The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept. It is used by media pundits.[1][2] The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton (1960–2003),[3] a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy,[4] who in his description of his window claimed that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within the window, rather than on politicians' individual preferences.[5] According to Overton's description, his window includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office.
Rather then posting their usual collection of daily bile laced infantile personal attack tirades at Trump and his supporters, perhaps "Conservatories and Libertarians", might want to thank Trump for changing the national political paradigm so far in their direction that a "President Cruz" is now a distinct possibility.
Red State - Just an extension of the Cruz campaign.
This is the Tribe article:
So past reason is the support for Trump that folks like Ann Coulter readily admit he’s is not conservative on anything but immigration, and it doesn’t matter!
Wow... Cruz seems to forget there were a faction of voters called “Reagan Democrats”.
I guess he won’t be getting their support!
Is there a point in your posting OLD NEWS here?
Looks like Cruz is taking the Mark Levin approach to stifling dissent. Ironically, he proves Trump’s point in his own retort. The “Hillary” supporters acknowledge that the issue is not settled. What was Trump’s point again? “They will sue!” And if the judge they get is either an originalist or an unethical liberal judge, Cruz will be ruled ineligible.
Cruz, when losing is not enough, you want to get creamed.
I called it. Tribe would be Trump’s Supreme Court pick. If he were president.
I’m looking forward to Cruz unloading on Trump in the debate on Thursday night...
We need to be done with the charlatan so a solid conservative like Cruz can lead this country back to where it should be.
Looks like Cruz defending himself against Trump attacks. The headline is misleading.
What utter nonsense. What a fraud for a headline, you'd think Redstate had become the NYslimes or something......
Let the games begin! But Cruz is being dishonest in saying that Trobe supports Trump. Tribe’s article was pretty clear that in his opinion Cruz is eligible, but points out that he can only come to that conclusion by rejecting the Constitutional originalism professed by Cruz.
The conservatives biggest mistake has always been allowing others to define our issues and our candidates
Team Cruz must have got the poll results on what attacks were acceptable.
Cruz sort of proves the point here that the Dems would put this issue to the courts...
The best thing Cruz could have done is just ignore this and laugh it off.
As a Trump supporter, I see nothing wrong with Cruz associating Trump with Tribe-— nor in Trump raising the possibility that a supreme court may find Cruz is not a natural born citizen..
That's ironic, in light of the fact that I've seen Cruz supporters incessantly pointing to liberal sources that support his position. Including the deeply flawed opinions of two liberal former Solicitors General writing in the Harvard Law Review.
Hey Ted Shillary wants you. And Ted, even broken clocks get the time right in a 24 hour period.
Had Cruz been born in 1921 under the identical birth circumstances that he was born into in 1970, than he would not even have been a US citizen. The Cable Act, passed in 1922, allowed a US citizen woman, married to a foreign national and who gives birth in a foreign country, to transmit US citizenship onto the newborn child for the first time.
Article II, Section I clause 5, was ratified in 1791 with the rest of the constitution, long before the Cable Act.. Article I has not been modified by any subsequent amendment. Accordingly, the original intent and meaning of Article II stands absent any such constitutional amendment.
The purpose of Article II, Section I clause 5 was to prevent undue foreign influence on the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY thru a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The framers took their definition for NBC from Emmerich De Vattel Law of Nations, the 212th paragraph of which was quoted in its entirety in the 1814 Venus Merchantman SCOTUS decision. The Law of Nations is referred to in Article I of the constitution. That definition referred to an NBC as being born of two citizen parents and born on the soil of the nation. That definition was cited in the 1868 case of Minor vs Hapersett, and Wong Kim Ark vs US. De Vattel has been cited and accepted in dozens of SCOTUS and federal lower court rulings. The framers were patriarchs who believed that the citizenship of the children followed the citizenship of the father.
The authors of the 14th amendment, Senators Howard Jacob and Rep. Bingham also defined an NBC in similar terms.
Obama is the very embodiment and personification of the REASON that the framers put those protections into the constitution. By ignoring it, we have opened ourselves to the anti American and unconstitutional tyranny that Obama poses to our constitutional republic.
Ted Cruz is head and shoulders the best candidate in the race. He is a patriot who loves this country and its people. He is intellectually and philosophically superior to ANYONE else in the race. As much as I admire him, He CANNOT be considered a natural born citizen, as he is a citizen by statute. He was born with THREE countries (The US, Canada, and Cuba thru his father) having a legitimate claim on his allegiance from birth, whether he wanted it or not. I believe in the constitution and the rule of law, NOT in the cult of personality. We should not yield to the same dark impulses of expediency and delusion that gave us the tyrannical sociopathic usurper demagogue Obama.