How do Elite Harvard Law School grads feel about voters and average Americans?
Posted on 03/10/2016 8:23:07 PM PST by Mariner
Ted Cruz has rebuffed a request by Federal Election Commission to disclose more information about some $1 million in loans he received from two major Wall Street banks during his 2012 Senate campaign.
In a letter to the FEC this week, the treasurer of Cruz’s 2012 campaign turned down a request by agency auditors that it fill out a public form spelling out “the complete terms” of two personal loans Cruz received from Goldman Sachs and Citibank– the proceeds of which, he has since acknowledged, he used to finance his upstart race for the Senate.
“They’re stalling on what they should have disclosed four years ago,” charged Craig MacDonald, executive director of Texans for Public Justice, a liberal advocacy group that has filed one of two complaints with the FEC over the loan issue. “This is a critical point in the presidential campaign and they don’t want any more new information about it coming out now.”
The Cruz campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But in his March 8 letter to the FEC, Bradley Knippa, the treasurer of Cruz’ 2012 campaign, offered this explanation for not responding to the request from FEC auditors: It is already cooperating with another arm of the agency, its enforcement division, which is conducting a separate review of the loans in response to the complaints filed by MacDonald and another advocacy group. And those reviews are conducted under strict confidentiality rules that, Knippa argued, forbid making any more information public.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
correction: Someone who does not understand that the 14th Amendment & A2 presidential qualifications state that the natural born are those born on US soil to parents, both of whom are US citizens, and unless you meet these qualifications of the 14th & A2, you have no business living in the White House. But hey, if you like Obama, then go ahead and vote Cruz so the Constitution can be shredded further than it is.
But hey, he’s got the mouth from the bunker aka ‘The Great One’ to back him up. I mean listening to Levin go through and explain all about how and why barry was legally eligible was sooooo enlightening!
Speaking of which, why is it that these 2 legal eagles couldn’t get anything reversed on barrycare? Wasn’t the ‘lil legal foundation’ helping argue before the SCOTUS?
The dateline on this Yahoo article puts it AFTER the debate. Did any media at all report this any earlier?
How do Elite Harvard Law School grads feel about voters and average Americans?
"Blockbuster".
read #20
Ted sounds like Hillary arguing to keep documents etc secret.
Trump went so easy on Ted tonight, really showed grace and mercy, which I guess is what people expected to make it “presidential.”
Ted’s against outsourcing... unless it’s for the position of POTUS, then he thinks a foreigner is better qualified.
The article was released 3 hours ago.
Right about when the debate started...Isikoff exclusive reporting.
But there's still plenty of time before March 15th to make a few ads on it.
Uh oh!
How much of Brietbart does Mercer own? Or just an investor with no equity?
And we’re still waiting on Ted to release his sealed “CBR” assuming that one exists (which if it did he certainly would have revealed it, since his argument that he’s natural born hangs upon the legal assertion that the document and legislative or judicial relief can make a person “natural born”, which itself is specious, because the concept of natural born citizen of the Founders is that it is NATURAL, i.e., cannot be brought about by a judge or legislature or anything that comes after the constitution itself.
Mercer owns Glenn Beck. Mercer is betting millions that a Cruz presidency would save him millions by Cruz intervening with Mercer’s IRS problems (Mercer is a tax scofflaw)
Things that make you go "hmmmm"
There has been much hubbub in and around the lame-stream media airwaves as well as bloggers of all political affiliations regarding birthright citizen aka anchor babies. Now while much of it is coming from hosts that I respect; they just happen to not quite be the true constitutional conservatives they claim to be. None the less, we are all entitled to our own opinions, however as the old saying goes, “you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts”. Especially when one can not substantiate one’s own facts with evidence that can be corroborated by independent researchers.
One of the 1st pieces of evidence that was brought to my attention nearly 3 years ago and hundreds of hours of research since was the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v Wilkins in which Justice Gray stated in the deciding opinion of the court.
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized
One can not surmise from Gray’s opinion that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant one thing for birth and another for naturalization for no law can suppose to repudiate itself. Nor can 2 laws of the same effect at the same time suppose to repudiate themselves. Gray is merely reiterating the deciding opinion written by Chief Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett (1874).
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”
Both the Minor (1874) & Elk (1884) cases pertained to the meaning of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment and thus we continue with Chief Justice Waite’s deciding opinion as to who the “persons” born or naturalized & “subject to the jurisdiction” are.
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners…It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”
And the 14th Amendment is merely the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ratified as a constitutional amendment with the 1866 Act itself remaining in tact and acting as the chief language used to enforce the citizenship laws until 1940 when Congress finally consolidated the two laws into one. We’ll touch more on this in a bit, but until then make a note that Title 8 of the US Code defining persons who were born citizens read as follows in the highlighted opening of the 1866 Act until 1940.
“All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
In the Elk deciding opinion written by Justice Gray, we find the dicta of the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) that was accepted unanimously by that court, including all the dissenters.
“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”…Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.
Neither Rubio or Cruz are Constitutionally qualified to be on ANY presidential ballot!
Well Ted had til Mar 8th to turn in the documents. My understanding is that now there will be an FEC investigation.
Btw, the timing of this is interesting. After tonight’s debate and the polls, it’s not looking real celebratory for Mr. Cruz.
That's the problem we have now. The 'experts' read the law and then tell us what they (interpret) understand it to say.
I want someone who reads the words and says, "It's just common sense what it says. Everyone knows exactly what that means so why argue over it ? We're going by the WORDS that are there."
Anyone here making broad statements— actually read the article? Treasurer of the 2012 Senate run, named Knippa— rebuffed the FEC because they are already providing information to the “enforcement” division of the FEC on the same subject. The info provided is strict confidentiality rules per the FEC and covers exactly what this liberal group in Texas is badgering them about— ie the terms of the loan.
It’s not a crime to take out a loan- only not to pay it back.
Not defending this— it does make legal sense, just like trump not revealing his tax returns (under audit probably every single year for like— forever).
And if people think the banks “own” somebody there’s an old phrase— you borrow 1000 bucks the bank owns part of you. You borrow millions-— and you are then a shareholder, owning the bank. Think of us defaulting on China— and what power that gives us as a country with a superior military. Sort of like what FDR did to the Japanese with the oil embargo, stifling their economy and forcing them to war. And that did happen, intentionally.
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.