Posted on 01/20/2016 10:15:17 AM PST by inpajamas
I was told today that Ted Cruz's conservatism was moot because he is not eligible to run for president. I have also been told by others that true conservatives cannot win a general election. If that is true, then there is no winning, for even if you prevail by sacrificing values and principles to enlarge your "tent", you have won nothing.
The truth is, regardless of Cruz's status, Cruz's conservatism is not moot anymore than the Founders ideas were moot. For if values and principles are moot, you can follow the law precisely and you have nothing. The Founders parted company with the law they were under to embrace freedom. If it takes another revolution, so be it. And if we have to start over, I don't care where the values and principles and morals come from if they are good. I will stick with invisible virtues wherever they be found. If they are not embraced by Americans in power, I will support a foreigner who has them. I believe we are that point in history. This view, I was told, was a rejection of the Constitution. My response was not my one, but one of the Founders:
"The question you propose, whether circumstances do not sometimes occur, which make it a duty in officers of high trust, to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self -preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.. . . " - Thomas Jefferson to John B. Colvin, 20 Sept. 1810 Works 11:146
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_3s8.html"
Comparing Obama to Cruz, their birthplace is hardly relevant to how they turned out. Alleged to have been born in Hawaii, Obama grew up in a very different culture outside the USA and most of his values are diametrically opposite of ours. Cruz was born in Canada, but his upbringing and his values fit mainstream America.
I wish it was a dead issue, but wishing doesn’t make it so.
It will ultimately be decided if Cruz becomes the Nominee, but we won’t be the ones making the decision...
If I didn’t think he was Eligible, I wouldn’t have sent his Campaign any money to begin with.
It’s the constitution. Don’t get discouraged. He’s legit. And besides the moron muslim made this null and void. Kinda like when romney was nominated it killed the obamacare argument.
The issue is not dead. None of know the meaning of NBC and if that in fact, gets passed on to a child born out of the country. Some freepers who have had children born out of country think the answer is no. There is no answer and mentioning Obama might deflect the issue but it doesn’t settle it.
The DemoncRats have been waiting with baited breath for the moment to pounce on Cruz’s Eligibility...
You are correct. Dems probably thought Cruz would be the nominee and were keeping this in their arsenal. It’s easy for the Cruz supporters to blame Trump, but others have brought up this issue, including Fox news in 2014. Like I said before, if Cruz in elected and is found ineligible, who is president? VP elect? Dem candidate? or does the king retain his crown?
Jus Soli vs Jus Sanguinis -two types of citizenship
A “natural born subject†is not equivalent to a “natural born citizenâ€. Why? Because of Royalty. A natural subject of the King was anyone born within his domain if they weren’t born to foreign representatives or to the women of foreign invaders, or mere foreign visitors who went into labor before returning across the sea to their homeland.
The right of the King to view all persons born within his controlled realm as his subjects was based on the principle of the Divine Right Of Kings. That philosophy viewed the King’s authority as being divinely ordained, and his royal rights viewed to be supreme over all.
Kings were only constrained by the moral laws of the Church and the restrictions imposed by the nobility class which was enraged at the ego-maniacal excesses of monarchs who were corrupted absolutely by absolute power.
In the newly formed United States, there was the principle of individual freedom and the right of self-governance, which replaced the Divine Right of Kings. As a result, there was no equivalent in U.S. governance, -no Divine Right of Presidents, no Royal Sovereign Government. So subjects of kings were not the equivalent of citizens of a free democratic republic. Such citizens were not property of the government, they did not belong to the government, rather, the government belonged to them and they were sovereign over it! Just the opposite of the Monarch’s view of his subjects.
Just as free subjects of Britain were born into the same class as their parents, inheriting national membership by descent from a British father, so it became the common law principle in the United States. Prior to that point, colonial subjects were like the peasant class in Britain which was bound to the land that they “rented†from the Lord of the Manor estate.
https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/jus-soli-origins/
I’m interested in Jefferson quotes, but don’t accept them as authoritative. For starters, I was taught in my logic class that the “argument from authority” is a fallacy. Secondly, I’ve read that Jefferson was all over the map in his beliefs.
I’m not sure we should accept a principle of ignoring the Constitution. On the other hand, we ignore the tenth amendment all the time, so why be Constitutional sticklers now? Many have no problem will illegal immigration. So concern about breaking the law is optional. Questions about Obama’s ineligibility were ignored from the start. Give President Cruz a year or two in office before he has to answer “birthers.”
I don’t know that Cruz is ineligible. I do know that a liberal Republican in the White House can do as much harm as a liberal Democrat.
I believe there is invisible law. It is perfect; it is supreme; and greater than all laws. When men write laws with words the their is the lack of ability to capture the complete perfection of righteousness due to the limitation of words or the unforeseen which may conflict with the intent of the law. Thus, perfect law is spiritual rather than legalisms. When circumstances arrive where service to the law means choosing a destructive course over survival, the invisible law of right should be held as supreme, otherwise, as Jefferson said to paraphrase, we destroy the end in our unyielding service to the means. For the purpose of law is greater than the law itself.
You make a good argument.
Me? Jefferson made the great argument. Laws are given to fulfill a purpose; but the law cannot be greater than the purpose. When the law becomes an obstacle to the purpose it was given to uphold, it is not righteousness to obey the law above the purpose for which it was created.
That almost loses me and I wrote it.
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.