Cruz is subverting the constitution by running for POTUS as a constitutional Conservative...
Posted on 02/06/2016 1:47:14 AM PST by RC one
Edited on 02/06/2016 5:34:58 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
BOSTON (AP) — Two legal scholars squared off in a public debate on Friday to settle whether Republican Ted Cruz is eligible to become president. Spoiler alert: They didn't settle it.
But the debate at Harvard Law School underscored that conflicting interpretations of the U.S. Constitution can produce different answers. The question has been in the national spotlight since Republican rival Donald Trump suggested that Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother, isn't legally qualified to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at pilotonline.com ...
Then he should resign from the Senate according to your flawless logic...
He swore to defend and support the constitution and is actually subverting it because of his political aspirations to fix the country by bringing the country back to constitutional principles...
Who's on first ?
hey, you said it, not me.
Maybe it's clearly to you, but that is certainly not clear to many other people...
How can you say with a straight face Cruz is not a constitutional conservative
You are beginning to sound like a dem operative...
Facts are irrelevant in the face of clear evidence...
Here’s something I would like to see dropped before a national audience.
Make a reference to 0bama’s birth assertion. Back up the phoney statement by pointing to the confirmation of Hawaii Department of Health, Delialah Fuddy!
When the press shouts back-who???-tell then you are using Fuddy’s Subud name.
Then, berate the press for being bigoted against Fuddy’s chosen religion.
Cruz is subverting the constitution by running for POTUS as a constitutional Conservative...
Chester Arthur had a Canadian Father. An unexpected fire destroyed all of the family records.
It’s just like the Christmas eve fire that destroyed jessie jackson jr. Records, the Christmas before Blago went to jail
What I find interesting is that there has never, in 226 years, been an openly foreign born President. Arthur is likely the exception but he had the sense to hide his illegitimacy. This is 226 years of historical precedent that Ted Cruz is attempting to undo.
_______________________________
Agree.
There was never conclusive proof of Arthur being born in Canada, as far as I know.
Because he's subverting the constitution.
You are beginning to sound like a dem operative...
he is subverting the constitution. Plenty of clear evidence points to this fact.
Facts are irrelevant in the face of clear evidence...
That's what I'm saying.
It takes two to tango.
Allows for a plan B.. Brokered convention.
Why would a Republican Party allow Cruz to take the nomination, knowing darn well he could be disqualified?
Heads I win, tails you lose.
The one they have to move out of the way, is Trump.
That is why you see entire magazines devoted to getting him out of the race.
To see conservatives use the left’s “birther” arguments against their own because they happen to support a candidate with doubts in this regard has been unsettling, to me at least.
Even if he was born in Canada, he hid that fact from history. He sneaked through the back door undetected. Cruz isn’t hiding anything. He’s just walking through the front door and leaving it wide open for the next ineligible President. That’s much different and much worse IMHO.
“Even if he was born in Canada, he hid that fact from history. He sneaked through the back door undetected. Cruz isn’t hiding anything. He’s just walking through the front door and leaving it wide open for the next ineligible President. That’s much different and much worse IMHO.”
Indeed.
The words natural born modify the noun Citizen.
Back in the day, everyone understood what natural born Citizen meant, a child born on the soil to parentS under the jurisdiction of the Government responsible for that soil.
Cruz is a canadian citizen
Cruz is a cuban citizen
Cruz is a us citizen
Back in the day, everyone knew what a “litter” was. Today, most have forgotten
Rubio’s case is much better for NBC than Cruz.
.
I smell a trap here. These two are maneuvering us into an constitutional showdown that ends in either foreign born NBCs or natural born anchor babies as the law of the land. I don’t want to accept either of those premises but it could very well happen.
Children born abroad to diplomats have always been natural born citizens. Why? Diplomatic immunity. The laws of the country in which they’re serving the US do not apply, not even citizenship laws regarding children born there. The whole natural born citizen thing is jurisdictional. No jurisdiction of any foreign sovereignty, only US jurisdiction, makes a natural born citizen. That’s true of a birth abroad and it’s true of a birth in the country. Or, at least that’s the conclusion I’ve reached after looking into the matter pretty thoroughly.
I couldn’t agree with you more but do you trust the SCOTUS to arrive at a similar opinion?
No, I’m afraid I don’t.
and therein lies the problem.
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.