Posted on 01/18/2016 7:19:37 AM PST by Cboldt
My letter to Jason Savage, the executive diretor of the Maine GOP ...
There is evidence that Cruz is a naturalized citizen of the US. He was born in Canada, and the SCOTUS case of Rogers v. Bellei, if applied, would assign Cruz the status of naturalized citizen of the US.
I understand that certification of his qualifications emanates from the RNC, and that the Maine GOP is powerless to challenge the certification. A certification that is clearly false, as any competent court would find, if it found it had jurisdiction.
I also understand that I am voting, in the general, for an elector, ant that I am not voting for the eventual nominee of the party.
Nonetheless, what is occurring is in the nature of perpetrating a fraud on those who are considering the slate of candidate offered in the primary. The party should offer only qualified candidates.
What should be done about this, and what are you going to do about this?
We don’t need name-calling which distracts from the discussion. Related precedents do tend to get weighed into the picture. Is this absolutely cookie cutter? Well no, in the sense that Bellei was a gingerbread man and Cruz is a round cookie, but otherwise it looks like it.
Precedent Obama has rendered that clause moot.
Under the current definition of simply being born a citizen, if even only on one’s mother’s side, makes every anchor baby and Winston Churchill eligible. (his mother was an American)
I went to school in the 1960’s and was taught that natural born citizen was a subset of citizen and required only for the office of President. Must be born here to citizen parents. Reading the writings of the people who wrote the Constitution confirms this. They wanted no divided allegiance. If you could be anything other than a U.S. citizen, you can’t be a natural born citizen. No foreign births, no foreign parents.
Many people wanted the definition changed for various reasons. The Republicans had many more ineligible people coming up than the Democrats so they gave Obama a pass.
Having an usurper in office has not been good for the country, has it?
Bless your heart, I believe you mean well and suffer from innocent ignorance. I wish you the very best, and I mean that sincerely.
The U.S. recognizes citizenship according to two fundamental principles: jus soli (right of birthplace), and jus sanguinis
(right of blood). Under jus soli, a person receives American citizenship by vir tue of being born in the United States. By
contrast, jus sanguinis confers citizenship on those born to at least one U.S. citizen anywhere in the wor ld. A person who
does not qualify under either of these principles may seek U.S. citizenship through the process of naturalization.
If you believe Cboldt’s rational, jus soli trumps (pardon pun) jus sanguinis. And that jus soli is a citizenship more inviolate than the latter. That is just not the case.
Jus soli and jus sanguinis constitute birthright citizenship.
Remember native born and natural born are not synonomous terms nor were they ever intended to be.
The hopes of Cruz (and Jindal etc.) were why they were so limp towards Obama?
BAD MOVE, GOP. BAD MOVE.
Rule of men turns into an utter Calvinball. GOP should know that Democrats are experts at this already.
Looks like onus is on Cruz to do the right thing. Bow out. And as a bonus he could be a mongo help for Trump, about whom there isn’t any such question. We’ve been worried about Trump’s un-conservativeness. Well a Cruz advisor could do a whale of a lot about that.
Handwriting. Wall.
Just having a question and a hostile USSC is enough to cast a shadow.
The Senate Resolution fig leaf notwithstanding, McCain wasn’t eligible either.
The RNC went along with Obama because of it. Not to mention future candidates Rubio, Cruz and Jindal.
“So Cboldt is citing this because he believes that Cruz never lived in the U.S.?”
I don’t know. I only posted it because I wasn’t familiar with Rogers v. Bellei, and I thought that was necessary for any discussion.
I’ll leave the analysis to others...
Nothing prior, either.
Well it’s never too late for the RNC to say it was wrong, that rule of law gives us something better to count on, if we don’t have any screaming moral issue at hand (which there isn’t, here).
Jus soli and jus sanguinis constitute natural born citizenship.
Both are required.
I offer my sincere and heartfelt apology to traderrob6. I spoke my mind out of emotion and frustration, and agree that the insult was uncalled for. I repent, and truly am sorry. traderrob6 is likely an exceptionally intelligent person, skilled, wise, and rational. That he has a blind spot on this point is understandable, common, and innocently arrived at. We all have blind spots, and as a matter of sticking on labels, I too am an idiot, likely on many issues.
But not on this issue.
Hey we all lose our tempers. The point is to regain them. God forgives, and nobody else can reverse that. Let’s keep pressing forward towards the goal.
I’d not be surprised if Trump already knows about Bellei by now. He’s got Cruz in the doghouse too, which he wouldn’t do if he didn’t think he finally got a leg up.
This could work screamingly well as a team effort. This problem could put Cruz in the briar patch with Trump. The question is could Cruz swallow his pride. I pray he would do so enough to see what could be gained.
Name calling? Must have missed that.
I did misspell synonymous though lol
And there is a something subsequent that can happen too. Others can send similar communications to the directors of the GOP in their respective states. I urge people who are of a like-mind with me to do so.
Could help to mention the synergy that could be had from a Cruz advisorship to a Trump bid. Now they will make most conservatives happy as well as pulling in everybody that Trump had been pulling in. If the GOP wants to win it should thank the good Lord that Trump decided not to go either indy or Democrat.
And not that it's right, but I do indulge in needling from time to time. I reserve my contempt for those who go beyond obstinate.
Bellei sure makes it look that way. But I am not a maven of USSC decisions and know that they can and will come up with things out of left field.
I like to look at what is likely to go down, not just what is abstractly right, when figuring what a good strategy ought to be. And the bias is already to the left side in the USSC (and Roberts might even abstain because of Cruz’s role in his nomination).
Far be it from me to question your motives but isn’t it just a teeny bit possible that your present stand on this issue (as I assume a Trump backer) is pretty self serving.
And that you might not be quite so adamant in your opinion if the situation was reversed.
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.