Posted on 05/29/2016 7:26:15 AM PDT by Brookhaven
owa radio host Steve Deace -- who was one of Ted Cruz's most important backers in the first primary state and who has a nationally syndicated radio show -- recently asked his followers on Twitter whether they want Senator Ted Cruz to publicly endorse Donald Trump.
The results show that 83% say no, while only 17% say they want Cruz to use his political capital to help Trump.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
A child born in Canada would have to have applied for US citizenship at some point, when did Cruz apply?
I didn't even read the article aside from the first paragraph which stated the entire Republican party disagrees with him. No one believes this dumb crap except Cruzers and Yahoo, and even if it were possible, no one is retarded enough to try it just to put a mutant-bread man that everybody hates into power. Only the most deranged, neurotic nutcase would think that anybody actually wants Cruz to run anything. Cruz will be lucky to not get primaried in Texas at this rate.
You should read the article. There’s a lot of good historical info in it about the nomination process.
Why would I want to read your dumb article when the first paragraph tells me that every Republican official disagrees with his theory, and that this guy would obviously need to take his case to the Supreme Court to prove that state laws are not binding on delegates for whatever reason?
Do you really believe that Cruzer delegates-- 158 of whom already defected to Trump-- are going to oppose the will of the people when Trump is supported by 90 percent of party members, better than Romney in 2012, and has broken all popular vote numbers and is leading a movement so big that they'll be lucky Cincinnati isn't burned to the ground if they tried this crap?
Use your dumb brain. Think about it.
“Ted Cruz is a natural born American citizen.”
The word, ‘natural’, infers that a person or thing is innately of a certain character or kind. By its very ‘nature’, it can’t be anything but what it appears to be.
In the case of citizenship, one who is born in country to two citizen parents of that country, can be described as ‘natural born’, as there is no possibility of that person being anything BUT a citizen of the country of their birth.
In the case of Ted Cruz, the circumstances of his birth on Canadian soil to to parents who were citizens of foreign countries, clouds his claim to natural citizenship of either Canada, Cuba, or America.
It simply can’t be claimed, with any sense of honesty or integrty to simple logic, that he is a ‘natural born citizen’ of any country, as any of the three can lay claim to his allegiance.
I trust that Ted is a legal U.S. citizen, but so are millions of foreign born people in this country. None of them are NBC, and neither is Ted Cruz.
Since Cruz, just like 0bunghole, has not revealed relevant citizenship documents, even the above is unknown.
His mother is an American citizen. He has by law natural citizenship at birth. Unless you can prove that Cruz’z mother renounced her citizenship before Ted was born. Got any proof of that?
An application for citizenship would have to have been made.
When did he or his parents do that?
Where did I say that Cruz was going to use his delegates to secure the nomination? You are reading things that aren’t there.
There was a question about the conscience clause. Few here appear to fully understand it. Curly Haugland’s ideas aside, the article gives a lot of information on past convnetions and the advent of the conscience clause which has been on the books for over 100 years.
The issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court:
“The National Democratic Party and its adherents enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association. “There can no longer be any doubt that freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and ideas is a form of `orderly group activity’ protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. . . . The right to associate with the political party of one’s choice is an integral part of this basic constitutional freedom.” Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56 -57 (1973). “And of course this freedom protected against federal encroachment by the First Amendment is entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment to the same protection from infringement by the States.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 30 -31 (1968). Moreover, “[a]ny interference with the freedom of a party is simultaneously an interference with the freedom of its adherents.” [419 U.S. 477, 488] Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957); see NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 431 (1963)”
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/419/477.html#sthash.M6sv4HzW.dpuf
In other words there's no reason for your completely useless posts. As for you and Cruz, I've seen your mindless rants before, so your motivation was transparent.
Cruz’s mother became a British citizen in the 60’s (She married a Brit and moved to England) and then later became a Canadian citizen, as a Brit she gained Canadian citizenship in one year. So Cruz’s parents were not American citizens and he (Cruz) is not either.
Thank you
Unless or until TED CRUZ releases more than his Canadian birth certificate we have NO clue what his mother did or did not do in England or Canada. One thing of a certainty, there is absolutely no question that TED CRUZ is not now nor will ever be a 'natural born' US citizen.
The framers gave US citizen parents the power to bequeath 'natural born' US citizenship. AND it take TWO US citizen parents giving birth to their child on US soil to bequeath 'natural born' US citizenship. IF mommie Cruz voted while in Canada she did in fact renounce her citizenship. Furthermore, it takes TWO US citizen parents to bequeath 'natural born' US citizenship... That Canadian birth certificate all on its own disqualifies Ted Cruz from being eligible to hold the office of US president.
If Cruz breaks his pledge, he will be a man without honor, and will be of the same ilk as Jeb Bush.
Any man who is so petty as to dishonor such a pledge, knowing that he will be helping Hillary, is a weak and petty man, not suitable for the US Presidency.
Vote Trump!
Miss M asked about the conscience clause. No one gave her a correct answer. I supplied a link with very detailed and historic information about it. I just don’t see the problem except that it apparently wasn’t an answer that suited either of you. Do what you want with the information, it is there for your learning. You don’t know if it’s a bunch of crap because you haven’t read and you certainly can’t prove that the info contained in it is false. It’s your water to drink, I have just led you there.
Since I have actually taken the time to read the info, if I see someone post something that isn’t correct I will post the correct info, along with the source, like I have done here. If I and/or the article is wrong, then simply prove it. I have nothing to gain by being ignorant of the truth.
If you write to me on this subject again, I’m hitting the abuse button. You have a bee in your bonnet and you are harassing me. You need to stop it and leave GPH alone as well. No one is interested in your opinion on this topic.
You are entitled to your beliefs.
Evidence? Documentation? Please show me. Of course you can just keep repeating it. But I need evidence.
Cite the law or court cases to back up what you say.
Oh, he was copying you on his posts to me so I thought you wished to be included. I will enjoy not having to type out your long handle again. Have a good weekend.
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.