Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vanity - My letter to the Maine GOP on Cruz Eligibility
Vanity ^ | January 18, 2016 | vanity

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?


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: birther; citizenship; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: traderrob6

I’ve had a bias towards Trump too, but it was based on hunch. Who is going to be the strong horse (and still in some way acceptable).

Now it looks like a potential political synergy is presenting itself. It is one Cruz decision away from a yeehaw that would look like the Reagan sweep of America, IMHO. Trump is blessedly still open to suggestion; he isn’t arbitrarily knocking heads on every policy from A to Z.

He could very easily explain it. Some die hards may be disappointed, but the patient Cruz probably can win them back.


41 posted on 01/18/2016 8:16:05 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
My motive is to preserve correct operation of the constitution.

If it wasn't for this issue, I'd find Cruz to be awesome. I do have my doubts, but those I have for all candidates, including Trump.

I think Cruz knows he isn't qualified, and is trying to bluff his way through, with the same complicity the elites used to allow Obama to usurp the office. That too has been allowed to fester for too long, but the people are asleep. Maybe Cruz's conduct is a "white lie," I don't know, and won't know until events play out. Right now it is a big lie, in my mind, and that causes me to think he has a deep character flaw.

This isn't a "partisan" issue or question. I see it as embracing some fundamental aspects of fidelity to law and truth, openness and candor, and good faith dealing with a gullible public.

42 posted on 01/18/2016 8:19:06 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

Even the names seem symbolic. Cruz is cross; the suffering servant. Trump is like trumpet; it announces and proclaims.

Trump doesn’t need to be highly pious for this to work; in fact Cruz could be a very good influence on him vis a vis faith.

Do it, Ted. Throw your support to Trump; you can very easily explain why.


43 posted on 01/18/2016 8:20:29 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I think, just plain old blind spot. He has tended to the overconfident, the proud. He might have gotten this from the way his dad treated him, with these spiritual proclamations of success.

The actual Christian model is that of the suffering servant. Each is willing to suffer to help the burdens of others, and will be rewarded with joy for this suffering. That’s what puts Christianity ahead of all other world faiths if it is done right; if done wrong it becomes an ugly clump of presumption and loses its attractiveness compared to other possible belief systems.


44 posted on 01/18/2016 8:24:10 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I would be able to vote for Trump without holding my nose.

That being said, Trump is a populist with a definite tendency toward pragmatism. Some see that as a strength, it frankly makes me very queasy.


45 posted on 01/18/2016 8:24:19 AM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
As a question of realpolitik, the NBC clause is inoperative. Either it gets read out on some rhetorical trick, giving Congress the power to define the term, or it is found archaic and "not who we are," or the people allow the elites to open the office up to naturalized citizens, maybe with a constitutional amendment.

There are many ways to fame the discussion and justify the neutering of the NBC clause.

In short, I see no downside to making a stink. The NBC clause is already lost. I'm trying to get it back.

46 posted on 01/18/2016 8:24:23 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Natural-born means citizen at birth.

True, but somewhat misleading.

"Natural Born" by definition obviously means a citizen at birth, but being a citizen at birth doesn't necessarily mean "Natural Born Citizen".

I don't remember what that error is called, but it gets me, too, sometimes.

Here's another example: "All terrorists are muslim, but not all muslims are terrorists."

47 posted on 01/18/2016 8:27:02 AM PST by GBA (Here in the matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

The big question here is — where is Trump getting his pragmas from. There’s more than one way to do it. He’s asked for input, that indicates some degree of humility. Cruz and doubtless others now have a chance to make hay while the sun shines.

A good CEO is not an autocrat; he is an intelligent advice taker.


48 posted on 01/18/2016 8:27:56 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

The clause wasn’t so much lost as ignored, for Obama. The USSC is more than happy to jump in and declare something un-lost, even if it queers things in the process (pun intended).

Which is why we could use a Bork amendment, but first things first. Let’s win and get the destructive-Democrat factor as marginalized as possible.


49 posted on 01/18/2016 8:29:53 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
-- I think, just plain old blind spot. --

Cruz? I don't find the proposition tenable, that he believes he is qualified. He is an exceptionally skilled lawyer, and he has enough savvy to test his assumptions on important questions. Plus, he seems to be "accidentally" hiding (or not fully and forthrightly disclosing) more than his birthplace.

But, I will concede that you may be right. That on this issue he really didn't recall or associate any legal significance to being born in Canada and living there for his first four years. I have no doubt he considers himself 100% American, and I see him as 100% American - same way I see naturalized citizens.

50 posted on 01/18/2016 8:35:52 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Congress has the power to naturalize people without resort to the ceremony

Congress, as established via Article I Section 8 of the constitution has the full authority to established the rules of naturalization. While that does include your statement above, it includes far more.

It includes the rules for who is able to apply for naturalization, what the ceremony must consist of and it also includes who is a citizen at birth and does not need to be naturalized, i.e. a naturally born citizen.

Some of those rule, in particular those who are born citizens, are described in Title 8 section 1401 of the US Code.

51 posted on 01/18/2016 8:36:59 AM PST by taxcontrol ( The GOPe treats the conservative base like slaves by taking their votes and refuses to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

We need to be consistent. If Obama was not eligible, then neither is Cruz. That is if Obama was really born outside the country.If Obama is legal then Cruz is. End of story. It is one or the other. The frustrating part is those who want to play both sides of the fence, depending on who they support. Nonsense.


52 posted on 01/18/2016 8:39:29 AM PST by andy1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
-- The clause wasn't so much lost as ignored, for Obama. --

A distinction without a difference, except for describing the mechanism that renders it inoperable.

In my wildest dreams, Obama's presidency becomes recognized as improvidently granted. That can happen - it does not undo anything he did, all his acts are valid. The invalidity is only the action of Congress in making him president-elect, and that is a failure of Congress, not the usurper.

Who knows how the history will be written. Either there is an awakening, or not. That depends on honestly by the public-perception machine.

53 posted on 01/18/2016 8:40:10 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I mean a moral blind spot.

He could have been hoping to tunnel through with the trend that Obama opened.

This gets to issues of philosophy and strategy. In philosophy it’s bad to try to ride along with the rule of men. That’s fickle at best and makes you a bad example. In strategy he might have misunderestimated the skulduggery of Democrats.

In his very faith, however, he also has the basis to correct the blind spot. It would be a different matter than encountering it in a rank unbeliever. Cruz has someone to repent to. A rank unbeliever, while remaining so, does not.


54 posted on 01/18/2016 8:43:21 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GBA

Bottom line is this.... If the framers meant native born they would have used that term, they didn’t, they used natural born. Unfortunately other than the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was superceded, it was never defined again.


55 posted on 01/18/2016 8:43:46 AM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

This is where deep constitutional fundamentalists haul out Vattel’s Law Of Nations and say aha, it furnishes us with a definition.


56 posted on 01/18/2016 8:46:10 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: andy1954
-- We need to be consistent. If Obama was not eligible, then neither is Cruz. --

It's not that easy, because the reasons for finding them unqualified are different, even though the reasons in both cases orbit the NBC clause.

Obama was (cough cough) born in the US. Cruz was not, not the citizen of any US state at his birth, to be pedantic about it.

I can see the appeal of the simple argument, citizen-at-birth = NBC. It is a powerful argument, easy to sell, but it reaches the wrong result. I don't blame the people for falling into the trap. I blame the likes of Katyal, Clement, all of Congress, the serious candidates for not teaching truth. Maybe the generation before failed, and the current leaders are innocently duping the public, but I doubt it.

-- The frustrating part is those who want to play both sides of the fence, depending on who they support. --

Most of that stems from innocent ignorance, and a not-unreasonable point of view that rejects "Obama was born in the US, and remained a US citizen through his life."

57 posted on 01/18/2016 8:47:28 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GBA

Not that kind of logic, GBA.
The term for the logical fallacy you’re referring to is “illicit minor.”
But I’m not stating that the Naturalization Act of 1790 defines Cruz as a natural born citizen.
The point is that it indicates which of several profered original meanings of the Constitution the founders intended.


58 posted on 01/18/2016 8:48:34 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GBA

Actually, I’m wrong.... “Illicit minor” may SOUND like it fits the situation ( hee ) but it’s a similar fallacy.


59 posted on 01/18/2016 8:50:58 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
I hear what you are saying, and I mean no ill will. But your perception of how the law would work if it followed precedent is mistaken. Basically, you are saying that congress has the power to make natural, and that leads to bad and absurd results, putting Act of Congress superior over the constitution.

Your error is a common one, easy to make, and even tempting to make.

I am unmovable from my belief on this issue, and suggest that we just leave it at that, so as to not generate any expression of hostility here on FR, nor bad feelings toward one another aside from what we post.

60 posted on 01/18/2016 8:52:59 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson