Posted on 02/10/2016 4:17:12 AM PST by detective
so what do you think of his funding Mitch for re-election?
Do you remember all the whopla about defeating Mitch.? Questions here on Free Republic as to WHO would want MITCH re-elected but the GOP-e. GOP-E , GOP-E... that’s all we heard... then Mitch was re-elected.
Who did we blame? GOP-e... when your candidate TRUMP paid good $$ to have him put back in office ? WHY?? HE says he is GOOD!! TRUMP LOVES MITCH!
>>Are you familiar with Winston Churchill’s years 1932-1939. When it came to stopping the rise of Hitler, I suppose you could say that he was a total failure as a back-bench MP.
To the best of my knowledge, Hitler did not rise in England or out of Parliament. So, if he was spending all of his political capital in the British governing body to force another nation to drive their leader out of power, then he was a failure for overstepping his authority.
Hitler rose to power by violating the international agreements to which Britain was both a signatory and a designated enforcing agent. WSC pushed to enforce the agreements, such as stopping the German occupation of the Rhineland. Had his recommendations been followed, the NAZIs would have most likely been driven from power.
That you do in fact look on WSC as a failure sets a clear difference in how you and I view the world. I believe that people should stand up for what is right, whether they prevail or not.
Churchill became PM in 1940, because he was the only one with the moral authority to do it.
What are YOUR qualifications? What do YOU use as the legal authority in support of your conclusion? Some pop-lawyer stuff? A law review article? Just your "common sense?"
Fact of the matter is, there are people with pretty good legal chops, who disagree with your conclusion, and they cite the authority they rely on. Anybody who knows how to read case law can "check their work."
At any rate, my only point is that your argument works against you, just like it works against your opponents. That is to say, your point of view is likewise invalid until you cite your legal authority, and then that authority will speak for itself.
Not legally they don't. And presence or absence of a CRBA makes no difference at all, except to the extent that presence of one can fool the public into thinking that as a matter of con-law, he was not born (also) an alien, and needing to prove his claim to US citizenship to the satisfaction of an adjudicator.
“...What do YOU use as the legal authority in support of your conclusion?...”
What is my “conclusion” that you are so certain of?
Whether or not Cruz is a naturalized citizen. Most people come down on one side or the other of that question. It doesn't matter which side you come down on, the question of "what is your legal authority" is pertinent.
“...Whether or not Cruz is a naturalized citizen...”
I didn’t state one way or the other. I only see one reference to NBC in the legislative record that was entered by a congress of founding fathers including 8 of the 11 framers of the US constitution. Even as “original” as that may be, I don’t know if it has the least bit of legal bearing the day Cruz was born, or today.
If you are looking for an opinion, I can’t say one way or the other. There are “constitutional” scholars, lawyers, solicitors, etc on both sides of the issue and none have decision making authority. But if you are looking for an original opinion from the founding fathers, there is that one glaring example in the legislative record. Feel free to argue with them.
Yah they'll follow the lead of their Yankee masters from NH!
The only thing you could offer that would be useful to an objective person, would be some legal authority. Which you have offered (the 1790 Naturalization Act), along with brief discussion of why you believe that controls the outcome.
Having studied the law, and read and understood probably a couple thousand cases (not all on citizenship), I believe that my opinion is on a sound foundation.
I know for a fact that I am unable to persuade everyone, but that isn't the test of being right or wrong (see global warming, flat earth, and sun orbits the earth). But I am able to point to the legal authority I use to reach my point of view, and have been able to rebut most arguments raised by others.
Again, my initial point was that your own standard for giving weight to somebody's opinion puts you on the "totally unqualified" end of the spectrum.
Because dems will vote for him.
“...why you believe that controls the outcome...”
I have no idea if that controls *anything* nor have I asserted so. All I have said is that it is the only reference I (as a lay person, never once claiming any authority on the matter) can find in the legislative record. You can take it or leave it.
