My citing that case had nothing to do with the specific plaintiff

Or the issue being discussed.

The 14th Amend. says nothing about eminent domain. Or incorporation.

I'll take the Court's reasoning over your say-so: "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due proces of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation."

I'll take the Court's reasoning

The 14th Amend. says nothing about eminent domain. Or incorporation.

And the Court's reasoning in Kelo laughed at your position.

Relevance?

You said that case was decided before the 14th amendment. What's relevant is that you were wrong.

In Kelo, the Court effectively chose to protect original intent.

That may be one of its effects - a broader effect, as stated in the dissent which Scalia (and Thomas) joined, is that 'To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.' And this is so for its application to federal action as well, since nothing in the ruling excludes that.

You said that case was decided before the 14th amendment.

Did I? In which post and with exactly what words?

The 14th Amend. says nothing about eminent domain. Or incorporation.

I'll take the Court's reasoning over your say-so: "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation."

And the Court's reasoning in Kelo laughed at your position.

Wrong as usual - Kelo in no way contradicts that compensation is required when a state exercises eminent domain, but broadens the meaning of "public use" that is a requirement for a state to exercise eminent domain.

He's trying to argue that the 14th Amendment retroactively and posthumously changed the minds of the Founders and Framers. It's just flat bizarre.

Your blatant and clumsy lies are just flat bizarre.

Ratified in 1868, it took the U.S. Supreme Court 100 years to come to the conclusion that, hey, the 14th amendment means the BOR applies to the states.

The Court ruled in 1897, "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation." - CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. v. CITY OF CHICAGO

The Court ruled in 1897, "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation."

That ruling does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states. It applies the 14th Amendment's EXPLICIT due process requirement on the states to the states.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Are you really that dim?

non sequitur, "That was before the Fourteenth Amendment..."?

OK, so it was a non sequitur. (It was, by the by, relevant to your earlier claim, "He's [Trump] more of an originalist than Scalia was." Originalists support enforcing even those amendments not authored by the Framers and Founders.)

Scalia (and Thomas) joined, is that 'To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property--and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.'

The Fifth Amendment applied to the federal government, not the states. O’Connor's argument (odd that you left her name off) was premised on a position contrary to fact. BTW, Scalia didn't write a dissent. Beyond that, it was a policy argument. Legislative bodies set policy.

Originalists support enforcing even those amendments not authored by the Framers and Founders.)

Enforce the Fifth Amendment to your heart's content. It wasn't a restriction on the states, and neither was it the source of the state's inherent eminent domain and police powers. You keep trying to assume your false premise.

The Court ruled in 1897, "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation."

That ruling does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states. It applies the 14th Amendment's EXPLICIT due process requirement on the states to the states.

And in so applying also applies the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

And in so applying also applies the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

The Court rejected your penumbral emanation.

The Fifth Amendment applied to the federal government, not the states.

The Fourteenth applied to the states.

BTW, Scalia didn't write a dissent.

Which part of "joined" did you not undestand?

The Court ruled in 1897, "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation."

That ruling does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states. It applies the 14th Amendment's EXPLICIT due process requirement on the states to the states.

And in so applying also applies the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

The Court rejected your penumbral emanation.

Clearly you're wrong.

Was that deliberate?

Enforce the Fifth Amendment to your heart's content.

And also the Fourteenth?

Which part of "joined" did you not undestand?

The part that stuck Scalia's name on a dissent

That he joined. Look into a remedial reading course.

The Court ruled in 1897, "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation."

That ruling does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states. It applies the 14th Amendment's EXPLICIT due process requirement on the states to the states.

And in so applying also applies the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

"And in so applying also applies the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause" appears nowhere in the 1897 decision.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

That he joined.

You didn't name O'Connor, just Scalia.

Transparent dishonesty.

And also the Fourteenth?

Have you already forgotten what is actually says?

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You didn't name O'Connor, just Scalia.

Transparent dishonesty.

Transparent nonsense - O'Connor, unlike Scalia, had not previously been mentioned on this thread and is of no clear relevance.

no clear relevance

The author of the dissent.

For shame.

However, the "it took the U.S. Supreme Court 100 years" claim (not yours) is still wrong - from Gitlow v. New York (1925): "For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press - which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress - are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States."

The author of the dissent.

Which is relevant to the current exchange how?

Gitlow v. New York

A horrific bit of judicial legislation. Now the First Amendment means that federal judges may ban prayer in local schools, may crowbar the Ten Commandments off of state courthouse walls, may seize Nativity Scenes in the town square, that pro- life activists may be arrested for praying near abortuaries, etc.

Which is relevant to the current exchange how?

How is Scalia's joining a dissent by [the name you refuse to state] relevant to the current exchange?

Now the First Amendment means that federal judges may ban prayer in local schools, may crowbar the Ten Commandments off of state courthouse walls, may seize Nativity Scenes in the town square, that pro- life activists may be arrested for praying near abortuaries, etc.

Those abominations required not only incorporation but also the inversion/perversion of "freedom of religion" into "freedom from religion" - and it's clear to me which is the more intrinsically objectionable.

