Talk:Ted Cruz 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Campaign Manager?

Does anyone know who Cruz' campaign manager is? I can't seem to find anything. Mhoppmann (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Is there some way to stop the Cruz campaign staff from repeatedly re-editing the last paragraph of this article? Please? 190.24.45.139 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Joshua Clement Broyles

Please don't insert factually incorrect content or unsourced content into the article. - MrX 21:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The unambiguous positive eligibility claim is, itself, unsourced, and importantly inaccurate according to the United States Federal Government, itself (see link).

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

(from link) "It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency...."

ETC.

But please feel free to insert this reference and see how long it takes for the other guy to delete it, too.

Thanks. 190.24.45.139 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Joshua Clement Broyles

The document you linked doesn't make any claim or assertion about Senator Cruz. Our policy does not allow for original research. You assertion that "The unambiguous positive eligibility claim is, itself, unsourced," doesn't matter, because the article doesn't say "unambiguous", It says "most commentators", which is properly sourced.- MrX 22:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't put that statement into the article as you seem to suggest I did. I put it on the talk page as a criticism of an unsupported claim inside the article. The link that I provided is not original research; it is an official document published by the US State Department which directly pertains to the conclusively unsupported claim made in the article, that Cruz is eligible. It indicates that there is no reason to conclude such from definitive legal precedent, as there is no definitive legal precedent. It leads a competent reader to conclude that a statement to the effect that Cruz would eventually or inevitably be determined to be eligible is nothing more than speculation; far less than what your article asserts that it is.

Also, the word "most" is a statistically unsupported assertion. The citations which implicitly support it are at the anecdotal level of statistical value. The word "most" might not be incorrect, but it also very well might be incorrect. It goes an important step beyond begging language, and it is the very thing which I first construed as defacto invitation to begin to adjust the language in the article, myself.

You, Sir, are really not any more neutral in this matter than I am.

The world is watching you.

Do the right thing.

Thanks again,

190.24.45.139 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Joshua Clement Broyles

You added that he is "ineligible". You can't do that without sources that say Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as POTUS. I didn't claim that you are not neutral, nor should you make such a claim about me. I agree about the word 'most' being a statistically unsupported assertion, based on my reading of a couple of the sources.- MrX 22:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding again. I'm sorry that I felt I had to go as far as I did to get attention to this article by proper editors (I normally prefer to stay on talk pages and not touch articles.) The "ineligible" claim is in not in direct response to the previous overstatements in the article in support of his supposed probable eligibility. You can see that these were later replaced with the very plain statement that he is eligible. The word "ineligible" is specifically in response to the latter statement, not to those former. It is a simple 2-letter additon to the specific statement which it modifies and to which it responds. Simply to modify the word "eligible" to its opposite does not produce a less neutral statement than the original statement while Cruz's eligibility has never been definitively legally established (again, the .gov link). It merely produces a statement equal and opposite to the one modified in terms of its neutrality. I acknowledge an unscholarly tone to other content which I have tried to contribute to the article. But as regards your specific criticism here, I believe I have explained my treatment of the sentence in question as not detracting from some imagined comparatively more neutral earlier version provided by someone else.

I understand that you prefer to consider yourself neutral. I also recognize that you're a proper article editor and, at this point, that I am not.

But your continued defense of the article as claiming Cruz to be eligible, while the US State Department continues to make a point of not supporting the argument upon which the claim is based, is not neutral behavior. Moreover, if you are not personally biased in favor of the Cruz campaign, your actions here are nonetheless saliently consistent with such a bias.

If you will really, really neutralize the article, and really, really keep it neutral while Ted's friends inevitably begin to play with it (more) over the next few days, I will much prefer not to touch it again and to instead go back to my preferred mode of interaction with Wikipedia. And more, I will also discourage others from editing the article unnecessarily.

Thanks yet again,

190.24.45.139 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Joshua Clement Broyles

Still nothing else to say?

Looking at the references formatting, it's not difficult for me to think that the whole article is probably written by the Cruz campaign. It is not neutral, and it tacitly asserts a legal decision by or pertaining to the US State Department which the US State Department very cleary explains is a decision which was never made, either by them, or by any judge.

If I don't see any action within 12 hours to correct the use of Wikipedia as a free propaganda tool for Cruz, I consider that the principle of good scholarship compels me to take legitimate editorial action, myself.

Meanwhile, I will be directing essentially everyone on the inernet to please read this page and to read the following points to consider, which are directly relevant to the claim, stated in the article, that Cruz is qualified to be POTUS.

1) Cruz's case is importantly different from McCain's because McCain was never issued a Panamanian birth certificate, and was thus never legally certified as a foreign-born person before receiving his US citizenship. I intend to cite this in the article if the article is not corrected to acknowledge this point.

2) The US State Department considers any person born in a foreign territory and receiving a valid foreign birth certificate to be a foreign-born person, even if US citizenship is later acquired by whatever means. Such persons do not become natural-born persons by means of changes to citizenship, or by other means. I intend to cite this in the article if the article is not corrected to acknowledge this point.

3) The provision that persons born abroad and who acquire citizenship through a parent may sometimes be defined as natural-born persons does not necessarily extent to constitutional puposes, and the State Department says this quite explicitly. Further, there is no provision, anywhere, to extend such status to persons already certified as foreign-born persons. I intend to cite this in the article if the article is not corrected to acknowledge these points.

4) The claim that Cruz is eligible to be POTUS, subjected to deductive analysis, necessarily and inevitably must proceed from 1 or more of 3 tacit superordinate premises: A) That acquisition of dual citizenship can void or nullify existing certification as a foreign-born person. B) That to renounce foreign citizenship can void or nullify existing certification as a foreign-born person. C) That status as a foreign-born person and status as a natural-born person can simultaneously apply to a single person. Neither the US State Department nor any acting US Judge has supported any of these 3 possible tacit superordinate premises, and the subordinate claim of eligibility is thus without any support, to date, from either the US State Department or from any acting US Judge. I intend to cite this in the article if the article is not corrected to acknowledge these points.

