Posted on 01/12/2016 1:07:36 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
It appears that the bromance between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump is probably over for good. I mean, it was one thing to see Donald Trump openly attacking Cruz for days on end. We've seen that before, and never before had Cruz taken the bait. It appears that this method of dealing with Trump has finally reached its end in the Cruz campaign.
(CRUZ): >>>I will say that it's more than a little strange to see Donald relying on as authoritative a liberal, left-wing, judicial activist Harvard Law professor who is a huge Hillary supporter (Ed. note - Laurence Tribe). It starts to make you think, "Gosh, why are some of Hillary's strongest supporters backing Trump?" You know, the last couple of elections the Democrats have gotten the nominee they wanted to run against in the general election. It seems the Hillary folks are very eager to support Donald Trump and the attacks that are being tossed my direction.<<<
Welcome to the party, Ted Cruz. Better late than never to call Trump what he is.
I, for one, am glad that the prominent conservative personalities who have been pretending Trump is a conservative and talking about him positively to bolster their ratings, will finally have to choose between their wallet and their ideology (and credibility) in this battle between Trump and Cruz. It's been a long time coming.
Of course you would. You like slimy Televangelist car salesmen.
I think the mistake this time was becoming overly attached to an ineligible candidate.
Oh, I see.
He didn’t give to YOUR brand of Republicans.
And of course, he had TOTAL control of how his money was used.
How did I ever miss that? /s
Oh yeah...
“When will Jim banish Trump supporters from FR, like he did with Giuliani advocates?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/3316617/posts
I said go find a lawyer who posts here that agrees with that nonsense you just posted about the 1795 Act.
You know, the bit about because they left it out it means it is the rule forever or some such ridiculous thing you said.
What was the definition the founding fathers gave? I have looked for constitutional explanation of NBC and could not find it anywhere, never t even in the amendments. Help me off t here, please.
From the Tribe article
“This narrow definition reflected 18th-century fears of a tyrannical takeover of our nation by someone loyal to a foreign power — fears that no longer make sense.”
They no longer make sense? Hmmm. Who am I thinking of?
Reagan Dems are all but gone in 2016
________________________________________________________
There are a whole bunch more disaffected dems to take their place.
“Yes they will, if they understand the simple fact that being born a citizen via law (when, for most of the 19th century, children born overseas were not considered citizens) passed by congress is, by definition, “naturalization,” and thus not the same thing as the founder’s concept of natural born citizen.”
1790
the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Law 1795
the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
Law 1802
the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens of the United States provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States Provided also that no person heretofore proscribed by any state or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed
Note that all state that your premise is incorrect.
That the 1802 law repeals previous laws is slightly on point but but only repeals laws on the issue of naturalization not on Citizens at birth.
To this day the ONLY ref to Natural Born Citizen is the 1790 Law as no other definition of if has EVER been made it stands as the SPECIFIC definition of the term.
Holy cow. I guess that may well happen again, unfortunately.
Time will tell. But if trusting a dem is a hope for salvation, we may as well hang it up.
Demanding that JimRob kick off Trump supporters.
Last I checked Mr. Robinson IS a Trump supporter, but I can see why he would want to stay fairly neutral in Trump vs Cruz issues.
He doesn’t want to start throwing out the rent payers I’m sure.
But TDS folk have their reason so clouded over with the kind of vitriol you speak of they don’t thunk too gud.
Cruz ought to be spending his energy convincing us that he’s eligible to be president. Since he’s not doing that, I believe he can’t.
Too bad because I like him.
Did you say the same thing about Reagan democrats?
Oh, I see.
He didn’t give to YOUR brand of Republicans.
And of course, he had TOTAL control of how his money was used.
How did I ever miss that? /s
****************************************************************
That’s right since MY “brand of Republicans” aren’t RINOs & GOPe types but, judging by his contributions, they ARE Trump’s “brand” of Republicans. Perhaps RINOs are your preferred brand also?
Baloney. Any business person has to be with politicians if they want to succeed, especially in NY. It happens here for local, state and national politicians. It is a shame but that is the way the ball bounces. And, no one had better get on the bad side of some of them. They have very long memories.
As to the 1795 amendment it does not strike nor change the earlier one, if you read a good deal of law you will find when law is changed the things that are removed or changed are mentioned clearly.
At its very best the 1795 law by NOT changing nor striking the NBC words made Citizen (not Naturalized Citizen) the equivalent term of art in law from that point on.
Is is also a legal dictum (Lex specialis) that the specific out weighs the general The ONLY specific definition of NBC is the 1790 law.
The other half of Lex specialis is that the new overrides the old, this is of little import on the 1790 and 1795 as there is no def of Natural Born in the 1795 to override the 1790 law. As I stated it seems that the terms were at that point seen as the same else there would have been a definition in the 1795.
The concern at that time was British impressment, which was justified by the British on the grounds that all children born to British fathers are “natural born citizens†of England, and so it is perfectly fine to force American sailors to serve the crown. Consequently, to not appear hypocrites, the United States removed such language from the text, as you see from the 1790 act to this one.
Furthermore, it's not clear that the law was intended to actually make them "natural born," as it only says that they would be treated as if they were natural born. Congress has no power to create natural born citizens, only to make laws pertaining to "naturalization." In other words, the verbiage in the 1790 act, which was repealed, represents a legal fiction. Lastly, citizenship would only pass from father to the child, and not through the mother, so the entire hubbub is irrelevant anyway.
These aren’t them. We are over 30 years beyond them. Today’s dem voted twice for a jihadist communist. They are as evil as he is.
In many ways, Cruz and Trump share positions that are interchangeable. For example, Cruz supports a 16% corporate tax rate while Trump supports 15%.
I get what you are saying. I presume that you believe that Trump is just talking a good game to get in office and will discard his stump rhetoric and will turn into a giant liberal nightmare.
Your mistrust of Trump is valid. I simply don't trust politicians these days. It's why I don't immediately go to Cruz.
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.