Why has FR turned on Cruz?

vanity | today | me

[bassmaner]

I'll keep this vanity short ... Mods: please feel free to pull it if it's inappropriate.

Why have so many here on FR turned on Ted Cruz in such a vicious way?

We cheered when we first heard about Ted taking on the establishment in TX to win the primary in the race to fill Kay Bailey Hutchison's vacated Senate seat, in a bad year for the GOP

We cheered again when Ted exhorted us to 'Stand With Rand' when he offered public support for Rand Paul's filibuster over the NDAA

Once more, we cheered when he stood on the Senate floor and urged his colleagues to join him and use the power of the purse to kill Obamacare

We nodded our collective heads in approval when he openly and correctly called Mitch McConnell a liar

And we jumped for joy when he became the first GOPer to announce a presidential run!

So ... what happened? Yes, Trump announced. But at first, not too many people took him seriously. For the longest time, there seemed to be an unspoken pact between Trump and Cruz, where they occasionally said nice things about each other while bashing the other candidates.

But ever since the voting began and Trump turned on Cruz (starting with the Ben Carson imbroglio in Iowa), a large contingent of FReepers did the same and seem to be echoing RINOs like John Boehner and Peter King in their absolute abhorrence of Cruz.

Yes, we need to choose sides, but for God's sake, can't we send that kind of vitriol in the direction that it belongs, ie. Hildabeast and the 'Rat Party, and knock off the circular firing squad?

[mrsmith]

‘Technically’ or otherwise he can not get the nomination unless he nearly ties Trump in first ballot candidates.
Cruz is going to be hundreds of delegates behind Trump.
The Party can not just dismiss the wishes of the primary voters.

As long as there was a chance he could make it close then he was well justified to fight of course.

[VanDeKoik]

“Technically it’s not over yet. People complain that our side doesn’t fight. Well, Ted is fighting. He is doing everything he can within the rules to be the nominee.”

He is trying to take delegates that he could not win in an open vote.

Standing by that is reason #4321552452463 why Cruz and his sycophants are despised.

For some reason you pretend like you dont know this.

[Hot Tabasco]

Why have so many here on FR turned on Ted Cruz in such a vicious way?

Why do so many Cruzers turn on Trump in such a vicious way?

[JBW1949]

Yep...I like that!!!!

[Salamander]

Truly, familiarity bred contempt.

[chris37]

No.

You don’t win at the expense of your honor, because to do so makes you dishonorable, same as her.

It’s very easy to see how Cruz has destroyed himself via his behavior.

To win at any cost is to lose.

[VanDeKoik]

“I observed that a lot of people on FR hated Cruz the first time he publicly mentioned Jesus”

Ok, then post the examples.

What? You dont have them? You just made that up as a strawman to pretend like opposition to Cruz is some anti-Christian plot?

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

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”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

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”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

[Freedom56v2]

That is unacceptable: we need EVERYBODY on our side to unite to have any hope of defeating THEM.

---

That EVERBODY needs to start with TED CRUZ. When asked NINE times by CHuck Todd on Sunday if he would back Trump as the nominee, he refused to answer...He is not keeping his word...

It will be hard for Cruz followers to back Trump if Cruz has broken his promise. Also it really does not help that Cruz father is running around the country saying Christians should be voting for Ted and that Hillary would be better President than Trump...Sheesh...

I think Cruz has demonstrated lousy judgement and leadership skills with all this.

[Democrat_media]

I never Trusted Cruz.

The way Cruz supported TPA showed who Cruz was to me , a fraud, con man selling out America like all the other politicians.

Trump is the only one I trust. Go Trump!

I read Trump’s books long ago! There is a video here on freerepublic that shows Trump saying the same things in interviews all throughout decades. where is that video?

Trump said the same Things about Japan ripping the USA off then as he does about China today. Factories = production = wealth creation = wealth.China has stolen our factories.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/17/trump_im_so_happy_china_is_upset_with_me.html

More proof that Cruz is a fraud:

Cruz is a big time liar. Now Cruz is with the gope and endorsed by most of them Romney , Lindsay Graham, etc.

Cruz support of TPA, Corker bill , the 2 worst bills ever.

There’s a million more lies by Cruz that prove Cruz is the biggest snake I’ve ever seen. You can’t seriously be believing this snake Cruz can you, you have to be a paid campaign bot.

[navymom1]

That’s fine and it’s your choice; however, Cruz supporters have NEVER been holier than thou. I’ve been called everything from a Cultist to a Trumpanzie. This crap has gone both ways. No one is pure here.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Why have so many here on FR turned on Ted Cruz in such a vicious way?

Because of the following:

- He's mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination
- He stood on the side of BLM thugs and Soros-funded leftists on Fri 03/11 in Chicago instead of with Trump
- He is ineligible to hold the Presidency

We cheered when we first heard about Ted taking on the establishment in TX to win the primary in the race to fill Kay Bailey Hutchison's vacated Senate seat, in a bad year for the GOP

So? I cheered when Ron Johnson defeated Russ Feingold here in WI. Six years later, he hasn't done squat. Now he's in danger of losing...to Russ Feingold.

We cheered again when Ted exhorted us to 'Stand With Rand' when he offered public support for Rand Paul's filibuster over the NDAA

What is the NDAA?

Once more, we cheered when he stood on the Senate floor and urged his colleagues to join him and use the power of the purse to kill Obamacare

Cruz is a SENATOR. The Senate has no control over the power of the purse. You should be focusing your ire at House Republicans.

We nodded our collective heads in approval when he openly and correctly called Mitch McConnell a liar

At the fact that McConnell won't declare him eligible

And we jumped for joy when he became the first GOPer to announce a presidential run!

Yes...until Trump came in. Someone with instant name recognition, money, and with 40 years of business leadership. That's when Cruz should have stopped kissing his @ss, endorsed him, and returned to the Senate.

[whinecountry]

Well said, Doug.

[VanDeKoik]

“Cruz positioned himself as the candidate of substance rather than symbolism.

We don’t want substance. We want symbolism.”

Having Glenn Beck “swear him in” and presenting him with Washington’s compass.

Constant references from his supporters about how he was sent by God, part of prophecy.

Stories about how he is a debate champion, memorized the constitution at 13 (as if that means something), blah blah blah.

Badly staged family photo-ops.

Picking a “VP” to look like a winner.

Yeah, Cruz people love them that “substance”.

[Bulldaddy]

[The night he blamed the Chicago near riots at a Trump rally on Trump, he became dead to me.

That for me was a turning point.]

Same for me.

[navymom1]

Trump Trolls, really? And folks like you wonder why its difficult to have a reasonable discussion about our differences and therefore post their opus to the forum.

Like I said in another post, this ugliness has gone both ways. You Cruz guys aren’t as pure as the wind driven snow either.

[Democrat_media]

“I never fell for the Cruz cult. To me, this just means most of FR finally came to their senses and saw what a grandstanding faker Cruz is. He’s turned out to be Barack Obama with an ‘R’ next to his name.”

I totally agree with every word of your post. You said it better than I ever could put it in words. ditto for many other posts by freepers on this thread and others.

[Hulka]

Observing the viterol on these campaign threads is instructive.
Both sides are digging in and losing sight of the big picture - indeed, both sides are guilty of attacking or insulting anyone who does not come out and worship their sainted choice.
That is sad.

[JimSEA]

If the replies you’ve received are an indication, there will never be a coming together as some vicious accusations, baseless insults and fighting language have taken over this forum. In some posts the term conservative has become a perjoritive almost like Marxist, posters basic moral character and decency are called into question. It will be impossible for either side to forget.

[Hulka]

Post 258.