Many Thanks,

Josh Broyles (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Josh Broyles

The State Department site does not mention Cruz and is thus not a reliable source for anything to do with him. You are wasting your time with it. Reexamine original research. Find a reliable source that supports your opinion. Ratemonth (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@190.24.45.139: I trust that by now you have read the original research ploicy and will produce some sources that directly support your claims about Senator Cruz. When you do, I will be among the first to help write them into the article.- MrX 19:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. If we can handle this some other way, again, I really would rather not personally touch the article again.

There is still no conclusive support for the unqualified statement in the article that Cruz is eligible. If we can change that to a statement that he "claims to be eligible", rather than a statement that puts words in the mouth of the State Department and/or SCOTUS, that will be a pretty big step in the right direction in and of itself. The reference provided immediately before the "eligible" statement does not in fact say that foreign-born status can be expunged in cases where a person born abroad has already recieved foreign-born status. Such a statement would have to be present in the reference item in order for the reference item to support the "eligible" statement as it has been used (erroneously) to appear to do. The link provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_Act_of_1940) also does not mention Cruz at all, and is therefore no more relevant than my .gov reference in terms of having "nothing to do with" Cruz. The fact that it is also a Wikipedia article in no way detracts from the fact that the way it is used here qualifies it equally as "original research" by the same standard you've applied to my .gov link. Moreover, the 1940 Act cited, as not yet revised to the 1993 or other version as of 1968 places specifications on the parents which the article fails to demonstate are met in Cruz's case, as should be necessary to assure that the reference in fact supports the claim it is intended to support in the article. For example, there's no documentation of Cruz's mother's 10 years of residency in the US, or proof that his parents were married.

I might also just as well ask where anyone has anything more than heresay to support much of anything else that is said about Cruz in the article. Where is the documentation of his US citizenship to begin with? What hard evidence exists that he actually renounced his Canadian citizenship?

I am being held to a double-standard. The references cited throughout the article clearly have neither been fact checked, themselves, before statements they are claimed to contain (and even this falsely in the last 2, at least, I believe you have already conceded) are presented as more than conjecture or heresay.

In lieu of further invitations to editorial Ping-Pong, could we at least put a notice at the top of the article that the neutrality of the article has been challenged?

I'm not good yet at technical parts of this process. I wouldn't have got involved at all if the abuse of the medium didn't pretty much jump off the page and hit me between the eyes on first sight. I do realize that I would be totally wasting my time here if the whole point were to have any effect on the election. The point is not that, but, rather, to refuse to allow persons of deficient integrity to set the standard of content accuracy for Wikipedia articles in general. I think you should make an example of this article. If, in the process, you also end up making some kind of example of me for my own disappointing behavior, I can live with that.

Thanks,

Josh Broyles (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Josh Broyles

I added a POV tag. WP:Wikilinks are not article references; they exist for convenience. You can BEBOLD and make edits to the article to fix issues, but please adhere closely to reliable sources and don't add original research. If in doubt, you can post here first to get input from other editors.- MrX 20:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate this. The more I "be bold", though, the more discussion we'll probably have to have about it later. First, I think it might be better to try to speed things up by pointing out that this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Ted_Cruz is a more balanced article, which references this http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/24/ted-cruz-inherits-birthers-with-presidential-bid, for example. In addition to suggesting we link not like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause (as it is now), but, instead, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Ted_Cruz, I think it's only fair for me to ask why only references favorable to the Cruz campaign had been selected from this linked Wikipedia article for re-use in the Cruz Campaign article. Cherry-picking is not a crime, of course. But there's no reason to offer further encouragement by leaving it "unquestioned".

Thanks. Josh Broyles (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Josh Broyles

You can copy content from one article to another, but there are two caveats: You should verify that the sources accurately represent the content and you must give attribution. This can be done by adding "Material copied from Natural-born-citizen_clause" in the edit summary. The source article must be linked to comply with licensing requirements.

I'm OK with linking to Natural-born-citizen clause#Ted Cruz in this article and equally OK with linking to Natural-born-citizen clause. I have made an edit to this article to try to address some NPOV concerns, but I have not yet fully researched available sources.- MrX 21:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements

are there Endorsements already?83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Nationality Act of 1940 is incorrect because it was repealed in 1952 and Ted Cruz was born in 1970

The article states

Because his mother was a U.S. citizen who lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years as required by the Nationality Act of 1940 most consider him eligible to serve as President of the United States.

which is attempting to say that Ted Cruz was a US citizen from birth because of the Nationality Act of 1940. However, the Nationality Act of 1940 (54 Stat. 1137) had no applicability at the time of Ted Cruz's birth because Ted Cruz was born in 1970 and the Nationality Act of 1940 was repealed in its entirety by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 163), which too effect on December 24, 1952.

Here is the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Section 403(a)(42) (on page 117-118 of the PDF) says:

Sec. 403. (a) The following Acts and all amendments thereto and parts of Acts and all amendments thereto are repealed:

[...]

(42) Act of October 14, 1940 (54 Stat. 1137);

The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual is an official authoritative source that confirms this. 7 FAM 1132.7 (on page 12 of this PDF) says:

7 FAM 1132.7 January 13, 1941

a. The Nationality Act of 1940 (NA) (54 Stat. 1137) went into effect on January 13, 1941. Section 201 NA addressed acquisition of citizenship by birth abroad. The pertinent text of Section 201 NA is shown in 7 FAM 1134.2.

b. The NA was repealed and superseded by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

The mention of "Nationality Act of 1940" should at the very least be removed as it is manifestly factually incorrect. --50.193.52.113 (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Besides, The Don [Trump], Ted Cruz leads (and is rising) in popularity as shown in polling.

