Posted on 08/26/2015 6:26:21 AM PDT by libertarian neocon
I've always liked Ted Cruz, he is the Republican who I agree with most on the issues. He's free market, pro-life and for a measured foreign policy (less aggressive than Marco Rubio but more aggressive than Rand Paul). Most importantly, he would stick to his ideals despite pressure from the establishment. He may have made some tactical errors because of that but I couldn't help but admire him for his idealism. He has been the candidate that I would have voted for if I didn't care at all about electability.
Unfortunately, his interview last night with Megyn Kelly unmasked him as just another smarmy politician. One who thinks the Constitution is maleable, depending on the way the winds are blowing or what is politically advantageous, one who doesn't answer direct questions with direct answers.
When Megyn Kelly asked him about the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship, he said that "as a policy matter, it doesn't make sense anymore". This struck me as the same answer you would get from a liberal with regards to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms after a school shooting.
It seems to me that the text of the 14th amendment is pretty clear on birthright citizenship. It says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It is no less clear than "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The funny thing is that Ted Cruz actually agrees with me or he used to before it became politically expedient to mirror Trump's views with the goal of getting his supporters when Trump blows up. During the interview Megyn Kelly quoted Ted Cruz back to himself. Here is what he said in 2011:
“The 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I’ve looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good. As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it’s in the U.S. Constitution. And I don’t like it when federal judges set aside the Constitution because their policy preferences are different.”
But of course that was before he was running for President and so didn't have to worry about his words offending another candidates supporters. He really didn't have a good answer after Megyn Kelly brought out that quote, talking around it rather than explaining why he changed his mind like a normal, honest person would have.
Megyn Kelly then asked Cruz the same question Trump has been asked, whether he would deport with the parents two children of illegal immigrants that were technically citizens of the US. He totally avoided answering that question as he attempted a typical maneuver of a politician, having his cake and eating it too. Without being on record as saying he would deport them, he could pivot later and say he is against deporting children without technically flip-flopping while at the same time not saying anything that would offend the Trumpitistas and those that support Trump's immigration plan. I don't like Trump for many reasons but at least he answers questions directly as he did this question when it was asked of him.
Last night it became clear that Ted Cruz is willing to do anything to become President, which is exactly the opposite of why I always had been fond of him. If I wanted someone who would lie with a straight face and a smile and evade questions I would vote for a Bill Clinton or a John Edwards. Looks like Ted Cruz came to Washington to change it but instead it changed him.
He also left me wondering what other constitutional provisions is he set to oppose for political expediency with the goal of gaining more power for himself?
I posted the video link in my reply for your reference.
“Makes sense that you’d do whatever you can to try to trash the strongest candidate, Ted Cruz.”
Strongest candidate by what measure? Certainly not any of the polls. I wrote this post because I was sincerely disappointed with him. Yes Im supporting Carly Fiorina for now, she actually answers direct questions directly. She is a non-politician who isn’t as insane as Trump and not as fish out of water as Carson.
Good luck with your smarmy thread.......
*fingers crossed behind back*
I also listened to the interview, and Cruz was not being a politician. He was being a lawyer. He said that the field is divided, that some think the amendment needs to be changed, and that others think the change can be made legislatively. Then he concluded that the problem needs to be attacked from both directions, both constitutionally and legislatively. Then we’re prepared no matter what the result.
That was a huge mistake conservatives made with homosexual marriage. We bought the DOMA when at the time we had close to the firepower to go after a constitutional amendment. It should have been attacked from both directions.
Cruz is right.
You aren’t going to undo the citizenships already allowed.
I would oppose that. Citizenship is a permanent status. Once you let the government decide it can revoke citizenship, then it’s not a far stretch to revoke it for enemies of the state and not a much further jump to YOU being an enemy of the state.
The current administration already believes us to be potential enemies to oppose.
I do think we should end the fiction that the 14th provides for anchor babies going forward.
What to do with the children is easy enough: parents can take them back home where they can legally re-enter once emancipated as an adult, or, they can turn them over to foster care on their way out.
Why include "A well-regulated militia..." in the 2nd?
Right—I agree with that completely.
Thanks for posting your own blog... not.
I think it was meant to explain that there was knowledge in the construction of the amendment that there is a need for militias, BUT there is also a basic right for the citizen to bear arms for his own purposes. Were their intention ONLY for citizen militias, then it would have stopped there.
Liberals like use these extra additions as excuses to abridge our rights (as in the case of 2A) yet totally ignore other clarifying remarks like “jurisdiction” and “residence” in others - what we’re talking about here - the 14th Amendment.
Poppycock.
Megan Kelly was being and ass and is out for GOP scalps, but maybe you weren’t a Cruz supporter to begin with?
90% of FR would blow it’s collective tops if George Stephanopoulos did this, and the Sunday Morning talk show thread in the 3000’s.
He answered the question despite being interrupted 4 times for a yes or no.
You are mistaking the fact you don’t like his answer or didn’t understand his answer for him not answering.
And no, people don’t have a right as you describe. It’s all about caveat emptor.
Did you ever hear Carly praising that bitch hitlary. Glen beck played it on his show.
He didn’t have one of Cruz praising her.
thank you.
i will try to have a look
Last night it became clear that Ted Cruz is willing to do anything to become President, which is exactly the opposite of why I always had been fond of him. If I wanted someone who would lie with a straight face and a smile and evade questions I would vote for a Bill Clinton or a John Edwards. Looks like Ted Cruz came to Washington to change it but instead it changed him.
Looks like we are IBTZ.
Not every one saw it your way. M. Kelly is in fact a leftie and a bimbo who has no desire to see a conservative win
So glad that you are psychic and capable of knowing what was in Cruz’s mind
It’s been pointed out that the word “jurisdiction” can mean two things. Both “territorial”, and “full” or “political” jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction applies to “sojourners”, temporary residents, citizens of other nations, and those with no citizenship.
Political jurisdiction applies to citizens, just to citizens, and not even to “legal residents”. It applies civil rights across the board, limited only in minors and felons.
While the federal government may extend full jurisdiction to those who do not constitutionally qualify for it, they do not have full jurisdiction by constitutional means, but by legal means.
The biggest example of this crossover are “corporate civil rights”. Nothing in the constitution requires corporations to have civil rights, for the important reason that they are *not* “endowed by the Creator”, and thus are inherent; *nor* are they constitutional civil rights, required in the constitution. But only legal rights, created by government which can be changed by government.
Illegal aliens are in the same boat. While the argument of whether those already granted citizenship is moot, by being “grandfathered”, those who do not have citizenship may be prohibited from getting it through being born here.
But since this writer is withdrawing his support from Ted Cruz I have no option but to abandon Ted Cruz as well.I can't wait to find out who he is going to support so I can too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.