 Id. at 436 (concluding the three separate methods to obtain ballot access in Hawaii resulted in “easy access”). 87 State statutes may define who is an appropriate party to bring this type of lawsuit. Chapter 2 State Regulation of Candidacies and Candidate Ballot Access 2 - 16 Courts prefer to hear and resolve candidate qualification challenges before the election. Settling these disputes early limits the instability that occurs when a winning candidate’s qualifications for office are challenged post-election. The preference for pre-election resolution is so strong that some courts apply laches88 to dismiss post-election candidate qualification challenges filed by opposing candidates who wait for the election’s outcome and sue only if their opponent wins. The remedy pool for most compliance-related candidate ballot challenges is limited, even for pre-election challenges. Assuming laches does not apply,\* all procedural requirements have been satisfied, and the challenger wins, courts will generally issue a writ of mandamus to:\* · order election officials to add the qualified candidate’s name to the ballot,101 or _· order election officials to remove or omit the unqualified candidate’s name from the ballot.102 If insufficient time exists to remove an ineligible candidate’s name from the ballot, the court might instead declare the candidate ineligible to take office or advance to the next election stage should the candidate win the forthcoming election.103 On occasion, courts have reserved the right to make a final determination on a candidate’s eligibility until after the upcoming election_ has occurred. 104 When used sparingly, this practice avoids a pressured and hasty decision, and avoids the expense of rerunning the election.105 N.W.2d 114, 117 (Minn. 2002) (per curiam) (holding that moving outside the district one wishes to represent leads to candidate ineligibility regardless of the timing of the eligibility challenge); see also White v. Manchin, 318 S.E.2d 470,479 (W.Va. 1984) (holding that delay of seven weeks in bringing challenge was insufficient to uphold a laches claim where any prejudice to the candidate was dwarfed by prejudice to the public if the candidate won the primary and was later determined to be ineligible). 101 Note that in a pre-decision order, Justice Stewart ordered Ohio to print a second set of ballots that included the one of the plaintiff’s names (the other plaintiff applied too late for this remedy) for use if the plaintiff won ballot access because otherwise the Court’s decision might come too late to allow for a meaningful remedy. See Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 34-35 (1968). 102 Note that making changes to the ballot takes time, whether the ballot is paper or electronic. In addition, absentee ballots are frequently mailed one month or more before Election Day and should reflect the ballot in use on election day. In practice, absentee ballot-related deadlines operate as unofficial deadlines for many other decisions that impact elections. 103 See Melendez v. O’Connor, 654 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. 2002) (per curiam) (holding that a candidate who was declared ineligible because he did not meet statutory residency requirements would remain on the primary ballot because of time constraints, but his name could not be placed on the general election ballot if he won the primary); see also Manchin, 318 S.E.2d 470 (ordering certification of candidacy voided and no votes counted for the challenged candidate if his name could not be removed from the ballot where the candidate failed to meet durational residency requirements). 104 See Noble v. Meagher, 686 S.W.2d 458 (Kent. 1985) (Stephens, C.J., dissenting). See also Shelby County Election Commission v. Turner, 755 S.W.2d 774 (Tenn. 1988) for an example of how a court used stays and other procedural devices to keep certain options available to it as the case progressed. 105 Of course, if the court can determine the candidate’s eligibility before the election, that outcome is preferred because it avoids rerunning the election. However, when the court cannot make an eligibility determination before the election (generally postponing the election is not feasible), then allowing the candidacy to continue while reserving the right to determine the candidate’s eligibility after the election has a three-in-four chance of not requiring a new election. This occurs because the possible election outcomes are as demonstrated in the following table: CANDIDATE IS INELIGIBLE CANDIDATE IS ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE WINS Results invalid; Rerun election Results stand CANDIDATE LOSES Results stand Results stand One potential downfall to allowing the election to proceed without determining if a participant is eligible until after the election is that it creates the possibility that the electorate will not believe the court’s postelection eligibility determination was not influenced by the election’s outcome. In addition, if more than…" Italics mine. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/92 "2016-01-14T23:05:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The argument is not that anybody can run, and nobody can stop them from running. The argument is that courts will not remove someone from the ballot. That case was a little different since the court was being asked to require California to put someone _on_ its ballot. In my state, there IS a procedure to remove someone from the ballot, outlined in [Kansas Statute 25-308](http://kslegislature.org/li/b2015_16/statute/025_000_0000_chapter/025_003_0000_article/025_003_0008_section/025_003_0008_k/). In Kansas, Random Joe Blow may file a formal objection to Potentially-Invalid Candidate, and have an opportunity to present evidence and argument to an administrative tribunal (the State Objections Board). If the Board accepts the objection, Potentially-Invalid Candidate is off the ballot, and yes, this applies to national as well as state-level offices. In 2012, a gentleman filed an objection to Obama, arguing that he was not a natural-born citizen. The Board heard his objection and evidence, and opted to continue the hearing to a later date and in the meantime contact the State of Hawai’i for more information about Obama’s birth certificate. Before they reconvened, the gentleman withdrew his objection, so when the Board met again they noted the withdrawal, noted the evidence received from Hawai’i, and promptly adjourned. (A subsequent attempt by Orly Taitz, not affiliated with or representing the original objector, to appeal to state district court was dismissed because the objection was withdrawn and anyway she couldn’t point to anything the Board did wrong, besides disagree with her opinion.) This little imbroglio made the national news at the time because for a few days it appeared to be a real possibility that Obama would not be listed on Kansas ballots. Other state’s laws may differ. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/93 "2016-01-14T23:06:52Z")