Headline-1: TRUMP LEADS GOP OUTSIDERS SURGE IN FIRST POST-DEBATE POLL

• http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/09/trump-leads-gop-outsiders-surge-in-first-post-debate-poll/

QUOTE: "Texas Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)96% [voted Conservative] was the second choice in the NBC Poll, receiving support from 13 percent of Republican voters." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

WP:NOTNEWS - Cwobeel (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Since this article is about the campaign of Ted Cruz, where is the reference to how the campaign is doing? My note (and reference) can be used later, by me or another editor, don't you think? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I see that Ted_Cruz_presidential_campaign,_2016#Polling has been added. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

2.4 Rise in the aftermath of the Paris attacks

Please rename this section. It looks bad. Our candidates always reject terror. Terror never do good. Beter use date. Reise after 11/9 beter with words.

Also the Ted view on our Lord Crucifiction may be moved to another page. GOP voters want to cast aside that provision and impose Christianity as the official American religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.68.44 (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

the rise is not backed by internet pos. typing '2016 cru' snap on:

• cruises 2016
• 2016 Chevrolet Cruze
• 1716 Crusoe [Robinson]
• Santa Cruz (the Santa cruise season?)
• Donald Trump dominates GOP

and after all of this

• Download Cruzio (Cruz & Rubio) 2016
• www.tedcruz.org

how do you see here a rise ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

foreign born American presidential candidates

Do we have an article on foreign-born American presidential candidates that qualify for president? It would be a good overview to work from, and should cover eligibility requirements and why the candidates are eligible. This would include John McCain (born Panama), Cruz (born Canada). And there's the statements that Barry Goldwater (born Arizona Territory) wasn't American enough as he wasn't born in a state. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

See natural-born-citizen clause. American In Brazil (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Palin "endorsement"

I removed Sarah Palin from the list of Cruz's endorsements because her comments did not constitute an endorsement. See Talk:Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Sarah Palin, Dan Bilzerian for full details. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: It is a good thing you did, she has endorsed Trump now. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy positions

Shouldn't we have a section on Cruz'z political positions like the Hillary Clinton campaign article and the Bernie Sanders campaign article? Mr. Guye (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There is already an article Political positions of Ted Cruz. American In Brazil (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Citizenship

This has become a major campaign issue and it belongs on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Eligibility to become US President

The article claims that under the originalism approach that Cruz advocates that he would be barred from becoming President. This, I suggest, is not at all clear.

Originalism takes the intent of the founders, their worldview, times, actions, speeches etc into account. As the founders were part of the early Congresses, the early Acts of Congress are regarded as strongly relevant. The Naturalization Acts of 1790 gives the status of 'natural born' citizen to the children of a US citizen (father) born outside of US territory as long as that father had resided in the USA prior to said birth. This, I suggest, would support the idea that the founders had in mind citizenship from birth or at birth in mind when they referred to 'natural born' and that what they were solely attempting to exclude from Presidential office was naturalized citizens, that is, those born as foreigners who became US citizens later in life. The fact that George Washington was born a British subject, for example, clearly did not prevent his becoming President. An exception for these 'resident British/Americans' is in the Constitution, but I would argue that tells you that what they actually feared was a European aristocrat, becoming a US citizen and 'buying' his way to the Presidency.

So, I would say that an originalist approach actually supports Cruz's bid to be President. Just my ten cents. Hopefully, Ted Cruz's candidacy will get this to the Supreme Court.78.19.93.187 (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Cruz does not need to get anything to the Supreme Court that is just a silly opinion that has nothing to do with this article and that is what this talk page is about. However, the list of birther professors is getting longer and longer. It has gone well past undue weight at this point. I removed the most recent addition of another birther opinion from Judge Posner. Yes, Judge Posner is well known. Every first year read Posner on Torts. But Editor Jonathunder reverted my removal and provided an incorrect rationale to support the revert. Editor Jonathunder said, "Eric Posner is a notable legal theorist (we have an article on him) and there's no good reason to exclude him but include less notable ones." That response completely misses the mark. If the section violates NPOV because it is undue weight then it doesn't matter if was God making the birther arguments it is still not acceptable to make the section longer and longer. Ok, so something needs to go and if it isn't going to be Posner then a couple of other birthers need to be booted to bring the article into line with NPOV, which right now it isn't.--ML (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You might want to read our article on Eric Posner since in calling him "Judge Posner" you are confusing him with his father. And if you read the various other sources cited, it might make your assertions on what weight to assign them more credible. Jonathunder (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

MaverickLittle has once again removed academic legal opinions that claim Ted Cruz is ineligible to be President under the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution. ML has removed unfavorable material from the Ted Cruz article as well, leading me to believe s/he is a Cruz staffer. To remove cited opinions on either side of a legal argument is vandalism and requires appropriate sanction. These opinions are from respected law professors at respectable law schools. One is from a professor at Harvard Law, from which Cruz graduated. It is undue weight to leave only those opinions you want and remove those you don't like, in violation of WP:NPOV. Do it again and I'll take it upstairs, including a request that you be blocked from editing this article. American In Brazil (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@American In Brazil: I removed the two minority positions that you put in the article because the article must reflect what the majority of scholars believe, which is exactly what the Congressional Research Services says. It is not my opinion. It is the opinion of the CRS and it is the opinion of the vast majority of legal scholars. You go ahead and "take it upstairs" (as you said) and you go ahead and request that I "be blocked from editing this article". My editing is consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines concerning NPOV. You are adding opinion and opinion over and over again of the birther POV, which is a minority and obscure POV. You demand that the article has the opinion of more birthers than non-birthers is a violation of NPOV. Please contain your editing to the rules of NPOV. Also, when you reverted my edits you stated that I was engaging in "vandalism"--that is simply not true. In common vernacular, the statement that my editing is "vandalism" can be described as a lie. Please do not engage in that type of behavior.--ML (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Your editing is vandalism: it is removing, not balancing, legal opinions from respected legal scholars, one at Harvard, Cruz's own law school. Your claim that minority opinions from reliable sources WP:RS should not be included is simply wrong WP:NPOV. Your use of the term "birthers" to characterize these scholars is way off the mark. These opinions are analyses of the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution. That Cruz was born in Canada is not in dispute. If you wish to increase the reliable source citations of legal scholars who claim that "natural born" means a foreign-born American citizen at birth, please do so. I will not remove them and I will challenge any editor who does. I invite all editors to join this discussion of the content in order to find consensus. In the meantime, do not remove reliable source citations. And please confine your discussion to the subject without personal insults, which serve no useful purpose. American In Brazil (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Once again MaverickLittle has vandalized this article (for the third time) by removing cited legal opinions. He says, "You wrote on the talk page that Cruz was born in Canada. So??? No one disputes that. It is a matter of undue weight." So??? So that's the heart of the case. The issue being discussed by this section is eligiblity to the office of President by a foreign-born American who is a citizen by virtue of his mother having been a citizen. The Constitution requires that, to be eligible to the office, a person must be a "natural born citizen". The definition of this clause has never been adjudicated. Does it mean born in the United States or does it mean a foreign-born citizen who is naturalized at birth by statute? There are arguments by legal scholars on both sides. So??? So you flunk my law school course (yes, I practiced law for 43 years and was an adjunct professor in a major urban law school before retiring.) Interestingly, the orginalist interpretation of the Constitution (and throughout his adult life until today Cruz has been an originalist) claims that "natural born citizen" means U.S. born (see fn. 138).

