Replies

Unfortunately, if Cruz declines to run or tries a run and is found to be constitutionally ineligible to serve as president, we'll be stuck with another neo-con (Jeb Bush, most likely) and probably another lost presidential election.

Our own political expediency is not the basis upon which we should uphold our laws. It is unfortunate that these circumstances exist, because Ted Cruz might very well be a very good choice for President.

At this point, if he can secure the nomination, I would vote for him, though I am certain his candidacy violates both the spirit and the letter of the law.

We’re not going to restore the rule of law by allowing the RATS to continue in their infestation of America. Let the RATS make their case and expose themselves. Discovery’s a bitch, and may very well invalidate everything zero’s done, which you notice is mainly by EOs. Ted knows what he’s doing, support him.

Our own political expediency is not the basis upon which we should uphold our laws. It is unfortunate that these circumstances exist, because Ted Cruz might very well be a very good choice for President.

At this point, if he can secure the nomination, I would vote for him, though I am certain his candidacy violates both the spirit and the letter of the law.

Frankly, despite all the arguments on this thread, I'm not sure - and stated that in my original post. However, I, too, would vote for Ted Cruz should his eligibility (NBC) pass constitutional muster. If not, we're likely to get Hillary Clinton, who will finish what Obama started - the economic gutting of the U.S. economy and destruction of the American middle class. Well - and I mean this seriously, not as sarcasm - at least we won't be guilty of political expediency and will have honored the constitution. There is that consolation - and, in my view - it should not be considered insignificant to conservatives.