The cited decisions all pertain to candidates for state office or for lower federal offices with residency and other qualifications. ETA: that was addressed to **Dr. Deth**. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/94 "2016-01-14T23:13:47Z")
Yes, but there’s no national elections office for the Presidency. It would be up to each individual state to keep unqualified candidates for President off the ballot. And just because Oklahoma’s election board kept Ted Cruz off the ballot in Oklahoma that wouldn’t create any obligation on the part of the Arkansas election board to keep Ted Cruz off the ballot. Each state holds a separate election for president, and then sends electors to the electoral college. So you wouldn’t have any standing outside your own state to challenge anyone’s eligibility to appear on the ballot, and even in your own state you’d have to consult your particular state law about if or how this could be done. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/95 "2016-01-14T23:19:28Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Each state holds a separate election for president, and then sends electors to the electoral college. So you wouldn’t have any standing outside your own state to challenge anyone’s eligibility to appear on the ballot, and even in your own state you’d have to consult your particular state law about if or how this could be done. Again, depends on state law. The Kansas Secretary of State has declared he’d consider objections from anyone, anywhere, not just Kansas residents. Other states may indeed have different rules/procedures, or no procedure. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/96 "2016-01-15T00:00:23Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > The guy studied law at Harvard, and birthright citizenship isn’t exactly some obscure and never-mentioned topic on the political scene these past few years. Cruz knew his birth certificate said Edmonton, Alberta–he never wondered about the implications of that? he never made any effort to investigate those implications? Why should he have wondered about it? Studying US law at Harvard doesn’t really give one a lot of information regarding Canadian law. Also, as far as I know, it’s never been reported that the man–or his parents–ever applied for a Canadian passport for him. Another thing to consider is that there are plenty of people around who think that they have dual citizenship with whatever country when, in fact, they do not. There are even many people who still believer that US military bases overseas are American soil. Dual citizenship is not obscure; however, it is a bit complex. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/97 "2016-01-15T00:36:17Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Why should he have wondered about it? Studying US law at Harvard doesn’t really give one a lot of information regarding Canadian law. Also, as far as I know, it’s never been reported that the man–or his parents–ever applied for a Canadian passport for him. Another thing to consider is that there are plenty of people around who think that they have dual citizenship with whatever country when, in fact, they do not. There are even many people who still believer that US military bases overseas are American soil. > > Dual citizenship is not obscure; however, it is a bit complex. Birthright citizenship certainly ought to have been mentioned at Harvard, and it’s been discussed reasonably widely in U.S. political circles in recent years, especially in regard to illegal immigrants. I would have expected Cruz to know (1) everyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen, per the 14th Amendment (with very limited exceptions spelled out therein), a notion called jus soli; (2) some other countries also follow jus soli, giving citizenship to everyone born on their soil; and (3) Cruz himself was born on another country’s soil. Given those three items, I would have expected Cruz at minimum to wonder about his citizenship, yes… The fact that he allegedly did not betrays a startling lack of curiosity, at the very least. Cruz, however, is a detour on my larger point, which was in response to **Northern Piper** and **sbunny8** discussing a proposal in which a candidate had to have renounced any extra citizenships at least 14 years before running for president, except in the case of somebody who didn’t know they possessed another country’s nationality. How would “you must have renounced, unless you tell us you didn’t know to renounce” ever work? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/98 "2016-01-15T02:08:36Z")
I’d agree with replacing the NBC clause with a “citizen for [YY] years” clause in which [YY] is a significant number (sorry for later-in-life immigrants, but IMO if you want to be in charge, you have to put in some time as a full party in the polity). But the requirement of “no other citizenship” has the issue mentioned above with countries that refuse to let go of you and with entitlements to citizenship that people may not know themselves, so **UDS** ’s general renunciation of any real or potential allegiances could be an answer. Or if you \*really \*do _not_ want naturalized Presidents then do an amendment clearly and unambiguously defining “Natural Born Citizen” for the purposes of Article II Section 1. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/99 "2016-01-15T02:48:53Z")
The Republican debate is going on right now. (There’s a commercial break.) Donald Trump just said that Ted Cruz should go to court and demand a “declaratory judgement” to determine whether he is a Natural Born Citizen and remove all doubt about the issue. So… Does Cruz have any standing to make such a demand? Would any court actually have the power to issue such a judgement? ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2016, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968/100 "2016-01-15T03:52:36Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > So… Does Cruz have any standing to make such a demand? Would any court actually have the power to issue such a judgement? Trump is full of shit as normal. It would be up to his opponents to determine he is not qualified rather than the other way around. We don’t demand that every candidates gets a court declaration that they’re a natural born citizen, so theres no reason to expect Cruz needs one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-can-sue-ted-cruz/742968.md?page=6)