Gitlow, while not as far as I can see making a positive argument for incorporation, does note that Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907) raised the question and left it undecided. So at least that early, the door was left open for incorporation.

Scalia was cited by you as a standard of measurement for originalism

A low standard.

www.mainetv.net/nbc.htm

"In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:"

That quotation was from Marshall's dissent and was in the context of inquiring "how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside" - nothing to do with natural born citizens.

I don't have furhter time to waste on such poorly researched material.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-yorkers-seek-court-order-ted-cruz-ballot-article-1.2536639

New Yorkers seek court order to keep Ted Cruz off the ballot in state Republican presidential primaries because he was born in Canada

BY Barbara Ross
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Thursday, February 18, 2016, 4:41 PM

Two New York based retirees have beaten Donald Trump to the punch by filing a lawsuit to get Ted Cruz off the ballot because of his Canadian roots.

The pair filed papers in Manhattan Supreme Court on Thursday asking the court to order Cruz off the ballot in the state's Republican presidential primary on April 19.

Cruz has insisted that he is qualified to be president because any child born abroad to an American citizen gets American citizenship automatically.

When Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, his mother was an American citizen. She was born in Wilmington, Del. His father was a native of Cuba who became a citizen of Canada after Cruz was born.

In court papers, Barry Korman, 81, of Manhattan and William Gallo, 85, of Manhasset say Cruz "has publicly admitted that he was born in Canada" and state election law says "a person shall not be designated or nominated for a public office or party position who is ... ineligible to be elected or ... meet the constitutional or statutory qualifications."

They point out that Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution says, "no person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Therefore, they contend, Cruz is "constitutionally ineligible" to become President.

Roger J. Bernstein, the lawyer for the Korman and Gallo, said Cruz is right in saying he is a citizen but he is a “naturalized” citizen because he was born abroad.

"The key words here are 'natural born.' It comes from an old English concept that you have to be born in the realm of the king," he said, adding that's not the case with Cruz.

Bernstein said his clients — who also have filed a separate challenge to Cruz' candidacy at the state Board of Elections in Albany — filed the lawsuit because "they want to get this settled and resolved so people don't waste their vote."

[...]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-decide-fate-ted-cruz-state-primary-ballot-article-1.2552184

Judge to decide on lawsuit that seeks to toss Ted Cruz from New York primary ballot

BY Glenn Blain
DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU
Thursday, March 3, 2016, 6:02 PM

ALBANY — A state judge expects to decide by Monday whether to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to toss Ted Cruz off New York primary ballots because he was born in Canada.

State Supreme Court Judge David Weinstein told attorneys for both sides Thursday he will likely need the weekend to decide whether to grant Cruz’s motion to dismiss the case brought by two New York-based retirees.

Cruz’s attorney Grant Lally argued Thursday the two plaintiffs — Barry Korman, 81, of Manhattan and William Gallo, 85, of Manhasset — waited too long bring their case. Under state law, they had three days from the time Cruz submitted paperwork to be on the ballot to file objections with the state Board of Elections. The pair waited 19 days.

“They didn’t just blow it, they blew it by a mile,” Lally told Weinstein.

Lally, who insisted Cruz met the constitutional requirements to run for President, also argued such matters should be argued in federal court.

Attorney Roger Bernstein, who represents Korman and Gallo, said his clients were late because the Board of Elections took several days to post Cruz’s paperwork on its website.

Bernstein also argued it shouldn’t matter when they filed the case because the Board of Elections routinely defers to courts in such matters.

“It’s an empty exercise to file objections,” Bernstein said.

In their lawsuit, Korman and Gallo argue Cruz was born in Canada and does not meet the “constitutional or statutory qualifications" to run for President

[...]

http://www.lawyerherald.com/articles/37622/20160308/ny-supreme-court-judge-ted-cruz-ballot-status.htm

NY Supreme Court judge dismisses challenge to Ted Cruz's ballot status

By Staff Writer
Mar 08, 2016 12:02 AM EST

On Monday, a state judge rejected a challenge to Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz's status as a natural-born citizen. The judge ruled that the case was filed too late to have merit.

State Supreme Court Justice David Weinstein's ruling allows Ted Cruz's name to remain on the New York ballot for its April 19 presidential primary. According to USA Today, state residents William Gallo of Nassau County and Barry Korman of New York City filed a lawsuit against the Texas senator and the state Board of Elections. Both Gallo and Korman argued that Ted Cruz isn't a natural-born citizen of America and that he was born in Canada, thus, should be removed from the New York Ballot.

However, the state of Board of Elections argued that the challenge was submitted after the deadline to raise objections. Judge Weinstein agreed and declined to review the constitutional issue whether Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen.

Judge Weinstein wrote that despite the many arguments proffered by petitioners, none can get them around the 'immovable object' standing in the way of such petition, and that is the fact that they have 'failed to file objections within the statutory deadline'. Democrat and Chronicle published Judge Weinstein's decision in the case.

In January, attorney Lawrence Joyce, who supports Cruz's rival Ben Carson, also filed a complaint with the elections board, as reported by Reuters. The board rejected the plaintiff's complaint and Joyce filed a lawsuit which aims to seek judicial review in Cook County.