You say you removed these legal opinions (one from a professor at Harvard Law, Cruz's alma mater) because of undue weight. Obviously not. There are two legal scholars cited in the footnotes who believe Cruz is eligible (fn. 134), plus the report of the Congressional Research Service, which appeared before the opinions of four other legal scholars were published (fn. 135-140). In addition, there are two scholars sitting on the fence by stating that the issue could be decided either way (fn. 141 & 142). These are opinions of noted law school academics interpreting the Constitution, not "birthers" as you characterize them and certainly not crackpots (unless law professors at Harvard and other institutions are crackpots). They claim that Cruz is ineligible because of the language of the Constitution. But again you miss the point. Whether or not a reliable source opinion is in the minority, for purposes of an encyclopedia, which is what WP is, both sides of the issue need to be presented. Instead, you have decided to vandalize the article by removing those opinions you do not like, while leaving those opinions you want. This is a violation of WP:NPOV. If you wish to add additional legal opinions from reliable sources that you like, please feel do so. I will defend your right to add them and I will challenge ANY editor who attempts to remove them. But until then, there is another editor who reverted your reversion ("No reason to remove that"). Thus, there are at least two editors who consider your reversion to be incorrect. This constitues a majority of editors and therefore a consensus. However, I invite all editors to join this discussion. Until then, your argument by insult ("liar") does not substitute for reasoned discussion. American In Brazil (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Boldly Editing is NOT vandalism. American In Brazil needs to STOP repeating this lie.ML (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing cited sources that you do not like is vandalism, not bold editing. American In Brazil (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. I reverted MaverickLittle's removal because I don't think it was as carefully considered as it should have been, but let's stop the accusations of bad faith, please. Jonathunder (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to remove information for legitimate reasons of undue weight. Therefore when you are told that FACT and you continue to ignore that FACT then you are lying. There is no other way to characterize your statements that state that my edits are "vandalism". That is lying. Also, I don't know that you practiced law for 43 years and honestly I don't care. It is only your word. It is irrelevant. We only post reliable sources and your opinion is irrelevant. Your claimed background is irrelevant. The ONLY real topic of discussion here is undue weight. (Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. See WP:UNDUE) There should never be any discussion about what you claim your background is. It is irrelevant and it can't be verified. If you want your opinion in the article then you need to write an article, get it published in a reliable source, and if it provides new insight into the topic then a quick reference to it in the article. But you have never done this so it is a total waste of discussion time. Also, you claim falsely that my edits do not leave the article with presenting both sides of the article. That is also a false statement. What my edits did was leave plenty of sources that state that Cruz, in their opinion, is not eligible for the Presidency. I left Judge Posner as another editor asked me to do. I also left two other birther POVs. You want to add two more birther POVs. Five birther POVs are too many. The majority POV (which is quite simply that Cruz is eligible) is the minority POV and as such it gets more weight. That is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Now, you might not like the Wikipedia guidelines (See Guidelines but you need to take that up with the Wikipedia folks that wrote those guidelines, not here, not on this page. Let me be clear: All discussions of vandalism are a waste of time. All discussions your background is a waste of time (I don't care and no one else cares either). All discussions that claim that my edits remove all point of view that Cruz is ineligible is a waste of time because it is not true. The only discussion is undue weight. That's it. No, I am not going to add other opinions from other professors (even though there way more of them than espouse the birther POV) because the section of the article is already way, way, way too long right now. It violats undue weight already and your proposed solutions will add to the problem; it will not solve the problem.--ML (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, Eric Posner and "Judge Posner" are two different people. I reverted your removal of cited sources because it doesn't look like you read them, much less gave them proper balance. Jonathunder (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I confused Judge Posner with his son, but that does NOT, in any way, limit the undue weight issue here. That is a red herring. It is also a lame red herring. You are an admin and yet you are letting American In Brazil continue to state falsely that my legitimate edits (removing the the Elhauge and Clinton quotes) is vandalism. American In Brazil has made this false statement several times and you have not said a thing to that editor to cut the crap. My edits are NOT vandalism and the section of the article has gotten way too long. Also, American In Brazil made the false claim that I was removing ALL opinions with which I don't agree. You as an admin should be stepping in with more constructive comments like telling him that his claim is false and to cut the crap. However, instead of doing what a good admin would do, you instead step in and use my mistaken confusion between Judge Posner and his son to jam another Cruz is not eligible opinion when there are already two in the article. You did not provide a on why jamming those two more into the article does not violate Undue Weight you just jammed them in the article and blamed it on my obvious mistaken confusion between Judge Posner and his son. You never gave a reason why those two extra opinions do not add to the undue weight issue. You did not speak to that issue at all. Why not? Why does this article need two more "Cruz is not eligible" opinions especially since that opinion is the MINORITY opinion. Since you are an admin, why don't you and American In Brazil report my edits on the vandalism page, if that is what you believe? -- ML (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Jonathunder is correct. MaverickLittle does not read the cited sources nor give them proper balance. This is the third editor who has reverted ML's deletions, and thus the consensus is growing to leave the cited sources as they are. The sources ML deleted present the viewpoints of two more noted legal scholars (one at Harvard Law School, Cruz's alma mater) about the interpretation of the 'natural citizen" clause in the Constitution. These opinions are the "originalist" viewpoint (see fn. 138). Interestingly, all his adult life Cruz has been an originalist. Further, not only did Jonathunder note the distinction between Professor Eric Posner at the University of Chicago Law School and Judge Richard Posner, Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit (the professor is the son of the judge), which apparently was lost on ML, they both have WP articles, as both are eminent legal scholars, and so ML could easily have looked them up. The fact that ML does not read the sources merely reinforces my assertion that ML does not know what s/he is talking about. ML's strongest argument to date is to issue insults ("you are a liar" - "cut the crap") rather than engage in reasoned discussion. As I stated above, ML flunks my law school class.

