Posted on 08/26/2015 6:26:21 AM PDT by libertarian neocon
I've always liked Ted Cruz, he is the Republican who I agree with most on the issues. He's free market, pro-life and for a measured foreign policy (less aggressive than Marco Rubio but more aggressive than Rand Paul). Most importantly, he would stick to his ideals despite pressure from the establishment. He may have made some tactical errors because of that but I couldn't help but admire him for his idealism. He has been the candidate that I would have voted for if I didn't care at all about electability.
Unfortunately, his interview last night with Megyn Kelly unmasked him as just another smarmy politician. One who thinks the Constitution is maleable, depending on the way the winds are blowing or what is politically advantageous, one who doesn't answer direct questions with direct answers.
When Megyn Kelly asked him about the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship, he said that "as a policy matter, it doesn't make sense anymore". This struck me as the same answer you would get from a liberal with regards to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms after a school shooting.
It seems to me that the text of the 14th amendment is pretty clear on birthright citizenship. It says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It is no less clear than "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The funny thing is that Ted Cruz actually agrees with me or he used to before it became politically expedient to mirror Trump's views with the goal of getting his supporters when Trump blows up. During the interview Megyn Kelly quoted Ted Cruz back to himself. Here is what he said in 2011:
“The 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I’ve looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good. As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it’s in the U.S. Constitution. And I don’t like it when federal judges set aside the Constitution because their policy preferences are different.”
But of course that was before he was running for President and so didn't have to worry about his words offending another candidates supporters. He really didn't have a good answer after Megyn Kelly brought out that quote, talking around it rather than explaining why he changed his mind like a normal, honest person would have.
Megyn Kelly then asked Cruz the same question Trump has been asked, whether he would deport with the parents two children of illegal immigrants that were technically citizens of the US. He totally avoided answering that question as he attempted a typical maneuver of a politician, having his cake and eating it too. Without being on record as saying he would deport them, he could pivot later and say he is against deporting children without technically flip-flopping while at the same time not saying anything that would offend the Trumpitistas and those that support Trump's immigration plan. I don't like Trump for many reasons but at least he answers questions directly as he did this question when it was asked of him.
Last night it became clear that Ted Cruz is willing to do anything to become President, which is exactly the opposite of why I always had been fond of him. If I wanted someone who would lie with a straight face and a smile and evade questions I would vote for a Bill Clinton or a John Edwards. Looks like Ted Cruz came to Washington to change it but instead it changed him.
He also left me wondering what other constitutional provisions is he set to oppose for political expediency with the goal of gaining more power for himself?
To the typical voter who saw this interview it won’t seem like a carefully calculated response to a “gotcha question”, it will just be another politician who can’t or won’t answer a simple question that the public is obviously interested in. Then they will hear Trump who can and will.
Cruz blew it.
When it comes to loaded questions, nobody can load them quite as heavily or destructively as Megyn Kelly does. She would do a fine job of rigging IEDs as roadside bombs.
That aside, I rather LIKE Megyn, as she is FEARLESS when it comes to confronting power in whatever form. This, dear people, is what vetting the candidates is all about. It takes an equally fearless opponent to come out of such a face-off still standing up and moving under one’s own power.
Ted Cruz probably acquitted himself reasonably well, and if he can withstand this kind of withering fire, he has it so much easier when facing most of the “competition” that is out there.
Just once, I would like to see how Herself, Madame Benghazi, the Cold & Joyless, would bear up under the kind of scrutiny that is routinely dished out to Republicans. And Megyn is just the kind of person who would open up these hidden pools of corruption that fester just beneath the surface.
Ain’t pretty, but DAMN if it would not be interesting.
Ted’s been carrying the water for true conservatives for the past 8 years. Now Trump has barreled in and stole the thunder from everybody. I’m not going to jump ship and join the Trump bandwagon just yet. Ted has the intellectual tour de force to put Trumps ideas into action!
Try this,
Being in America illegally is a crime, if a child’s parents robbed a bank, should we let them go free because of the children. But, of course, you know Megyn, these are the type of loaded gotcha questions that journalists would never ask democrats, and this is exactly why your Facebook and emails were overloaded with comments recently. Fox prides itself on fair and balanced. You should try that, sometime.
