Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Canadian-born Ted Cruz says “facts are clear” he’s eligible to be president
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ^ | 07/21/2013

Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 601-650651-700701-750751-754 last
To: Kansas58
And, he will now tell you that I am making the “argument from authority” error in logic, huh?
I've been auditing a number (most) of these Ted Cruz and related eligibility threads for several months. Interests in history and law make the topic a good one. Schedule doesn't allow for much posting (it's a very time-consuming habit), but I'll come off lurking mode for a bit.

The "argument from authority" is only a fallacy when the authority isn't a knowledgeable source on the topic or where there isn't a consensus on the point advanced by the authority. As to the basic jus soli principle of citizenship, the historical/legal sources cited were proper to offer on the point and there very much is a consensus. (Not unanimity, but a broad consensus among legal scholars, judges, and historical sources).

What is dubious is making this "logical fallacy" claim and then turning around and offering other authorities. But I'm sure this has already been pointed out by someone.

To the ship . . .
751 posted on 07/28/2013 7:42:31 PM PDT by CpnHook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
""""""Any possibility of the Supreme Court taking action on this issue has long been moot."""""

Before the Supreme Court will address this issue, there first needs to be at least a few members of the legislative branch making some noise .....

Take Senator Cruz...

Most of us here agree with just about all his positions. BUT many of us conclude that he is NOT constitutionally eligible. Now, Senator Ted Cruz is a constitutional scholar and since he is being considered as a candidate for president in 2016. He definitely is in the right position to render an opinion and make an impact (ie he has standing). But he is avoiding the issue.

In a recent interview, he said that this is a legal question for others to decide and he is not going to engage.

So in the absence of any legitimate person in the legislature putting the issue front and center, why would the Supreme Court of the United States take it on?

752 posted on 07/28/2013 8:34:09 PM PDT by Constitution 123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

As I said in my previous reply to you, IMHO this all must begin in the legislative branch. AND Senator Cruz should be at the forefront. If we do not get leadership from him now, the only conclusion I can come to is that his political ambitions are overcoming his courage to lead. By not taking a position and avoiding the issue, he along with many others including Sarah is complicit in the ineligibility of Obummer.


753 posted on 07/28/2013 8:44:17 PM PDT by Constitution 123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: joethedrummer

It matters.


754 posted on 08/12/2013 5:32:08 AM PDT by Shimmer1 ("What a poor, ignorant, malicious, short-sighted, crapulous mass." John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 601-650651-700701-750751-754 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson