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"
He is eligible, but the Trumpsters don’t really care about that, just care about harming a “rival”.
Trump is willing to sell out my engine for Iowa corn votes. Screw him. Ethanol is the single stupidest thing this country has recently gotten into.
The same Constitution that allows for the outlawing of bribery? Didn`t Trump all but admit he`s bribed officials to ‘...get things done.’?
Not saying a court will rule, but this is the first time an opponent on the ballot has sued.
Plus, the precedents and simple application of statutory / constitutional law say Cruz is naturalized. The only thing difficult about this case is none of the courts want to reveal it.
The Ankeny court in Indiana (in an challenge to Obama) did something that this (or any) court could do. Rule case dismissed (remedy requested, ballot adjustment, denied), then indulge in an analysis on the merits. SCOTUS did this in Marbury v. Madison. It said Marbury should win on the merits, but SCOTUS wasn't competent to hear the case based on jurisdiction.
“Bribery” is nowhere defined in the constitution, so it’s all good.
Yep, I saw that, and I think that is going to be interesting to follow.
Personally, I do not want the court to punt. If congress is not going to act on clarifying this, some authority needs to.
Regardless of Cruz in particular, I want this matter settled.
I think if Cruz did argue that the court should not decide, that would disappoint me.
If you are eligible, then you are eligible, if you ain’t, then you ain’t.
I really don’t like the possibility of my vote being invalidated by this somewhere down the line.
He means like Roe vs Wade....or the courts’ take on gay marriage.....or Obamacare
Don’t trust the press or pundits to report on this accurately. It’s all spin. If you care to know (for whatever that is worth, I’d say precious little), find the court filings and read them. Everything else, and I do mean literally everything, is BS.
I’m not a trumpster. I want Cruz to win. I want my vote to count not be tossed aside. There is no proof he is eligible - no definition of NBC. I want that definition for this and future elections.
Exactly. The "desperate times need desperate measures" argument only applies if there are no reasonable alternatives to the desperate measures. It's not like Cruz is the only available choice. Common sense dictates that the only indisputable definition of "natural-born citizen" has to be birth in the US to 2 US-citizen parents. All other definitions are open to endless BS about the "true meaning," "real intent", etc.
Jefferson was discussing actions taken during war and a hypothetical case of “the unwritten laws of necessity, of self-preservation, and of the public safety” when there is no legal course of action.
That is not the case now. I hope this is not the argument Cruz premises his case on, it’s laughable.
Personally, I’ve become convinced that if it were ever to make it to a higher court, Ted would fail to meet the criteria for NBC if the spirit of our laws were to be maintained. Also, just something about having a President born in another country rubs me the wrong way. I see the tired argument made time and time again that the Founders weren’t US citizens, but that ignores the fact that they were all born in territories that joined the US at its formation. (I’m ignoring Obama birtherism here, since the charge that he was born in Kenya has gone largely unproved, and I never voted for him anyway and try not to make decisions or rationalizations based on what libs are doing.)
I like Ted and I think he has a useful purpose to serve in government, and I’ll vote for him if he gets the nod. But I would hate for the nominee to make it all the way through the convention and then be disqualified, so my Florida primary ballot will go to Trump.
That is a good question.
I have thought for sometime that the GOP depth chart is incredibly shallow.
But it goes beyond that. The country’s depth chart is incredibly shallow, at least in terms of producing leaders.
I think that it just boils down to the fact that people with innate leadership qualities are incredibly rare.
Regardless of trumps politics, he stands out because he can inspire people to follow him. Very few people can do this.
Compare Trump to someone like Jebra Bush. It is nothing short of RIDICULOUS that Jebra is running for president.
He brings nothing to the table, he is an utterly delusion complete moron.
Same with Graham. You think you are a leader, Lindsey? Are you insane!?
Same with Rand Paul. when I think of a leader in my mind, is there any chance at all that an image of Rand Pual will materialize? HELL NO.
I really do not get at all what makes some of these bums think they are going to be president.
Very good advice.
And yes, unfortunately it seems like the motto of America has become “In Lies We Trust”.
I think this is at least one reason why I have come to love dogs as much as I do.
They are honest.
Cboldt, which opponent is it? I haven’t heard this news yet. TIA.
Thank you, I was wondering what the context of that quote was.
I don’t think he’s natural born, and therefore eligible.
But even if he were natural born and therefore eligible, I don’t think he’s the constitutionalist that his reputation suggests he is. And neither are his competitors in the GOP field. Personally, I think they’re all liberals.
I’m going to have to dig through my posting history to find that. It was an odd name. It may be that teh case was filed in a NH state court, which makes sense now that I think about it, That would be the first place to go (state court) to get an order against a state official as it pertains to ballot access. The state court can’t dismiss on standing. It has other ways to duck the question, but standing exists.
Dogs rule. Mine is sleeping close by. Not too close. We are best friends.
Well, they all get a lot more presidential once they get in there, but I take your point completely.
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.