If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Sharon Rondeau

The Supreme Court of Texas has received a challenge to the legitimacy of the Texas primary based on the claim that ineligible candidates were listed on the state ballot

(Mar. 1, 2016) — On Tuesday, The Post & Email received a tip that an eligibility challenge was filed with the Supreme Court of Texas claiming that the constitutional process by which delegates are awarded to presidential candidates is broken.

Two individuals worked on the filing, with one having done the writing and the other the proofreading.  In an exclusive interview, the writer told The Post & Email that the document is 113 pages long, is divided into three sections, contains a number of attachments, and was a year in the making.

“This is a federal constitutional crisis that bleeds over into the state,” she told The Post & Email, stating that ineligible candidates are violating Texas state law.  The documents were filed with the Texas Supreme Court, she said, as a result of the defendants’ positions within the state executive branch of government.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president be a “natural born Citizen,” a resident within the U.S. for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.

Of her approach in making the case for the authority to bring the challenge, the writer told us:

I believe we have successfully argued for standing.  We’re challenging the candidates, but we’re challenging the process.  The candidates are secondary.  The process failure allows ineligible candidates – who are illegal by the U.S. Code – which in this case, is “natural born Citizen” and so many years a resident.  The reason that’s significant in Texas is that we’ve already had a state senator be illegally elected to office because he didn’t meet the requirements for residency.  He got a judge to rule against the law that residency, for him, was accumulative.  It wasn’t immediate and consecutive the way it’s assumed to be in the Texas law,” the filer said.

The assignment of an attorney to the plaintiff, who filed pro se, is reportedly “at the discretion” of the court.  The plaintiff told us that she approached a number of attorneys who have submitted presidential eligibility cases over the last eight years to represent her but that they declined to do so.

The challenge asks the court for judicial review of the system, a declarative judgment, and an emergency injunction on the awarding of delegates and the certification of the election.  The case names all presidential candidates of both major parties who filed a Texas candidate ballot for president in December and January; the Texas secretary of state, Texas attorney general, and the state party chairmen.

“The system is broken.  We’ve given the secretary of state and attorney general and both of the state party chairs enough warning to tell them over and over again, ‘You’re violating the intent of the law,’ and the answer we get is, ‘It’s a federal issue.’  But if you file in the federal courts, it’s a local issue, depending on what is convenient,” the plaintiff told us.

She also believes that it is the “duty” of all eligible presidential candidates to challenge any candidate(s) who is/are ineligible to serve as the “chief constitutional officer” of the nation.

Congress, the two major political parties, and the courts have refused to address the question of who qualifies as a “natural born Citizen.”  Beginning last year, as individuals began announcing their presidential candidacies, the definition of the term has been stretched to include foreign-born individuals and those born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.

Many who have researched the background of the inclusion of the “natural born Citizen” qualification believe that it applies only to a person born in the U.S. to two citizen parents.

The writer explained that the filing was done after primary voting began in Texas because of “the way the courts view these cases.  They want the system to fail first.  Most of the lawsuits and verification challenges that have gone on before have all had the idea that if we’re proactive, the courts will stop the election, and that’s not the way the courts look at it.  They won’t pick it up until you let the system fail.”

The Post & Email will publish the filing as soon as it is available.  As of press time, it is pending a response from the court.


Join the Conversation


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

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

  1. Last Name: If Cruz can claim US citizenship through his mother his last name should be Darragh Wilson and NOT Cruz. The Cruz name comes from his Cuban/Canadian father = Cruz, Sr. !!!

  2. Under the law of nations and thus common law definition of the clause relied upon by the Framers when they drafted and adopted the Constitution, a citizen was simply a member of a country or nation, with the status acquired by any means recognized and accepted by that country or nation. In contradistinction, a natural born citizen was a child born or reputed born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth A natural born citizen was a citizen of that country or nation from the moment of birth by virtue of these birth circumstances alone. A natural born citizen did not need any law to be a citizen, like a natural child needed no law to be recognized the natural child of his or her natural father and mother. Person not born under such birth circumstances, being “foreigners or aliens” at common law, in order to be citizens of a country or nation, needed the aid of some positive law which would naturalize them to be citizens (not to be conflated, confounded, or confused with the natural born citizens) either from the moment of birth or after birth. See the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court of Minor v. Happersett (1875).

    The Framers incorporated these definitions of a citizen and natural born citizen into the Constitution, elevating these statuses to the national level. Hence, while they recognized state citizens, so made under local common law which borrowed from the colonial English common law, they saw these statuses as existing on a national and thus uniform level. Hence, in Article I and II, they provided for a citizen and a natural born citizen “of the United States,” so recognized by the law of nations, American national common law, and ultimately the U.S. Constitution, and in Article III and IV for a citizen of a state so recognized by the laws of that particular state and also ultimately by the U.S. Constitution.

    Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are all not natural born citizens of the United States. None of them are citizens only by virtue of being born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Obama, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley all need the Fourteenth Amendment to be citizens. Without the Fourteenth Amendment, they could be citizens of the state in which they were born, but not a citizen of the United States, let alone a natural born citizen of the United States. Cruz needs a naturalization Act of Congress to be a citizen of the United States. Being born in a foreign country, without that Act, Cruz would not even be a citizen of any state. He would be an alien.

    Being neither “a natural born Citizen, [n]or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” none of them are eligible to be President.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  3. Do press on with this filing to the Supreme Court. It is absolutely critical to address this issue to prevent ANOTHER usurper as POTUS, as well as, the Senate seat that Cruz currently occupies.The U.S. Constitution is clear on the requirements for eligibility and neither Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio are eligible for President of the United States of America!

  4. Excellent news. Hope this gets some traction. According to the U.S. Constitution the individual states have the full power and authority to regulate and control their elections within their respective state and they have the right to vet a candidate for possible election fraud in not being eligible for the office they seek. The states have been ducking this responsibility that last 3 pres election cycles including this one. I hope the TX Supreme Court takes this filing and hears it on the full merits and rules accordingly. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were born citizens of more than one country … Cruz was born in Canada and thus was Canadian, Cuban from his father, and claimed U.S. from his U.S. born mother. Cruz has never renounced his Cuban citizenship to date that I know of. Marco Rubio is also Cuban at Birth via his Cuban national father. He has not renounced that either. It won’t change their birth status but how do they ever expect us to allow a Cuban Citizen to be President of the USA and CINC of our military. That is pushing things way beyond what the founders intended. The press needs to ask both Cruz and Rubio about their current Cuban Citizenship and when they will be renouncing it. Won’t change their birth status but it will change their current dual nationality status.