Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz is going to New Hampshire. Will they like him?
Washington Post ^ | August 23 at 6:30 am | Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan

Posted on 08/25/2013 7:24:55 AM PDT by SoConPubbie

Edited on 08/25/2013 7:26:09 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) is the hottest commodity in Republican politics these days, winning rave reviews everywhere he goes on the Iím-not-announcing-anything-but-I-just-might-run-for-president tour.

Today, Cruz heads to New Hampshire to raise money for the state Republican Party. If history is any guide, the Granite State will pose the toughest test thus far for the Texas Republicanís national ambitions.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New Hampshire; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: cruz; cruz2016; naturalborncanadian; naturalborncitizen; naturalborncuban; naturalbornsubject; newhampshire; tedcruz; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-152 next last

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton

 

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan

 

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792

 

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

 

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

 


1 posted on 08/25/2013 7:24:55 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; VinL; ex-snook; sport; INVAR; ejonesie22; PieterCasparzen; Colonel_Flagg; Washi; ...

Ted Cruz Ping!


2 posted on 08/25/2013 7:25:22 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

If they love liberty they will...


3 posted on 08/25/2013 7:30:19 AM PDT by gov_bean_ counter (Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Hey kinda early yet. What is his ‘vision thing’ to prosper the country?


4 posted on 08/25/2013 7:32:23 AM PDT by ex-snook (God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
The "Live free or die!" state should be very receptive to a Ted Cruz candidacy.

Ted Cruz - 2016

5 posted on 08/25/2013 7:36:26 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Bump.

I’m getting mighty tired of “Republicans” (and Democrats) all sending every job they can to foreign competitors.

And yes, that is what is happening.

Meanwhile America is now 17 trillion dollars in debt, and that continues to get worse.

BRING BACK AMERICAN MANUFACTURING.

Now.

Not in 2016. Not in 2014.

Now.


6 posted on 08/25/2013 7:39:59 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Sunday, in the afternoon.


7 posted on 08/25/2013 7:52:30 AM PDT by FreeperCell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

WaPo, will anyone read it?


8 posted on 08/25/2013 7:54:48 AM PDT by Ancient Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

great post! Loved it!


9 posted on 08/25/2013 8:21:48 AM PDT by Cen-Tejas (it's the debt bomb stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as a Senator. Sen. Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve in the Office of the President or Vice president. He needs to take responsibility and promptly quash speculation about his being a candidate for POTUS in 2016.


10 posted on 08/25/2013 8:24:59 AM PDT by WhiskeyX ( provides a system for registering complaints about unfair broadcasters and the ability to request a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie




Senator Cruz ROCKS!

11 posted on 08/25/2013 8:29:44 AM PDT by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

uh?
NO Cruz is eligible.
I hope he doesn’t run but if no other true conservative comes forth then let him run

how foolish to say he isn’t eligible


12 posted on 08/25/2013 8:29:49 AM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Cruz's mother was born an American citizen, a daughter of Uncle Sam. Like apple trees can produce only apples, Cruz's mother could produce only American citizens. This is called natural law.

Ted Cruz - 2016

13 posted on 08/25/2013 8:30:20 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I would think that being so close to Canada and having Canadians visit often that they would accept Ted Cruise big time. Why not? What makes him any different than any other Canadian?


14 posted on 08/25/2013 8:30:33 AM PDT by napscoordinator ( Santorum-Bachmann 2016 for the future of the Country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Ack, only 10.


15 posted on 08/25/2013 8:32:47 AM PDT by txhurl ('The DOG ate my homework. That homework, too. ALL my homework. OK?' - POSHITUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

Watch Ted run, 2016.


16 posted on 08/25/2013 8:33:11 AM PDT by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX; Tau Food
Please point out the relevant part of the US Constitution that supports your opinion of the meaning of "Natural Born" citizenship requirements.

Lacking that, please point out the relevant law pass by the US Congress and signed by a US President that supports your opinion of the meaning of "Natural Born" citizenship requirements.

Lacking that, please point out the relevant US Supreme Court ruling that supports your opinion of the meaning of "Natural Born" citizenship requirements.

If you can't provide any of the above, you don't have a leg to stand on, constitutionally speaking.

You see, the founders of this country (those guys who wrote the US Constitution) were really smart guys and with the exception of Slavery (for very real and well-stated reasons) covered everything that they could think of at the time in detail. I sincerely doubt that if they thought as you do on this subject, they would have overlooked this issue and not have left clear requirements/or a definition in the Constitution.

Does not seem very likely.
17 posted on 08/25/2013 8:37:25 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food; WhiskeyX
This is called natural law. Absolutely wrong!

The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born Citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ cannot possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?

There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.

OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?

There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.

  1. 1. Born in or out of a country.
  2. 2. Both parents are citizens.
  3. 3. One parent is a citizen.
  4. 4. Neither parent is a citizen.
The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.

Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?

'Natural Born Citizen' simply means, a person born a Citizen according to the law of nature.

What is important about the 'law of nature'? There is a legal term Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia - and it means, "The laws of nature are unchangeable". The Congress CAN NOT declare a person a 'Natural Born Citizen', because they CAN NOT change the definition, it's immutable.

The idea that Ted Cruz meets the NBC clause is ridiculous, Ted Cruz is a US citizen NOT by natural law, but by statutory law, as written in the Immigration and Nationality Act (either section 301, or section 320).

Just look at the titles of the chapters those sections are in! The title of the chapter section 301 is in - CHAPTER 1 -- NATIONALITY AT BIRTH AND BY COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. We know that Cruz was not considered a 'US National', he is a Citizen, so his citizenship would be from "COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION". The title of the chapter containing section 320?
CHAPTER 2 -- NATIONALITY THROUGH NATURALIZATION, that says it all, all persons who are 'citizens at birth' through these sections, are citizens "THROUGH NATURALIZATION". Also, these are not really 'Citizens at birth', the are 'Citizens BY birth'. There is a BIG difference (and you will notice that Cruz 'spokespeople' will always say 'by birth'), persons who automatically acquire Citizenship via section 320, are not actually a US citizen until they move to the US and establish permanent residence.

That is why it was always clear that you must be born on US soil to be president, because ALL US citizens, born outside the US, even if a citizen at birth, are 'naturalized US citizens', and NOT 'natural born Citizens'.

18 posted on 08/25/2013 8:40:13 AM PDT by GregNH (If you can't fight, please find a good place to hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

If he wants to be “liked” he needs to go on Facebook.


19 posted on 08/25/2013 8:41:19 AM PDT by ully2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

CCCCCCCCCCCCRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


20 posted on 08/25/2013 8:44:05 AM PDT by School of Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-152 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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