ML has reverted cited sources three times, claiming above that I am trying to insert my opinion and that the cited legal opinions give undue weight. First, I have not offered any opinion on the matter of the meaning of the "natural citizen" clause and, in any event, neither my opinion (and I have none since I am hoping for a judicial interpretation) nor those of the cited sources really matter. The only opinion that counts is a court decision, which we have not had yet. Second, citing legal scholars on the interpretation of a legal issue is not undue weight; it is what is expected of a WP article. In the meantime, in order to fairly present both sides of the argument about the Constitution's meaning of "natural born" citizen, legal scholars from both sides must be cited in order to present a balanced point of view WP:NPOV. This is something that ML is unwilling to do, as evidenced by his/her repeated deletions, instead preferring to hurl insults. ML now says s/he "is not going to add other opinions from other professors (even though there way (sic) more of them than espouse the birther POV)...". If there are additional legal opinions from reliable sources, no matter of which viewpoint, they should be added, not reverted, in order to provide a fair and balanced article. Opinions, people? American In Brazil (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

MaverickLittle has reverted two cited sources for the fourth time, despite the consensus of three other editors that these citations should remain. Fortunately, administrator Jonathunder has reverted. ML claims the section is too long. This argument falls flat. At the font size I am using, the section is 27 lines. At the same font size, the Section "Relationship with Donald Trump" is 33 lines, yet ML has done nothing to shorten it. The only reason ML raises this false claim is to remove cited sources s/he doesn't like. This article needs to be monitored. American In Brazil (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@American In Brazil: You lack understanding of what is "vandalism" and what isn't vandalism. Your posts have made that clear. It took me getting an admin to shutdown your constant lying about my edits (calling those edits vandalism when they weren't). (As an aside, you were lying when you stated my edits were vandalism, I told they weren't vandalism, I even pointed to the Wikipedia guidelines that clearly point out that my edits were not vandalism, and yet you continued to call them vandalism. You are were either having a very difficult time understanding such basic information or you were flat out lying, which is it?) This basic lack of understanding undermines all of your long-winded arguments. Neither you or Jonathunder have spoken to the main issue that I have raised. It has been a constant stream of outright lies (the vandalism charge), red herrings (my mistake of confusing Judge Posner and his son), and appeals to your feigned personal background (you claim that you were in the legal arena for 43 years but I never had a law professor at the law school I attended to be so thick so as not know the difference between valid edits and vandalism). Just try to stick to the issue: the section is too long for the topic. This article is not about "natural born" citizen clause and it is not about Ted Cruz's eligibility. The article is about Ted Cruz's campaign. Yes, eligibility is an important issue for the campaign article but it is not so important that requires six paragraphs. And, this is another issue where neither you or Jonathunder have commented: why do either of you feel that there must be more quotes from the minority opinion that quotes from the majority opinion? Please explain, either of you. Also, please provide your rationale on why we need to add more opinions supporting Cruz's eligibility and ignore the length of the section. Neither you or Jonathunder have spoken to the undue weight issue yet. Also, it would be great if you both responded without (1) lies (vandalism charge), (2) red herrings (Yes, I was wrong on Posner), (3) false personal background references (43 years in legal world, not relevant, if even true), and (4) ad hominem ("ML does not know what s/he is talking about"). So far neither of you have built any kind of consensus because neither of you have focused on the issue which is undue weight for a minority position in an article that is about Cruz's campaign, not Cruz's eligibility. There is no consensus.--ML (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The title of the section is "Eligibility". The title of this site is "Wikipedia". Belligerence and insults do not substitute for reasoned argument. As I stated, this article needs to be monitored. Also as I stated, you flunk my law school class. American In Brazil (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC).

The comments above are non-responsive. You did not explain why you believe the section should be longer. It is too long. It violates undue weight. The minority POV is more represented than the majority POV. It needs to be made smaller not larger. BTW, you could not have flunked me in law school because the law school I attended would not have never allowed someone as thick headed as you to teach there. I apologize. You were not lying with the vandalism claim, you are simply not very bright. Please speak to the issue of undue weight: not lies, red herrings, made up personal background or ad hominem. I understand this is difficult for you but I faith in you. -- ML (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As I stated above, at my font size the section "Eligibility" is 27 lines. At the same font size, the section "Relationship with Donald Trump" is 33 lines. Why is the section too long? As an editor on the first line of this Talk section has stated, "This has become a major campaign issue and it belongs on the page." The solution to your complaint that there is undue weight for this one paragraph citing four legal scholars (one at Harvard, Cruz's own law school) is to add more legal authorities asserting a different opinion. But you have refused to do that ("I am not going to add other opinions from other professors..."). Instead of discussing the article, you continue your belligerence with ad hominem insults. You flunk the class and WP standards. American In Brazil (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I have stated why the section is too long. The Wikipedia guidelines for NPOV require that we show both sides, but only in proportion to their importance. The "Cruz is not eligible" POV is the minority opinion is as such needs to be presented that way. Also, you look like a huge hypocrite since you have been personally attacking me from the beginning and now you are complaining about "ad hominem" attacks. You can obviously dish it out but you can't take it. There is no way that you were an attorney or professor for 43 years. Your thoughts processes are weak or illogical and chest-beating is unseemly and you can't seem make logical coherent arguments. Your background claims of being in the legal area for 43 years must be a figment of your imagination. Also, if you were to stop personally attacking me then I would stop personally attacking you right back. You still have not made any case on why the section should be so long. The topic of the article is Ted Cruz's campaign. The topic is NOT Ted Cruz's eligibility. If there were an article about Ted Cruz's eligibility then the citations you have provided would fit right in. Why don't you create that article and you can make it as long and tedious as you want, ok? -- ML (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If you did your homework you would know that the article already exists: Natural-born-citizen clause, 5.3.3 Ted Cruz. American In Brazil (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There you go again with the personal attacks. Are you simply too stupid to understand the basic sentence, "Stop the personal attacks, American In Brazil"? Can you just not understand that sentence or what? As to Natural Born Citizen article, I am quite aware of it and it supports my thesis that the citizenship section of Ted Cruz's campaign article is too long and violates undue weight. Why? (1) Well, the section in the Natural born citizen article concerning Cruz specifically is actually SMALLER than the section specifically set aside for this particular topic. So that proves that the section in the Cruz campaign article is way, way, way too long. (2) That article is about one specific part of the U.S. Constitution. It is NOT about Ted Cruz specifically. Therefore, if you want to write out the POV of each and every commentator who thinks Cruz is ineligible then you can put that in the Ted Cruz eligibility article. But the article that you state covers this Cruz's eligibility does not cover his eligibility specifically. You are wrong. That particular article touches upon Cruz only. Also, if you are so enamoured with those two or three sentences then add them to the Natural-born-citizen clause article and to the new Ted Cruz eligibility article if you believe so strongly that the information needs to be added to Wikipedia. It just does not belong in the Ted Cruz campaign article because it is obscure information and off-topic information and violates undue weight. Once again, stop with the personal attacks. They aren't very creative or inventive anyway.--ML (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Your long rant only proves once again that you don't do your homework and you don't know what you are talking about. You didn't know that Professor Posner and Judge Posner are not the same person, despite being informed twice by Jonathunder. You don't know that the article on the Natural-born-citizen clause contains not only information on Cruz (section 5.3.3) but also on the more general subject of American citizens born on foreign soil (section 4.4.3.1) which, contrary to your assertion, is far longer than the section on Cruz´s eligibility in this article. That section also contains conclusions by these same academics that Cruz is ineligible to the office of President. And you seem unaware of the statement at the beginning of this Talk section by another editor: "This has become a major campaign issue and it belongs on the page." Further, you say that there is no consensus for leaving in these citatations despite the fact that you have been reverted by three editors, including an administrator. In typical fashion, you then personally attacked Jonathunder for reverting you. How many courses did you flunk in law school? You certainly flunk this one. American In Brazil (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are hilarious. You point the finger at others for doing the exact same thing that you do. You belittle others, but you get mad when other editors do it to you. You rant about what you want (not even attempting to compromise) and then you get mad when others write long paragraphs. You are hypocritical. It is embarrassing for you. You are really so stupid that you can't understand the basic sentence: Stop the personal attacks. You seem to be a very dull light bulb. You also seem delusional. You keep talking about some kind of law school class, but we are attempting a discussion on a Wikipedia talk page, not in a law school and this is not a class. You also keep mumbling something about "flunking" classes, which once again does not conform with the reality of this discussion. Hello? Are you there? This is Wikipedia, not some figment of your imagination. Please wake up and come back to reality and talk about the article, not some imaginary situation that you have concocted in your brain. The section is too long for the main topic. It violates Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. The main topic is Cruz's campaign, not his eligibility for the presidency. The section needed to be cut down and I did that because the section was violating undue weight. You had quoted four different people that pushed forward the same minority POV (that Cruz is ineligible). There is no need for four different people repeating the same thing. It is as simple as that. That violates WP:NPOV, especially since it is the minority POV. Article after article admits that the majority POV is that Cruz is eligible and as the majority POV it needs to be presented in greater detail. All four of the authors that you are quoting are all saying the same thing. We are supposed to be presenting the POV of those authors we can do by making one sentence that presents that view and then merely listing their four names. We don't need a separate sentence about what each of them said. It is redundant and it violates NPOV because it present the minority POV as if it is the majority POV, which of course it isn't.--ML (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Your long rant is unworthy of a response (though it may be worthy of a psychiatrist). Other editors, please chime in on the subject matter - please. American In Brazil (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are hilarious. You gripe and you complain about personal attacks, but you can't write a sentence without writing an insult. You are just too stupid to understand the phrase (which I have repeated over and over again): Stop your personal attacks, American In Brazil. You are the belligerent pot calling the kettle belligerent. You are a hypocrite. You can dish it out but you can't take it. -- ML (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)rth

As I said, worthy of a psychiatrist. Other editors - please join in on the discussion of the subject matter. American In Brazil (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for proving me right, in your inimitable blowhard manner. -- ML (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A request. When mentioning whether or not Cruz is constitutionally qualified for the US presidency. May we also mention the US vice presidency, as that office has the exact same qualifications? GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are correct about the qualifications, but the vice presidency is not presently relevant, as there's been little discussion about whether any potential presidential candidate would select Cruz as a running mate. --Weazie (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I primarily edit the Natural-born-citizen clause article, and I agree that the citizenship section of this article is too long. In the context of Cruz's campaign, I think it would be sufficient to mention that Cruz's eligibility has been questioned, briefly explain the differing opinions (and who holds them), and briefly acknowledge the lawsuits and ballot challenges. In the context of Cruz's campaign, this is a relatively minor issue; it violates WP:WEIGHT if it appears more important than it actually is.

