Posted on 02/28/2022 12:08:47 PM PST by conservative98
Like many prominent Republican senators, Josh Hawley says he’s not running for president. Ted Cruz isn’t so sure about that.
“There’s a long history of senators in both parties claiming they’re not running for president, then miraculously having a change in opinion,” Cruz said when asked about Hawley and others’ demurrals. “I’m not sure I would take anybody in either party at face value on that one.”
In a chamber crowded with ambitious Republicans seeking to command the conservative lane should former President Donald Trump pass on a 2024 run, Hawley and Cruz stick out. They waged separate challenges to the 2020 election results, announced their support for different candidates in Missouri’s hotly contested GOP Senate primary and bottled up separate groups of President Joe Biden’s nominees in protest of his foreign policy.
And while Hawley denied in an interview that he planned to chase the White House, Cruz was more open to the idea. He said of his future ambitions: “I am committed to the fight. And the presidential campaign in 2016 was the most fun I’ve ever had in my life. And we came very, very close the last time.”
On Thursday, Hawley and Cruz spoke back to back to wind down the first day of the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando. Going first, Cruz went after big business and White House press secretary Jen Psaki — whom he called “Peppermint Patty” — while Hawley defended his decision to object to the 2020 election and said he will introduce oil and gas legislation on Monday to send a message to Russia.
That type of maneuvering, along with their tactics in the Senate, has Republicans watching the two senators very closely.
“Ted Cruz has run before. I’m sure he’s thinking about it. Josh Hawley probably is as well,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee. But he explained it’s not just those two: “Tim Scott, Rick Scott, Marco Rubio: The list has gotta be long.”
The 2024 field within the Senate GOP could certainly get cramped; add to Romney’s suggestions senators such as Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and 2016 candidate Rand Paul (Ky.).
“If Trump doesn’t run, I think everybody runs. Every name you’ve heard, every name you haven’t even heard,” Cruz said.
Hawley and Cruz insist there’s no rivalry between them as the GOP waits on Trump’s decision on whether to run for president a third time. Cruz calls the Missouri senator “talented” and Hawley says he and his Texas colleague are not at odds.
With the world watching Putin, Trump targets Trudeau
Yet Republicans, including those who might compete against them in 2024, are nonetheless closely watching a Hawley-Cruz chess match that’s been playing out ever since Trump lost the election. Five days after Hawley announced his plans to object to the 2020 election results in late December 2020, Ted Cruz announced his own plan to reject Biden’s win.
Cruz’s aides consistently distinguished to reporters that his tactics were distinct from Hawley’s. In the aftermath of the Capitol insurrection, the two both faced an unresolved ethics complaint from a group of Senate Democrats. And Hawley filed a counter-complaint.
These days, the two are proxy battling in Hawley’s home state of Missouri, where fellow Republican Sen. Roy Blunt is retiring. After Hawley endorsed Rep. Vicky Hartzler in the state’s Senate race this month, Cruz quickly followed suit and backed his own candidate, Eric Schmitt, who just so happens to have Hawley’s old job as attorney general.
“If Trump doesn’t run, I think everybody runs. Every name you’ve heard, every name you haven’t even heard.”
Sen. Ted Cruz
With Trump staying neutral in the race so far, the two high-profile senators may fill the void when it comes to big endorsements. According to polling viewed by POLITICO, 54 percent of GOP primary voters surveyed in Missouri are more likely to back a Hawley-endorsed candidate while 49 percent are more likely to back a Trump-endorsed candidate.
And as Cruz takes his national political brand into Hawley’s backyard, Republican colleagues see two ambitious senators already jostling for the GOP nomination.
“Of course they are … I can tell when somebody’s interested in running for something,” said one Republican senator who knows both. This senator was “surprised” to see Cruz put himself at odds with Hawley in his Missouri endorsement: “All you do when you endorse is make enemies.”
While Hawley said the two have generally discussed the Missouri race, Cruz said he did not tell Hawley about his endorsement beforehand. He asserted Schmitt “is the strongest conservative in the race and is best positioned to win the seat,” while Hawley said Hartzler “is a person of great character and integrity” who could win both the primary and the general election.
Hawley declined to tell Cruz to butt out of his state: “I wouldn’t tell people what to do.”
Counterintuitively, Republicans are welcoming the Missouri competition between Cruz and Hawley since neither endorsed Eric Greitens, the scandal-tarnished former governor who some in the GOP fear could hand Democrats the seat in a general election. A second Republican senator, granted anonymity to assess the internal dynamics, put it this way: “The Republican Conference would like to see anybody nominated other than Greitens.”
Though both Cruz and Hawley share their penchant for high-profile battles with Democrats, their styles often contrast. Cruz ran his 2016 campaign against Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republican establishment, and has criticized his leadership’s handling of the debt ceiling last year. In comparison to Cruz’s more doctrinaire conservatism, Hawley has pushed a populist agenda — including pandemic stimulus checks — and is generally less combative than Cruz within the Senate GOP.
“In the Senate, I think we’re great allies,” Hawley said of Cruz. “I’m sure we don’t agree on every issue.”
Just as Rubio, Cruz and Paul fought to position themselves as the frontline counter to Democrats and former President Barack Obama in the run-up to 2016, Cruz and Hawley seek now to be the toughest on Biden. While the two Republicans have employed the same tactics to slow-walk Biden’s nominees, their blockades have targeted different aspects of the president’s foreign policy.
