What actually works is right click on image in a publication, and select "Inspect element". Copy and paste contents on FR, edit "width" & "height" numbers, do a preview, then post.
Posted on 06/06/2015 11:48:59 PM PDT by JohnBrowdie
this forum is becoming a mouthpiece for cruz.
Thanks for proving my point again. Please continue.
Who is proving whose point? You join liberals of every stripe to smear Cruz. I have answered your posts. There is no need to discuss anything else with you.
What actually works is right click on image in a publication, and select "Inspect element". Copy and paste contents on FR, edit "width" & "height" numbers, do a preview, then post.
You keep touting your "facts", and then double down and continue painting Cruz as a Romney republican.
I keep telling you that your "facts" don't matter as long as you keep smearing Cruz as a Romney republican.
You keep smearing Cruz in post after post as a Romney republican, which I think is very trollish behavior, and then strut around like a peacock pointing to "facts".
So who is proving whose point?
Walker might be an alternative, but with conflicting reports about his position on immigration, I can't support him, at least not yet. I also don't know where he is on foreign relations. He could have some good ideas on the domestic front, but how would he handle the Middle East and other trouble spots? Where is he on rebuilding this country's defenses? In short, Walker is a question mark.
And besides, Walker hasn't even declared his candidacy yet.
The rest? No way. We have liberals, amnesty pimps, snake oil salesmen, weaklings and some I just couldn't stand on a personal basis.
Maybe I'm delusional, but I'm holding out hope there is some method to Ted Cruz's madness on this trade thing. Other than that, he's been solid. If I'm wrong, we are in a world of trouble. This country is finished.
Trump is strongly opposed to this trade bill speeding its way through Congress. Our own party is getting ready to betray us and pass the abomination. We will be the EU. It will make NAFTA look like nothing.
Trump actually really wants to build the fence on the border which non of our illustrious GOP seem capable or motivated to do even though they passed it into law and funded it. Oh wait and then turned around and let Kay Bailey Hutchison defund it.
Trump wants to sack the Iran Nuclear talks unless we can do it from a position of superiority. Not the GOP they have watered down their own constitutional authority with the Iran nuclear bill.
And then there is the one thing which nobody is talking about.
NONE of the other candidates, is unapologetically for America and American businesses.
That is very important.
We now run a 342 billion dollars / year trade deficit with China. Another, in a (long) bunch of ever growing year-on-year trade deficits with the Peoples Republic of China. That is heading up once again, thus far this year.
Trump is on our side. Firmly on our side.
Trump runs for the presidency to build up his already massive ego. It's a moneymaking scam. I give him a few more weeks and he will be gone.
Same here. I've been firmly behind Cruz ever since Palin endorsed him and he whipped Dewhurst for the Senate seat. However, his out-of-the-blue support for TPA, despite all the secrecy, and then this so-called "Freedom Act" has left me both perplexed and puzzled.
I actually posed a question to him about his rather tortured op-ed with Ryan about TPA which got somebody's attention. Two of his his social media staffers engaged me with Rat and GOP-E talking points about how this legislation would stop Obama from doing this or that, and would give the Senate an "up or down" vote on any trade agreement Obama signed, even though we know that is a farce, since that vote would require a super majority for disapproval. That was very troubling for me personally that his staffers, presumably with his approval, would try to spin it like this.
So yeah, my support for Cruz too, is not as strong as it used to be.
Wrong. Hatch wrote it so that it will require 60 votes for disapproval. Otherwise, Obama will skate with whatever Kerry comes back with.
If it defines what constitutes "citizenship at birth" (and it does), then the 14th Amendment does indeed define "natural born citizen".
“Facts don’t matter”
How very liberal of you.
.
Glad we were able to keep you alive and off the streets for a few years.
We would have done more, but there are limitations...
.
So in your disgusting line of thought the military is just a program that keeps losers off the street?
You are scum and I am sure you have never done a single thing worthy of note. It must bother you so much that you do not matter at all and never have.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 probably constitutes the most significant evidence available. Congress enacted this legislation just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, and many of those who voted on it had participated in the Constitutional Convention. The act provided that “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
___________
The Act stipulated “children of citizens”. It takes two.
The Naturalization Act of 1790:
The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of certain children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
___________________________
It looks like the quote I gave you left out the last sentence, because it did not further his argument. This rules out Cruz, does it not?
the 14th amendment has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a natural born citizen. being a citizen at birth is not the same as a natural born citizen.
if you’re confused, it’s easy to remember:
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES.
I have never heard of bills being defaulted to passing UNLESS 60 votes say “no.”
I understand you think something is wrong, but this sounds ludicrous.
‘Critical Alert': Jeff Sessions Warns America Against Potentially Disastrous Obama Trade Deal
CRITICAL ALERT: Top Five Concerns With Trade Promotion Authority
Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for Obama on Trade Accord
If the agreement, negotiated by the United States trade representative, fails to meet the objectives laid out by Congress — on labor, environmental and human rights standards — a 60-vote majority in the Senate could shut off “fast-track” trade rules and open the deal to amendment.
Of course, the 60-day "open-to-the-public" promise flies in the face of the agreement's requirement for signatory nations to keep its terms secret for five years.
The Harvard Law Review differs:
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law ( 3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). and enactments of the First Congress. 4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).) Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.While you may dispute the above, it is the definition which judges are most likely to use.
What is the reference you are using, which says that "natural born citizen" is something different from "a person who is a citizen from birth"?
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.