We’re overrun with concern trolls this morning.
Me, I’m a discern troll.
It would be helpful if you disclosed who you support and why before foisting a hit piece on FR as objective.
Freepers’ are not low info voters and crap like your “vanity” puke is offensive.
I have only read your account. So just going by that.
But with that, I think there could be a different take.
He has said before that he agrees with the jurisprudence on birthright citizenship. That is definitely the majority opinion (not saying it is right...I’m very familiar with the contrary opinion). This is current “constitutional law” (as in the majority of judges/opinions are here). He has said he agrees with it.
He is now saying that as a matter of policy it doesn’t make sense.
That’s perfectly compatible. Our current policy needs can absolutely not square with constitutional law. At that point you have to change the constitution.
That “could” be all that he is saying.
I don’t know how else you would talk about the issue, if you think that our current reality shouldn’t allow birthright citizenship, but you think that the constitution does require it. You would have to say just exactly that.
That’s my take at least, again, just after reading your account.
I thought that was a valid point myself but no. They’re not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Cruz did fine. He answered the question despite being interrupted more than 4 times by Kelly demanding a Yes or No answer to a complex question that doesn’t have yes or no for an answer.
Cruz’s answer was “first we build the wall, then we can start the dialog about what to do with the current illegals.” [paraphrased]
If you saw anything different, then you weren’t being objective.
Doesn’t really address the issue of forced deportations for the children. Now, I would find a way to get it done and them out of here, but Cruz is actually for legalization and not for deportation.
If your so freaking brilliant about how to be pure and true, then get off your ass and run for President.
Free Republic is less and less useful as a reliable source as we get into the election cycle because trolls from each camp get on to trash rival candidates. My rule is not to believe any of them and do my own research. And incidentally, who in the world is watching Mz Kelly’s show after her disastrous performance at the first debate?
That’s not an answer.
IMO voters have a right to hear what candidates policies would be if they were elected into office. I’m okay with deferring until they’ve released a detailed position paper, if they have not been faced with the issue in their previous positions.
But “Let’s get X done before I tell you what I would do about Y” is IMO not acceptable.
Yep. Stop the bleeding first, get a good look at the patient, and then work on curing the disease.
Short of being a dictator, that’s the most anyone will be able to do no matter how loudly they say otherwise.
I agree. Liberals play at this as a justification but it exists only in their minds and on bravado...pure BS effrontery, IMO.
‘Reside’ and ‘residence’ and ‘subject to jurisdiction of’ can take on very specific requirements in the legal world.
That language I’ve noted isn’t in the amendment just for sh!ts and giggles. They mean something, and to me they mean that some “drive-by” illegal cow dropping a load here doesn’t qualify the load to become a citizen.
Illegally here, illegally occupying here (not ‘residing’ in a legal sense) and certain not ‘under the jurisdiction’ of this country as a citizen enjoying the rights and freedoms of citizenship.
The great Princeton Debater.
Section 5 gives Congress the power to declare anchor babies non-citizens. Allow anchor babies to become US citizens is insane.
It does not seem to me that he actually changed his position at all. He did NOT say that birthright citizenship was not in the 14th Amendment. He said that the POLICY no longer makes sense. He then went on to offer two ways of making the LAW conform with what he thinks makes sense for POLICY - a Constitutional Amendment or a law by Congress clarifying what is meant by “jurisdiction”. It is not inconsistent to say yeah the law says this, it doesn’t make sense, here is how I would change it. Here’s the video link for full context. Totally disagree with your premise.
Ted has no obligation to answer loaded questions.
Just as with “life of the mother” or “rape and incest” when it comes to abortion, these are bogus excuses to justify the unbridled practice.
If you Build the Wall, control entry, use E-Verify, and actively return those entering illegally, Deport the criminals, stop taxpayer funded benefits, then the incentives stop, and large numbers self-deport.
This all will take time, but after 3 or 4 years there will be millions fewer to consider for deportation.
That clause in the 14th is far less clear than the clause you quote from the 2nd.
Mainly because people read it wrong and assume that 'United States' is a geographical idea. It is not. It is jurisdictional.
Here are the words of the man who wrote that clause in the 14th, Senator Jacob Howard. He explained the actual intent of the 14th Amendment. He said:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
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.