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?
Had you said,”Ted Cruz is just another politician” I would say Perhaps in some ways.
Smarmy, i don’t think so.
Graham is smarmy.
Yup, Ziravan. Once a baby has the citizenship, by ex post facto alone, I don’t think American citizenship can be removed. But that doesn’t give the illegal alien parents citizenship. Maybe the threat of removing the baby from the parents and deporting them, if they did not return as a family to Mexicoy would make most of them decamp. But when the U.S. citizen child was an adult, that child could voluntarily return to the U.S. and his parents could then enter legally as parents and immediate family of an American child and eventually attain citizenship, as could any brothers and sisters born in Mexico after the family returned.
No, but their parents should be deported—and parents should not be able to dump their kids in a different country from their own and still maintain custody of them.
Neocons are in fact neither new nor conservative, and they are certainly not libertarian--certainly not in the sense that the Founding Fathers were. A better description would be "ex Communists with delusions of grandeur." Their avowed "Godfather," was a Trotsky admirer in College.
>> Section 5 gives Congress the power to declare anchor babies non-citizens <<
Congress certainly may pass such legislation. But would the current SCOTUS uphold that law? Or would any conceivable SCOTUS over the next ten years? Not a chance, IMHO.
So what’s the point? Rant and rave like children, butt your head irrationally against the wall, distract attention from the Iran nuke deal and other urgent matters, all for nothing? Or get down to business and build an impenetrable wall along the southern border?
I opt for the latter.
Birth right citizenship to every child born inside the US or it's territories regardless of the parents citizenship and status was clearly not the intent.
If it was the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 would not have been necessary.
>> 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 <<
Stop, please stop!
You’re making too much sense. We’d rather rant and rave against birthright citizenship. We have more fun that way!
LOL! Love it!
The phrase your glossing over is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
You must interpret every part of the Constitution in a way that is reasonable, purposeful and intentional.
Had this merely meant “within,” it would have said, “within.” In fact, it would have been completely redundant. That’s not purposeful.
Perhaps you read it as “All people born or naturalized in the United States and who are presently also subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” But that would imply that citizens who left the jurisdiction of the United States were no longer citizens. That’s not reasonable.
Instead, what it means is that citizenship is granted to those who meet both of two conditions: they are born or naturalized in the United States, and they are born or naturalized under the jurisdiction of the United States. While the land on which they are born is under the jurisdiction of the United States, and so the United States may enforce laws against the illegal alien, there is no legal agreement for their presence, and so they themselves are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
This may seem a very subtle point, since in most matters, the territory of jurisdiction is what matters. But the person of jurisdiction is important. Suppose someone from Elbonia marries, and then enters the Freedoma. He cannot divorce under Freedoma law, be stripped of his Elbonia citizenship, or be drafted by the Freedoma, or have Freedoma lay claim to his inheritance taxes... unless through some agreement between Elbonia and Freedoma grants that jurisdiction to Freedoma for legal residents. But if the resident isn’t legal, there can be no such grant.
You are correct. One MUST get the dialogue rolling before action can be taken.
Trump has accomplished step one with no thanks to any other candidate. TDS’rs seem to conveniently forget this.
>> If we allow Kelly to take [Cruz] down <<
If he’s so fragile that he can’t withstand hostile questions from M. Kelly, how on earth do you expect him to withstand the full onslaught of the MSM?
Hog wash
Even if you don’t believe the legal argument I just made, at least recognize that Cruz may not agree with your rejection of it, and therefore may be something other than just another smarmy politician. In fact, Cruz is going against the political establishment by denying their false definition of “under the jurisdiction thereof.”
But it is OK to trash libertarian neocon?
Sounds like you are shooting the messenger.
Cruz did a poor job answering the question. I agree with that assessment.
BTW, it doesn’t really even matter—Cruz wouldn’t deport even the parents, so there’d be no question raised as to the kids.
Cruz is in my top 3-4.
And he didn’t answer the question. At best he stated what alternative question—what he thinks Congress should do, without even getting to how he thinks Congress should address that question. What’s more, he dissembled with blather about both parties being in agreement on stopping illegal immigration and securing the border—that is demonstrably untrue about both parties.
But no matter. He has previously said that he wouldn’t deport, but instead would grant amnesty by legalizing, such parents. Thus, what to do with the citizen children would never even be an issue that should be addressed.
He should have stated that instead of lies about broad bipartisan agreement on addressing other parts of the problem.
At least he had the courtesy to post the whole article, not excerpt it. Why not enter into the discussion rather than attack the author who provided free content?
I disagree with him on the 14th amendment. The author of the 14th amendment disagreed with him as well. But I appreciate the opportunity to read the arguments on the other side..
Cruz is MY numero Uno, followed by Paul, Walker then Trump. Truthfully though, unless Cruz is the winner and he brings along a few more TEA party faves with him to brighten up the House and Senate, we are in for a long cold “knive”.....I mean “night”. A purging will occur along the lines of pre-WW 2 Germany by the Progressives in political high places.
“Why include “A well-regulated militia...” in the 2nd?”
That’s not a limitation, it’s a statement of purpose. People need to be allowed to have weapons so if/when they are called upon to serve in the militia they are already armed and know how to use the weapons.
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.