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 think you just answered your own question. Indians weren't considered "under the jurisdiction" because the Indian nations were semi-sovereign and governed by treaty.
I think Cruz went the way of the political insider last night when he said he would first tackle what was doable, aka had bipartisan support. That’s where we’ve been forever and that’s why nothing gets done because this is code for not rocking the boat.
I’m not a big advocate of pandering to Democrats to bring them on board. Peace through strength.
More to the point, who is the least imperfect politician?
I don’t consider her debate disastrous, but it was self serving and she was reaching for the brass ring (get the magical soundbite that takes Trump down), that much is obvious.
There were so many ways for Kelly to broach this subject politely, directly and with followups. But she tried the way that would maximize her notoriety and damage to Trump.
I like Trump, still haven’t decided if I’m ready to vote for ‘Foghorn Leghorn’. But watching Jeb call for Trump season and Trump calling for Jeb season is certainly entertaining.
Jeb: Trump Season!
Trump: Jeb Season!
Jeb: Trump Season!
Trump: Jeb Season!
We’ve seen these Saturday morning cartoons before. They’re always hilarious.
I thought blog "pimping" was when the item was excerpted and you had to go to the blog to read the rest. It appears that this blogger has posted the whole thing, leaving us a CHOICE to visit the blog or not. So in fairness, not a pimp.
He should have mentioned that the above shows could be interpreted that illegal immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Also, why would that phrase be there if it’s not to limit the overgeneralization preceding it? And how come the American Indians were not given citizenship until years after the amendment was ratified?
___________________
Mark Levin answered that question just the other day. I cant quote directly but, “the jurisdiction thereof” was not considered geographic at all, but rather what entity do you hold in allegiance.
The American Indian did not have an allegiance to the United States, so they could not be citizens.
Kind of like illegal aliens who still claim Mexican allegiance and refuse assimilate.
You want to invade the world and make it safe for a free market?
Propaganda. You never supported Cruz.
Wrt to “subject to the jurisdiction”
I’m not a lawyer but have heard of the concept “under the color of law” used in association with determining jurisdiction of illegals, by using the claim that any governmental agency recognizing the illegal (for instance, by giving welfare benefits or a driver’s license) gives them “color of law” and therefore legitimizes their presence ex post facto.
Needless to say I find this complete BS and very dangerous.
I like Cruz. If we allow Kelly to take him down, we get Graham or Jebby as our nominee.
Kelly Bad.
Thanks.
I guess it’s nice to know about the current legal differentiation about the meanings adding political and territorial distinctions, but it still doesn’t negate what I believe was the narrow intent of the amendment in its inception.
Birthright citizenship as it has been applied with illegals and transient visitors is an unfounded politically motivated bastardization of that original goal. I will always stand by my assertion that the child of illegally present parents born here in this country should never be given American citizenship.
I have been at Cruz, Bobby and Fiorina. Perry lost me with his blows at Trump. So I guess I am the same.
Since our own dumb law made US citizens of the kids born here, deportation is not an option. Even when (if) we fix the law those already here can't be ejected on an ex-post-facto basis.
To clear the air re me: I’m for Trump and Ted Cruz as his vp.
Donald and Ted are willing to discuss the biggest problem we have in America and Europe, illegal immigrants.
Trying to discuss this mess on tv with someone like MK is like being asked to walk through a mine field blind folded.
I’m sure that if 100 Freepers against illegals were in the same room and a discussion re illegals was held, in a few minutes, Freepers would be screaming at each other.
Then, the screaming would escalate into fist fights or worse . Because each of us has a different bias/outlook re our personal interactions with the illegals in our lives, friends’s lives and relatives’s lives.
We need these discussions re how to handle the illegal problem, and Trump has set the stage and started the discussion. Ted will add to these discussions. Hopefully, every candidate will get into these discussions.
Then, after the elections, congress will be forced to discuss this national disgrace/problem and start a positive change to end illegals coming into America.
Last but not least, a personal suggestion to you. Never be a troll for any candidate. Many Freepers have super Troll sniffing abilities. Your vile comments re Ted were classic Troll verbage.
Cruz should know that the 14th Amendment has a codicil that, “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Those articles making up The Bill Of Rights do not.
Though he seems to have conveniently forgotten that. Not that this Congress would ever do anything that would require actual work and fortitude.
Technically you’re correct. But this “article” really is just a personal rant, a vanity that gives the appearance of being a legitimate column. Instead, it’s a political hit piece by an advocate of Carly Fiorina that he’s published on his personal blog, and then shared here.
It would have been more accurate for him to simply label this as a vanity or rant, and written it here, rather than to try to give it some air of legitimacy by pointing to an outside website (his personal blog).
I actually didn’t have a problem with what he said, when he was allowed to talk over Martha Big Mouth. The thing that bugs me is his stuttering, and every time I hear him interviewed, he uses the phrase, “you’re exactly right.” It drives me up a wall for some reason. Having said that, I could vote for him as VP.
Acknowledging a REASON that the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Nowhere does it LIMIT the RTKABA to a militia.
The late David Lawrence--Editor & Publisher of U.S. News & World Report--one of the few great journalists of the middle of the last century, repeatedly tried to draw attention to the scandalous history of the "Amendment" as the illegal & destructive thing that it was.
Your attack on Cruz is unwarranted. He is simply trying to avoid an issue that will be misunderstood--greatly misunderstood, if simply raised in a discussion with a show-boating, Miss Kelly.
And another difficulty is that any obviously Mexican or Central American individual is automatically assumed to be illegal. My experience with such folks has been about 90% positive, since the gangs and la Raza types are not around our area.
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.