And, as always, assume good faith and be civil. --Weazie (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agree that the section should be kept short and to the point. A reasonable guage of the weigh it deserves would be the amount of airtime it has received in the debates.CometEncke (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Also agree. That's the entire thrust of WP:UNDUE. The subject seems largely settled, at least for the moment, and the size of that section is out of proportion to its current significance. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Weazie. I am happy to see you here. As you know, we have worked collaboratively on the Natural-born-citizen clause article and I think it is much improved. For this article, as editor E.M.Gregory states in the first line of this Talk section: "This has become a major campaign issue and it belongs on the page." I agree. With Trump now seriously threatening a lawsuit, and the likelihood that such a case would survive a motion to dismiss since Trump probably has standing, the issue has become even more relevant. It is evolving. The two legal scholars who have been reverted make different arguments in the sources and I believe the readers should have access to them.

However, I agree that the minority position of the "originalists" should be labeled as such. I suggest adding back the additional two citations that have been deleted with a line preceeding the McManamon entry: "There is a minority position of "originalists" in Constitutional interpretation who have written that Cruz is ineligible to the office of President." with a link on "originalists" to originalism. This will make clear that this is a valid legal analysis, even though a minority one. American In Brazil (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No one is saying that the issue should not appear on this page. The recent comments are all saying WP:UNDUE is being violated because the issue isn't worth the amount of real estate it is presently occupying. Trump "seriously threatening a lawsuit" (we've passed the idle-threatening-of-lawsuits stage?) does not change that the issue is presently being overrepresented in this article in the context of the totality of Cruz's campaign. The readers can "have access" to the details -- through links. A brief summary and then pointing curious readers in the correct direction is sufficient for this article. --Weazie (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I just want to interject one other point, so that there is no confusion, the Majority POV is that Cruz is eligible. The Minority POV is that Cruz is not eligible. If readers want to pursue this information then they can go to Natural Born Citizen article. Also, another alternative is that the picayune details about what law professor one said versus law professor two said versus what law professor three versus what law professor four said can be outlined in a whole new article just specifically focused in great, undying detail to the Eligibility Status of Ted Cruz to run for President. But this article is about Cruz's campaign. And if someone wants to add to that new article great detail about the "minority position of "originalists" in Constitutional interpretation" they can. But the main point is that the vast majority of legal experts believe that Cruz is eligible. --ML (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Weazie: The 'real estate' this issue is occupying is two sentences. I suggest cutting the section down in other areas, then adding the following short sentence to the McManamon paragraph: "Professor Einer Elhauge of Harvard [fn.] and Professor Robert Clinton of Arizona State University [fn] agree." That will give readers who wish to learn more the option of clicking the links. But they should not be denied the option of learning because the opinions are not there. PS: I agree wholeheartedly that threatening a lawsuit is no substitute for a lawsuit. Perhaps after 227 years we can finally get a judicial determination. American In Brazil (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2016

The comments of ML (and others) make clear the concern isn't about just "two sentences" -- the entire section is bloated and has undue weight for this article. Before adding even more material, I would suggest that the section-wide cuts (that everyone seems to agree ought to be made), be made first.

The eligibility issue exists so it deserves to be mentioned in this article, but the present level of detail is unnecessary for this article. Per WP:WEIGHT, the article should make it clear that most scholars (who have spoken on the matter) agree that Cruz is eligible, and give only proportionate weight to the minority position. Otherwise, it would appear that an article obstensibly about Cruz's campaign is actually a coatrack for his asserted ineligibility.

With respect to the suggestion for a new article, by way of example I note that Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories exists, and that that article got so long that Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation and United States presidential eligibility legislation were spun off from it. --Weazie (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggested revision and balance issue

I've removed a lot of the extra text, and compressed all the eligible/ineligible references into single sentences. This makes it clear how unbalanced the current sourcing is. The issue of eligibility appears to be settled, yet we have only six pro sources and seven six con sources.

"Questions have been raised as to whether Cruz meets the constitutional qualification that the President must be a natural-born citizen as Cruz was born in Canada. In January 2016, after Donald Trump, Cruz's opponent in the Republican primary, repeatedly questioned whether Cruz met the qualifications of being a natural born citizen, Houston, Texas attorney Newton B. Schwartz Sr. filed suit in Texas, saying, "Only the U.S. Supreme Court can finally decide, determine judicially and settle this issue now."

"Most commentators believe Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States, although some disagree. According to a memo from the Congressional Research Service, "The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born Citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including... those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements."

"In February 2016, the Illinois Board of Elections ruled that Cruz is a natural-born citizen. The Board said: "The candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth.""

references

—Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The trim down looks great, Torchiest. I suggest one edit that glares out at me. Footnotes 11 and 12 refer to the exact same citation. They are duplicate copies of the same editorial written by the Widener University School of Law Professor Mary Brigid McManamon. The original editorial was written in the Washington Post (that is footnote number 11) and it was reprinted in the Chicago Tribune (that is footnote number 12) with a different title for the article. Other than the names of the editorials there are exactly no differences in the wording of these two publications. Those two footnotes need to merged into one footnote. Also, we should think about removing BOTH footnote 11 and footnote 12 because they are editorials and as such they are not to be put forward to support facts. The section already has footnote 13 where McManamon goes into great detail in a law school journal article about her legal theories. It is the best citation. We don't need the duplicate footnotes (Nos. 11 & 12) pointing to a editorial when we have footnote 13 that points the reader to full outline of her argument. -- ML (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The admin editor Jonathunder (the same editor who was critical of me for making an honest mistake of confusing Judge Posner with his son) is the editor that put both of this editorials in the article as if they were different editorials, when in fact they are the exact same editorial, published on the exact same day in the Post and Tribune. You can see Jonthunder’s edit here. I believe his criticism of me was that I obviously did not read all of the citations. (BTW, I would also note that American In Brazil (talk) parroted Jonathunder's criticism when, in hindsight, neither Jonthunder or American In Brazil read the editorials in the footnotes or one of them would have removed one of footnotes in the first place.) -- ML (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I've removed them, as I merely copy/pasted all the refs without looking at them too closely. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of having an article just for the Cruz-NBS issue. It does keep coming up, yet the articles it keeps coming up in are articles where it really doesn't deserve much space. So let's have an article for it. CometEncke (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