What I *have* said is that until a court of appropriate authority says different, I do not believe anyone can say with any sense of finality that Cruz is disqualified. I can’t say whether that is right, wrong or indifferent. Neither do I have *any* standing or reason to deny the opinion of the founding fathers as expressed in the NA of 1790. I do not think they were lying or under duress and I like to think that they wrote with a purpose. And if I had to pick a side in this fight, I would have to root for the founding fathers. But I have *no* idea who would win in this day and age. It remains to be seen.
So, careful with the strawman arguments. You are assigning arguments to me that were never made.
The dems have access to the CRBA thru State archives and you can rest assured they know the truth and have set a trap.
Not legally they don’t. And presence or absence of a CRBA makes no difference at all, except to the extent that presence of one can fool the public into thinking that as a matter of con-law, he was not born (also) an alien, and needing to prove his claim to US citizenship to the satisfaction of an adjudicator.
————————————————————————————I understand privacy and legality issues..neither of which mean anything to the jackals in DC. If they want to prove or disprove its existence, and build a case, they will access the files..(Hillary/FBI files).
The fact that he is hiding his birth documents speaks volumes..Again, I don’t think it exists. Raphael is trying to pull a con..
You've picked the 1790 act as a definition of NBC by the founders, and you find Cruz to be natural born on that basis. You've admitted you have no idea if that source of law controls, so your opinion is, by your own admission and standards, worthless.
>>That you do in fact look on WSC as a failure sets a clear difference in how you and I view the world. I believe that people should stand up for what is right, whether they prevail or not.
I don’t see him as a failure overall, but historians agree that he was largely a failure in his pre-war years. He was the Right Man for a specific time. Actually, my knowledge of Churchill is why I support Trump over the obviously more conservative Cruz. Trump is the right man to kill the political correctness that is destroying us so that a more thoughtful man can lead us back to where we need to be.
Read your SunTzu. Cruz fights when he stands on weak ground. It may be “the right thing”, but it is a forlorn hope (another historical term with specific meaning). Trump can prepare the field for Cruz or Cruz can spend his time in effectively battling a culture that can’t even hear what he says over the noise. Cruz cannot battle the media and victim mindset, along with the UniParty. He lacks the skills to shout over the roar of the mob. If he did,me would have drowned out Trump by now instead of riding his coat tails and shouting “me too”.
The con he is perpetrating is right out in the open in your face. Here is my Canada BC, I was not naturalized, I am a citizen, therefore I must be natural born. Most people fall for that. If he produces a CRBA, even more people will fall for it.
I’ve considered your strategy vis a vis Trump. I would say it is my best case fall back position of blind hope.
My fear is that I don’t trust Trump to follow through. Obviously I hope that I’m wrong. I really do.
Trump will be portrayed in the media as an uber conservative, so there won’t be any coming back from a Trump failure for conservatives.
The con he is perpetrating is right out in the open in your face. Here is my Canada BC, I was not naturalized, I am a citizen, therefore I must be natural born. Most people fall for that. If he produces a CRBA, even more people will fall for it.
Am I safe to assume that if no CRBA exists, and there was no dual citizenship prior to 1977, as Liz mentioned earlier, he is a man without a country?...
Right now, he must feel the impediment isn't hurting him much in the voting. I view it as a matter of timing. If and when he thinks the issue is getting traction, and he wants to reverse that, he produces a CRBA and calls it his US birth certificate.
-- Am I safe to assume that if no CRBA exists, and there was no dual citizenship prior to 1977, as Liz mentioned earlier, he is a man without a country? --
Not really. CRBA or not, the circumstances of his birth almost certainly meet the statutory requirements. If he has the claim adjudicated tomorrow, it would produce a result that he has been a (naturalized) US citizen since birth. i suppose as a purely academic point one could argue he's stateless in the interval between renouncing his Canada citizenship and having his US claim adjudicated, but the US passport has his claim adjudicated decades ago.
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.