Cruz began delaying Biden’s State Department nominees last year after the administration waived mandatory sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. He lifted his holds this week after Biden reversed course and imposed sanctions on the Russia-to-Germany pipeline, a reaction to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.
Hawley’s blockade stems from the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and involves Pentagon nominees. The Missouri Republican has vowed to slow-walk those picks until Biden fires a senior official over the chaotic and deadly U.S. exit from the country last year.
Hawley and Cruz also have different strategies on Biden’s pending decision on a Supreme Court pick, though they both consistently oppose the president’s judicial nominees. Cruz has criticized Biden’s pledge to nominate a Black woman to the high court, while Hawley has publicly pushed for Biden to select Janice Rogers Brown, a former judge on the D.C. Circuit, who is clearly not in the running due to her more conservative record. Both senators serve on the Judiciary Committee, a long-favored panel for presidential hopefuls in both parties.
“They both have their own approaches,” said Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) “Cruz is always on the attack no matter who the nominee is. Hawley takes a little different approach.”
Early surveys show that Trump is still the clear favorite for the 2024 nomination should he run, with Cruz in the top tier and Hawley — who, of course, says he’s not running — further behind. Republicans expect it to stay that way for some time.
“Until there’s a clear indication of what Trump’s gonna do, it’s going to be hard for people to get traction,” Rubio said.
Hawley needs to stay where he is for now and Cruz as well, permanently.
You are correct, we will be given a Uniparty hack.
Unfortunately, the only Trump child with two citizen parents and sole American nationality is Tiffany.
Levin: the birther tactic is crap, here's relevant statute:
---------------------------------------
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth....
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
It didn't matter where Obama was born, it doesn't matter where Ted Cruz was born, it didn't matter where John McCain was born, it didn't matter where George Romney was born. The phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. If one of your parents was a US citizen, which is the case in all four examples, you are a natural born US citizen.
This has been Levin's contention all along. Dishonest leftists, such was Pruto and whoisyourdaddy may want to do a little research, before spouting our their Alinskyite lies. Can either of you provide a link where Mark Levin said Obama couldn't be President because he wasn't a natural born US citizen?
I still don't think Obama was born in Hawaii, but it is a moot point, because at least one parent was a US citizen (and with the possibility of Frank Marshall Davis being his real dad, perhaps both). By birth status, he has every right to be the president.
[A second Republican senator, granted anonymity to assess the internal dynamics, put it this way: “The Republican Conference would like to see anybody nominated other than Greitens.”]
Let’s concentrate on the fall elections.
Then we have to throw out the ones we have who voted for Liz Cheney and elect conservative Republicans.
Levin is wrong.
1. Constitutional Convention – “Born a Citizen” v “Natural Born Citizen”:
When developing a new U.S. Constitution for the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft on June 18, 1787. In addition, he also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States.
Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President.
John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.
Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.
Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.
Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth. [SOURCE CREDIT]
So why do we keep hearing about the President only needing to be “born a citizen”? Well, let’s start with the fallacy of the 14th amendment trumping Article II -
2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted 9 July 1868:
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The intent and purpose of the (14th) amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”
The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the “natural born Citizens” who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents.
Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born Citizen.”
As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born Citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born Citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States. [SOURCE CREDIT]
Now, let’s take a look at the Godfather of the 14th amendment and see what he had to say about “born a citizen” vs “natural born citizen” –
3. Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.
John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. - (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.... - (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. [SOURCE CREDIT]
And of course we’ve all heard the Supreme Court has never ruled on or defined what a “natural born citizen” is, but that is a folly –
4. Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.” Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
“But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Natural Born flows from father, at least under classical definition... Maternity is irrelevant.
One of those sexist throw back things.
Obama was NOT natural born... All of Trump’s children are.
Yep, that's the hard part. Beating Dems in 2022 should be easy in any tossup districts.
By that definition is disqualifies KammelToe Harris. Neither of her parents were American citizens when she was born.
Fossil fuels are a necessity. The wall is a necessity. Privacy is a necessity.
The Bill Of Rights needs to be followed.
And a damn owl, a frog and a snail darter do NOT have more rights than man.
Natural born means one is naturally a citizen because they simply could not be anything else.
All of the children of foreign parents ARE born something else.
It was that singularity of nationality the founders were requiring.
John Jay to George Washington:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
..And if Trump DOES run, everybody else will also run - to the democrat candidate’s support.
Both parties worked together to GET RID OF TRUMP last time…
It worked; NOBODY did a thing and the citizens didn’t rise up against them seriously..
So why would we think they won’t do it again?
“Trump with Desantis as VP.”
VP’s dont do sh*t. Ask Pence. DeSantis does more for the country as governor of FL.
Cringe lol.
It’s Trump or Desantis. Those are the only two real choices.
As bad as Putin is, he’s not the enemy that China is. I think you will find a trail of dirty money running from Burisma (or some other corrupt
Company) to Romney. He fought too hard against Trump, he’s dirty, Mark my words.
It has to be Trump or Desantis. They are the only 2 that create passion and excitement, which equal votes. Anyone else is same ol’ same ol’
Senators make horrible Presidents, Governors somewhat better, non politician conservatives are the best.
Vps learn to become Presidents.
But most importantly, DeSantis brings with him his trusted team, potential cabinet members, others who will support the administration. In other words, folks Trump can trust.
That will make a huge difference.
FL will vote in another great leader.
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.