What About Ted Cruz?

New York Times ^ | FEB. 9, 2016 | Thomas B. Edsall

[Bob434]

I think there’s still a good amount of people that truly want to learn, to discuss, and to hash things out to uncover gems through a debate process- Yeah, perhaps it’s not as good as it used to be- But I guess that’s just the growing process- I do see what you’re saying- It’s just a shame that we can’t all just sit down and discuss issue, debate issues as though we were having friendly discussions- but unfortunately some folks just hate being questioned I guess- which is a shame because issues like this citizenship one one are very important- There are strong arguments on both sides of this issue- and it will likely never be settled as the SC is loathe to take it on- preferring to leave it In the realm of congress as it has for many decades now— but I think we can find a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ conclusion on way or the other-

I’ll continue arguing, for now, in favor of Ted being an NBC as I believe the evidence points more heavily that way from what little I’ve read on the case- but like issue such as pre trib, post trib, where there is no clear answer, I can only go by which side presents the more significant evidence- examine the evidence, and see if it holds water or not- The tribulation beliefs have strong arguments on both sides- but one side has more I believe- and where there is no definitive answer, the best we can do is try to weigh the evidence we do have and see if it suffices -

Anyway- good discussion- My previous post was a rebuttal to the idea that Ted ‘had to apply for a CRBA, therefore he is naturalized because that makes it an act of congress’ claim - I think the uscis site pretty much shows that that claim isn’t true- perhaps not-

[jaydee770]

“...the best we can do is try to weigh the evidence we do have and see if it suffices...”

That’s just mental self-abuse. One side has their preferred outcome and the other has theirs. Both are convinced they are right and neither will budge. There is *no* weighing of evidence in this issue that can be given the least bit of confidence until a court rules. Until then, Cruz can be elected and serve.

Not a single soul on FR will be involved in that decision, presuming it ever see’s the light of day in a court of competent authority.

And a court is no guarantee either. Did anyone expect Roberts to rule on the 0bamacare challenge by changing the legislation on the fly via a reinterpretation of what most would consider unambiguous text? And that’s just one of *many* examples where the courts have inexplicably defied reasonable expectations.

Anyone here who is highly confident that a given court (all the way up to SCOTUS) would agree with their particular opinion (either side) on this *highly* political issue needs to explain why they should not be considered “flat out delusional”.

So, you are neither right or wrong on this matter until a court tells us which. And on the occasion a court does rule one way or the other and in your opinion you believe the court ruled incorrectly, it won’t matter. The court gets to define what is right and what is wrong.

And if you then fall back to claiming only a “higher power” can decide right & wrong, it *still* won’t matter right here and now. You can enjoy bragging rights in the great hereafter, but not now.

Full circle to my original point: There are too many laymen on FR who suddenly became “constitutional scholars” on this one particular issue when all they have is an unvalidated opinion. And I think what drives a lot of the emotion is that those folks simply can’t bear to have their unvalidated opinion not be accepted at face value as fact. It unhinges them. They believe they are right; you are wrong and the invective and insults expand exponentially from there if they are a trumpbot.
(ok, that last bit was just to see if any heads would explode).

My opinion? I can’t say that Cruz is *not* qualified. I can’t say that he *is* qualified. I can say that until a court says otherwise, we can vote for Cruz -and- Cruz can be elected & serve as president. I can read that founding fathers, including 8 of the 11 framers of the constitution, a mere 3 years after the constitution, codified that people born outside of the country to citizens were NBC. I don’t think they lied, were under duress, or were pulling a gag — I like to think they wrote with a purpose and that was their view on the matter with no further nit-picking required. Ultimately, I can only guess. However, in any dispute on the matter, I will bet on the founder’s opinion, even though I can’t say their opinion would be a guaranteed win in a courtroom today. So I am *hopeful* that Cruz will prevail and serve as POTUS. If not, I will hold my nose and vote for whatever RINO opposes clinton.

[Bob434]

[[That’s just mental self-abuse.]]

I disagree- for the following reason

[[Not a single soul on FR will be involved in that decision, presuming it ever see’s the light of day in a court of competent authority.]]

The central issue is that people will be swayed to either vote or not vote depending on how they view the issue

[[My opinion? I can’t say that Cruz is *not* qualified. I can’t say that he *is* qualified. I can say that until a court says otherwise, we can vote for Cruz]]

I agree- but many people don’t realize this- they hear from trump “Ted is an anchor baby and unqualified’ and that is all they hear- and they won’t ‘waste their vote’ voting for someone they mistakenly believe is not eligible- people need to hear that Ted is allowed to run, allowed to serve- and be persuaded that the reason the courts have not addressed this is because it is left to congress to decide who needs naturalization process and who doesn’t- many people simply don’t know-

[[So, you are neither right or wrong on this matter until a court tells us which.]]

IF the court is permitted to rule on the issue- Congress was given the job of defining- the courts may never take the issue up because of this, except to perhaps rule whether or not congress overstepped it’s boundaries- which the courts are very reluctant to do In regards to this issue simply because their is such ambiguity through the ages, and because ‘original intent’ is hard to determine

Hence- these discussion will continue to go on with those o n the other side demanding that everyone not vote for Ted and people like him, and those on this side trying to make the case that He and people like him are fully permitted to serve-

The discussions aren’t moot- this Is a big deal- people need to be informed as best as is possible given what we know- how people believe will affect elections

[Bob434]

[[Anyone here who is highly confident that a given court (all the way up to SCOTUS) would agree with their particular opinion (either side) on this *highly* political issue needs to explain why they should not be considered “flat out delusional”.]]

I think the site I listed (usics site) pretty much shows that those who believe Ted is eligible aren’t’ delusional and have sound standing as to what naturalization is and isn’t- this is how we as a nation currently determine who needs to be naturalized and who doesn’t- and it puts the lie to the claim that someone born off soil needs a CRBA before they can be declared a citizen-

As I mentioned before, I believe the evidence weighs more heavily to the idea that people like Ted are permitted to serve- enough so that there shouldn’t be enough doubt to sway their vote away from Ted-