Constitutional Cruz Control

Boston Globe ^ | January 11 2016 | Laurence Tribe

[caww]

....."Discussing this is a serious waste of time".... But that IS the point of the Liberal/Democrat campaign against Cruz which they will continue to make issue about.......Trumps carrying their water for them...so are Freepers who want to keep this going, they're jumping in with both feet.

At some point they need to start 'thinking' and looking more carefully about Trump.....I'm not sure they're up to it just yet...they're caught up in the Trump's Magic Dust Episodes....for now.....Bibbity-bobbity-boo!

[onyx]

To be sure, no real court is likely to keep Cruz off the ballot, much less remove him from the White House if he were to win.
~Laurence Tribe

END OF THE ISSUE.

[onyx]

You’re delusional and quite vicious.

[onyx]

Be sure to ping Jim Robinson to your posts about crazy, delusional FReepers supporting Trump, because like me, Jim supports TRUMP and also Cruz.

[RedHeeler]

You always post the best in-time, on-time signet.

What’s the deal with Mr.Trump? Most folks I know are jaded to bs.

He ain’t bs’n.

[ironman]

While I probably agree with Tribe’s statement, I don’t agree with your conclusion. In fact, I’m quite certain this issue may be a major problem for Ted when Trump is looking at VP choices.

[Finny]

I love “then and now” Ted Cruz graphic!!

[HoosierWordsmith]

At the end of the day, the eligibility will be decided through elections and the political process. If Cruz makes it through the primary and the general, the decision of the American people will not be overturned based upon this issue.

[Axeslinger]

{Jim supports trump}

So freakin what? He’s just a man who can be wrong, just like any of us. You trumpeters throw that out like its some magical talisman. It ain’t. Jim can be wrong, I believe he is AND I have told him so.

[Axeslinger]

Sorry, Jim. Should’ve pinged you to my 49

[caww]

Well then we'll just post it again! ....

[caww]

We pretty much know who here supports Cruz or Trump or both as most express that as well as oppose those they don’t support.....it’s been that way in every election since I’ve been here.

Cruz initially held the favorite for most Freepers here ...that appears to have moved to Trump... This does not mean the “battle” doesn’t rage as it always has here on FR. Everyone has their favorite and sometimes that changes along the way. The election remains fluid as we know. At this point there hasn’t been a single vote.....until the voting starts all of this we share is just ‘trimmings’....good bad or otherwise.

[Finny]

Excellent!!!

[Finny]

Cruz initially held the favorite for most Freepers here ...that appears to have moved to Trump.

With respect, I beg to differ, at least according to my carefully-kept lists. Over the years I have found that the tone of discussions on hot topics frequently belies the actual consensus -- a smaller group of aggressive posters creates the illusion of "majority" numbers for a minority of voices; the ONLY WAY to know what's really going on is to make a list, and I've done it for years to know where FReepers really stand on the issues as opposed to where only the most frequent posters stand.

My current list has 228 folks who prefer Trump, and 249 who prefer Cruz. Just FYI!

[Political Junkie Too]

My theory is that the natural born clause in Article II is not intended as a definition of a type of citizen, as that would belong in Article I section 8. Instead, it is a only a qualification for the office, along with the age and residency qualification. This is a tighter requirement than simply citizen or naturalized citizen, just like citizen at least 35 years old is a tighter requiremeet than just citizen. So, natural born is an understood requirement for office, not a Constitutional definition of who is a citizen.

We don't argue whether "citizen over age 35" is a category of citizenship the way we argue over "citizen natural born."

Most people understand the awkward grammar of the Second Amendment. What if the late weekend (Sept. 8-12, 1787) change from the Committee of Style and Arrangement rushed the grammar in their rewrite of Article II Section 1? What if Article II Section 1 were instead written as:

"No person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not be natural born, have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Would this make a difference?

-PJ