Replies

There are plenty of people who have used reason and logic against the anti-Cruz birthers here. Unfortunately, they don't or won't even listen to any good argument, from what I've seen most of them are incapable of doing so. As Levin notes, most of them are unable to deal with debate on something, their minds are made up, and they're not going to relent. They'd rather see Hillary or Christie be President than give up their Pharisaical notions.

Thankfully, there are some birthers who will not do that. I have seen a number of them on the forum who are coming to grips with the reality of what their position will mean. The concept that Hillary or Christie have the kind of citizenship allowing them to be President and not Ted Cruz is simply inconceivable.

Here is a summary of the arguments:

1. There is no law, no precedent, case, no definition of this issue as put forth by the birthers anywhere in any court case or law. None. Zilch, zero, nada.
2. Cruz was given a US birth certificate immediately, he was not naturalized, his parents did not have to go through any unusual manner to get his citizenship, it was automatic.
3. The original intent of the issue was not to have a President with divided loyalties. Cruz has no divided loyalties toward the US founding, most of his opponents do.
4. There is a big divide in thought on the matter, some good arguments from both sides in the conservative arena, but there is no clear winner, because there is no clear court precedent. Why take someone out as good as Cruz over a difference of opinion on this niggling point?
5. Even if the birthers were right (debatable), for us to take out one of ours on a point that they ignored for two elections would be political suicide and make us the stupidest part of the stupid party.

I think there are other main points to argue, but these are what I have read. Xzins and others, kindly add other points than what I have made here. I would like to make a good, comprehensive list of the arguments that have been put forth.

There is a big divide in thought on the matter, some good arguments from both sides in the conservative arena, but there is no clear winner, because there is no clear court precedent. Why take someone out as good as Cruz over a difference of opinion on this niggling point?

The problem is, it's not just a "niggling point". We only have to look at Barack Obama to see what can happen when that one small detail of the Constitution is swept aside.

Now, had Ted Cruz been the first man of our time to be elected under a cloud of eligibility, it would have been a mere academic issue, as we both know what type of President he'd make.

But therein lies the gamble which the Framers sought to avoid by laying down the NBC requirement.

“There are plenty of people who have used reason and logic against the anti-Cruz birthers here.”

I’m rejecting your assertion that anyone questioning Cruz’s eligibility is anti-Cruz. We’re not anti-Cruz, we’re anti-destruction of the Constitution.

Refuting some of your points from post #105 that you keep asking someone to do:

“1. There is no law, no precedent, case, no definition of this issue as put forth by the birthers anywhere in any court case or law. None. Zilch, zero, nada.”
To name 3, refer to
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

“2. Cruz was given a US birth certificate immediately, he was not naturalized, his parents did not have to go through any unusual manner to get his citizenship, it was automatic”

Cruz’s parents had to file for a Canadian birth certificate that they then had to take to the American Embassy (or consulate) to register the birth. 2-steps. Natural born citizens only have 1 step - the birth certificate. (Do you know for a fact they didn’t do the same thing in the Cuban Embassy to give him Cuban citizenship?) If Congress hadn’t passed a law, Cruz wouldn’t even be a citizen. If he was a “natural born” citizen - if both his parents were US citizens and he was born in the US - he wouldn’t need a law to be a citizen.

“3. The original intent of the issue was not to have a President with divided loyalties. Cruz has no divided loyalties toward the US founding, most of his opponents do.”

Regardless whether you want to believe it or not, Cruz has at least 3 loyalties in law - Canada, Cuba and US. I’m interested to know how you know what’s in his head or his heart. If you’re just using what he says, you must not ever have been lied to before by a Politician. I’m not saying he is or he isn’t, I’m saying you don’t know.

“4. There is a big divide in thought on the matter, some good arguments from both sides in the conservative arena, but there is no clear winner, because there is no clear court precedent. Why take someone out as good as Cruz over a difference of opinion on this niggling point?”

It’s not a niggling point, it’s a constitutional qualification. No one is trying to take Cruz “out”. We want this issue resolved because how it’s resolved will reflect back on Obama. Obama is EXACTLY what the Founders were trying to avoid.

“5. Even if the birthers were right (debatable), for us to take out one of ours on a point that they ignored for two elections would be political suicide and make us the stupidest part of the stupid party.”

Who ignored what? Obama’s eligibility has been debated and a resolution sought through the court system since 2008. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. It can’t be right because he’s “our guy”.