Posted on 02/26/2016 3:36:16 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
GOP voters are in a fighting mood. They aren't much interested in business-as-usual, political niceties, or even conservative purity. They want someone who will take it to Washington--someone who will go there and fight for change.
Unfortunately for the rest of the Republican field, the candidate who voters overwhelmingly think will bring change to Washington is Donald Trump. South Carolina exit polling found that, among the large subsection of GOP voters who most want a candidate who "can bring change," a whopping 45 percent supported Trump, compared with only 19 percent for Ted Cruz and 16 percent for Marco Rubio.
This isn't perhaps too much of a concern for Rubio, who is the electability/establishment candidate. It's a huge concern, however, for Cruz, who has to be the "change" candidate, leaving Trump to be the mad-as-hell/outsider candidate. If Trump is both the outsider candidate and the change candidate, then Cruz is sunk....
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
McCain was born in Panama (not the Canal Zone) and I bet you voted for him.
Is that how much Rubio sucks?
Why should Trump be intimidated by Cruz's intellect?
If he needs someone with brains, he can just pay them for the time their services are needed, then end the contract.
That's how you win in business.
I doubt it, and it's a very bad idea to start an argument by making an assertion that you have no way of knowing. I was born in 1947, how about you, babe?
Studying and understanding the Constitution is two very different things. But, since the Constitution is silent on this point, the document itself will not be must use. I'd be happen to discuss why the founders were concerned about this issue, and how the courts have ruled over the years. Interestingly, they have never considered the specific question as regards the eligibility of candidates to the Office of the President, so this argument cannot be resolved. No doubt, that's the kind of argument that you must like.
Impress me.
+1
ahhh— yea and I don’t want to hear about Kasich’s mailman father again either...
I assumed you were a Cruzer, given the childish attack.
How Cruz could win?
Maybe go back to his native Canada and run for something?
Cruz “character”:
1. Phony summonses mailed out, scaring people to vote for Cruz.
2. Claiming Carson quit, presinc captains told voters “vote for Cruz”
3. Campaigning in the 800 churches, showing video “vote for me” with his preacher/father stomping for him. Rafael Cruz is a 7 Mountain Dominionist and believes his son is the anointed one.
4. “Brilliant” lawyer, did not know he was Canadian citizen and that he is not Natural Born Citizen, not eligible for office of P or VP.
5. Making phony video advertising with lies about opponents.
6. Phony video about Rubio - Obama.
7. 7 Mountain Dominionist Church = Christian???
Just enough to beat Trump in IA, apologize, rinse and repeat?
Liar is the polite term for this Cuban. His father was pro-communist in Cuba, imprisoned by Batista, but now he is refugee?
IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
(Oct. 18, 2009) The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President (and VP), it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Applies to Cruz and Rubio, both at the time not born to US citizens and on US soil.
The clueless are leading the way for this election and you seem to be at the top of the stack. The question at this point is: will more of the clueless vote for Hillary/Bernie or for Trump. There is a significant difference, but I doubt that the voters will be able to comprehend what it might be.
Trump’s donations went straight to the people most responsible for giving us Obamacare.
Who would that be? Trump donee Ted Cruz?
You lose. I remember Dec. 7, 1941 and obviously you don’t. Thhe Constitution is not silent on the Law of Nations as it is cited in Article 1, section 8. The same Law of nations was the source of Natural Born Citizen as well as many other things in the Declaration of independence and the Constitution. Do your own research and read Vattel and all the Supreme court Decisions based on Vattel’s Law of
Nations as well as the numerous references to it in the writings of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, James Madison, David Ramsey, Tom Paine and many others ALL referring to the Law of Nations. Ramseys dissertation on Citizenship page 6 could not be clearer. Try the Powdered Wig Society, KrisAnne Hall, Minor vs Happersett and when you’ve finished with that list I’ll give you another..
i understand what i study. you should study a little before you take an indefensable stance.
You are changing your assertion. You said that you were studying the Constitution before I was born, but you know can only say that you remember Pearl Harbor Day. At exactly what age did you begin this journey on Constitutional scholarship?
I suspect that you have a copy of Vattel personally inscribed to you. I’m sure that is quite a valued relic. A treasure. But, Your argument fails on a number of counts. Of course, my opinion doesn’t count, but then yours doesn’t either.
I will predict this. The courts could care less about this argument and will not entertain a case based on this point. The only way that this will be considered is if some authority takes upon itself to deny the voters a choice of a candidate who gained his or her citizenship by the virtue of the event of birth and not of some naturalization process. Please use your energy to convince someone to remove Cruz from a ballot and then we will see.
Since you only joined Free Republic in 2015 and then presumably missed all of the birther debates of 2008-2012, you are at a disadvantage. I won’t use it against you.
Cruz COULD win...by moving to Canada and running for office there next year!
Remain unlearned about the subject as you choose. Your problem, not mine.
You gave your birthdate. Since I remember an event which happened years before you were born,it most certainly would mean that I am older than you, would it not?
One does not need a copy of Vattel. I have read the original French wording pertaining to natural born citizen in the French Archives. The Framers knew and understood the meaning of natural born citizen. since everyone knew what it meant, there was no need to define it. Check my posts and you ill find many posts with other details which you might, if you are truly interested in the Constitution, care to peruse.
Cruz can still win the race for president of the North American Union.
how the courts have ruled over the years. Interestingly, they have never considered the specific question as regards the eligibility of candidates to the Office of the President, so this argument cannot be resolved. No doubt, that’s the kind of argument that you must like.
............................................................
TheCourts HAVE considered the question of citizenship and therein lies the fault in your argument. I do not intend to spend any more time discussing this with you as you prefer to remain uneducated and hide behind snarky responses as if the constitution does not matter. ONE exmple: Minor vs Happersett in the Supreme Court 1875 finds that BOTH PARENTS must be American citizens. Look it up! I dare you. Therefore neither Cruz nor Rubio are eligible.
Your argument stands on an appeal to authority, namely your unquestioned expertise in Constitutional Law. I reject this.
Secondly, you cite Minor v. Happersett. This is known as cherry picking. This was one of the favorites of the birthers here on Free Republic long before you joined these little discussions. It has been debunked on many occasions, after all it was a case about women’s suffrage where the Court decided that women had no right to the vote. Great arguments are not made on that shaky foundation.
This reference captures all of the relevant Constitutional issues, court decisions, laws, and Federal regulation. It demonstrates the weakness of your position and points out a few apparent gaps in your education. Nice try, especially throwing in FULL CAPS WORDS. Those always work.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
“Basically Cruz said that RUBIO would be a better president than Trump in last night’s debate - it’s all over the place, but if you really need me to do your searching, I’ll find something”
That’s not an endorsement of Rubio, it’s a insult on Trump.
“That’s not an endorsement of Rubio, it’s a insult on Trump.”
Tell that to the people who claim to be supporting Cruz, they’re the ones most upset about it.
To us Trump supporters, we expected it.
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.