If anything, I would suggest even more trimming, as there is still too much minutiae for this article. For example, while it is important to note that Cruz's eligibility has been questioned, it is not particularly relevant which commentators initially did the questioning. The Texas lawsuit is merely one of several; although it colorfully states that the U.S. Supreme Court has never decided the issue, simply noting that several lawsuits and ballot challenges have been filed should be sufficient for this article. (The IBOE's decision, however, is important, and deserves its own sentence.) The CRS report generally restates what the majority-opinion scholars have also said; its analysis could be folded into the majority opinion that Cruz is eligible.

As for the suggestion to spin off a separate article chronicling Cruz's eligibility challenges, I think such an article would be sufficiently notable. I would be happy to help edit it, but I'm not going to start the article. --Weazie (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

As I have stated before, I think that an article that goes into detail about the various legal theories concerning Cruz's eligibility would be notable and can contain the information that American In Brazil (talk) was attempting to put into this article. I would also be willing to develop it, as I have stated before. But this article is not where American In Brazil's information should go. -- ML (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a bit more. I'm going to just keep modifying the original text instead of copying it in over and over, if that's okay. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Basically looks good. I would minorly tweak the sentence about the Texas suit, but I'm happy to do that myself once these proposed changes are in the article. --Weazie (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah the language there is a bit awkward, but I've made the change. Have at it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I moved things around a bit. It appears longer only because I added some citations. --Weazie (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. I guess "pleaded" is being used in a legal sense? It seemed a bit odd initially. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "pleaded" in the legal sense. If there's a better word (plain English or otherwise), please change. --Weazie (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe a separate article is necessary, as there is a link to Natural-born-citizen clause and the section on Cruz. In addition, that article contains a more general long discussion of academic legal views about Americans born on foreign soil. I have added a sentence and citation to the latest news: the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois has agreed to review the issue of Cruz's ballot eligibility based upon the 'natural born citizen' clause. As I said above, the issue is evolving. American In Brazil (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted those edits. The appeal filing is more unnecessary detail. If the birther that filed the complaint is successful then we will add that information in, but right now it is irrelevant and unimportant. Anyone can file an appeal. That action is not notable. It is only notable if they win and so far they have been shot down.--ML (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I agree with that. This isn't an issue of POV, it's progress in the actual events. It's been reported in numerous RSes, including the Chicago Tribune and USA Today. Seems notable to me. I'd like to hear more opinions, but right now I'm leaning towards including it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ML's edit. Anyone can appeal, and that someone appealed has nothing to do with the topic of this article, i.e., Cruz's campaign. (I've already added the appeal to the Cruz section of the natural-born-citizen clause article.) It will become relevant to this article only if this (or another) court declares Cruz to be ineligible. Otherwise, it is the same WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK concerns. --Weazie (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the first time a case regarding the 'natural born citizen' clause has gotten before a court in the 227 years since the adoption of the Constitution. It is a very narrowly defined case, since the defendant is the Illinois Board of Elections. The pleading is that Cruz does not meet the U.S. Constitutional requirement for eligibility to the office and therefore his name should not appear on the primary ballot, in accordance with Illinois law. For example, to run for the county prosecutor's office (which in Illinois is called the State's Attorney) one must be a citizen, at least 21 and a member in good standing of the Illinois bar. Of course, to run for President one must be at least 35, a resident of the United States for 14 years and a 'natural born citizen'. When a ruling by the Cook County Circuit Court is issued, no matter which way it goes, it should be included here, even though the losing party will surely appeal. This is an ongoing legal matter and it should be covered by WP. American In Brazil (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not the first case about the natural-born-citizen clause; literally hundreds were filed regarding Obama's eligibility, and around a dozen of those expressly found him to be a natural-born citizen. This isn't even first case about a candidate born outside of the United States, as McCain was also sued. So this particular lawsuit is hardly unique, and people filing lawsuits is not particularly relevant to this article. Again, that an appeal was filed has nothing to do with Cruz's campaign; it does nothing to change the status quo that most commentators believe Cruz to be eligible, and that the IBOE has already ruled him to be eligible. If the court reverses the board and rules that Cruz is ineligible, then the article will be updated accordingly. --Weazie (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

And, of course, this isn't even the first case filed against Cruz because, as the article already notes, Cruz has been already been sued (or otherwised challenged) in several states. --Weazie (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm mostly persuaded. But have any of the other cases had rulings like in Illinois? Just wondering why we're including that part in the first place now. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

All of the lawsuits are currently pending; there has been no dispositive ruling in any of them; ditto with most of the ballot challenges. The New Hampshire ballot challenges were dismissed due to (essentially) lack of jurisdiction; there was no ruling on the eligibility issue. The IBOE was the first (and only, thus far) express ruling on Cruz's eligibility -- hence why it merits inclusion. --Weazie (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The Illinois judge will decide next month whether the court has jurisdiction to even hear the case. --Weazie (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Weazie. This is certainly not the first case filed but, as I understand it, the court has granted jurisdiction and will now decide the merits. However the court decides, it certainly will have relevance to the Cruz campaign and should be included, after its decision, in this article. American In Brazil (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

As the article to which I linked states, the court will decide next month whether to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction. So, no, the court has not "granted" jurisdiction; the court will decide next month whether it has jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal. --Weazie (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The Illinois court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. --Weazie (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

logo

It's public domain. Star? PD. Flame consisting entirely of simple shapes? PD. MB298 (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)