The law in New York requires preliminary objections to be filed and submitted against a candidate's ballot status three days after they file petitions. In April, Cruz's name will be included along with the six Republicans on the New York primary ballot like front-runner Donald Trump, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Sen. Marco Rubio. Meanwhile, two other candidates will also appear on the ballot despite already having dropped out, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and Jeb Bush.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/01/judge-dismisses-ted-cruz-illinois-citizenship-lawsuit/81153054/

Judge tosses Ted Cruz citizenship challenge in Illinois

Aamer Madhani
USA TODAY 5:42 p.m. EST
March 1, 2016

CHICAGO — An Illinois judge on Tuesday dismissed a legal challenge brought by a voter who contends that Sen. Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for president because he was born in Canada.

Judge Maureen Ward Kirby of the Cook County Circuit Court dismissed the complaint brought by Lawrence Joyce, because he failed to properly serve Cruz and members of the Illinois State Board of Elections as required by law.

Joyce, a pharmacist and attorney from Poplar Grove, Ill., filed his suit last month after the elections board dismissed Joyce's complaint that Cruz, who was born in Calgary to a U.S. citizen, did not meet the "natural born" eligibility requirement to seek the nation's highest office. The board ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the eligibility of the candidate in a federal race.

But Kirby said she was required to dismiss the case, because state law stipulates the candidate be served with the complaint. Joyce, who says he supports GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson, failed to serve Cruz or any members of the board.

Voters in Alabama, Texas and New York also have filed legal challenges on whether Cruz meets the citizenship qualifications.

The Indiana Board of Election last month rejected challenges to whether Cruz and fellow GOP presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio meet the "natural-born" requirement. Rubio, whose parents immigrated from Cuba, was born in Florida. A similar complaint brought against Cruz and Rubio was also dismissed on Monday by a federal judge in Arkansas.

The issue of whether Cruz is a "natural-born" citizen has also been raised by rival GOP presidential contender Donald Trump, who has threatened to file a lawsuit on the issue. Cruz maintains he meets the criteria because his mother is American-born.

Joyce has the right to appeal the decision, but says he will wait to see Super Tuesday results before making his decision.Even with the loss, Joyce said he believes that the legal challenges brought by him and others has done some damage to Cruz's standing with Republican voters.

"Did these challenges nationwide damage him to a point where he didn't win a single county (in South Carolina)?," Joyce said. "He lost Dillon County, S.C. by 60 votes. Did these challenges cost Ted Cruz 60 votes in Dillon County. I wouldn't surprised if we weren't responsible for some of those votes."

Cruz has dismissed the efforts as "political mischief."

"This lawsuit was merely a misguided attempt to distract the voters away from the candidate who is the most qualified candidate we have for president," Cruz attorney Sharee Langenstein said after Tuesday's hearing. "I'm just glad we're able to move on from it. I think it's a distraction from what's actually most important in this particular race."

The Illinois primary will be held on March 15. Two recent polls of Illinois voters show Trump with a sizable lead in the state over Cruz, Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Cruz epitomizes the worst in both Clinton and Obama, he is a sex deviant and a illegal alien.

Demand Cruz unseal his records and produce a CRBA with his name on it, issued by the USA when he was born in Canada.

Those that oppose the birther talk never present US Supreme Court cases, we who oppose Cruz based on his ineligibility, do.

Folks, the US Constitution, like the bible is not about picking and choosing which parts you like, it is take it 1005 or you will have none of it.

Article Two, Section Two, subsection Five is clear, one must be a Natural Born Citizen to be President of these Untied States. Cruz does not qualify.

www.mainetv.net/col_lawre nce_sellin_001.htm

www.mainetv.net/jim_buzzell_001.h tm

www.mainetv.net/nbc.htm

www.mainetv.net/jlagrayfox.htm

ruz epitomizes the worst in both Clinton and Obama, he is a sex deviant and a illegal alien.

The sex allegation is an allegation. You or I don't know if it is true.

He isn't an illegal alien. That doesn't mean he is a natural born citizen though.

In my view he isn't. I have to say that to be consistent because I said the same of Obama.

Those that oppose the birther talk never present US Supreme Court cases, we who oppose Cruz based on his ineligibility, do.

And, as I showed, you get them wrong.

And, as I showed, you get them wrong.

No you didn't show that. You talked about laws. If a law had to be passed that is not natural born.

You talked about laws.

I did? In which post(s)?

He isn't an illegal alien. That doesn't mean he is a natural born citizen though.

Really? If he had no CRBA, “The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen.

He had no passport, so how did he get from Canada to the USA?

If no CRBA and no Passport, what is he?

Let me help you, he is an illegal alien.

And, as I showed, you get them wrong.

You did no such thing, what you did was give em some garbage about a decision from an inferior court, a ruling worth less than the paper is written on.

what you did was give em some garbage about a decision from an inferior court

You've confused me with someone else - one of the many things you're confused about. I showed that YOUR link got SEVERAL facts wrong about the FIRST Supreme Court case it cited.