Posted on 09/07/2013 12:03:25 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Sen. Ted Cruz will be a guest on ABC News’ “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” this Sunday. The Texas senator is a rising star in the Republican Party and thought to be a possible presidential candidate in 2016. With an impressive resume – degrees from Princeton and Harvard Law, first Hispanic solicitor general of Texas, youngest solicitor general in the history of the United States – and a particular skill for rhetoric (he’s also a former national debate champion) Cruz is definitely a politician to watch this Sunday and in general.
Here are five signs that this fiery first-term senator is eyeing a 2016 presidential run:
1) Trips 1, 2 and 3 to Iowa. Cruz has been in the Senate for less than a year, but he’s already made two trips to Iowa, with a third one scheduled in October. Lawmakers rarely wind up in Iowa by accident, and they certainly don’t wind up there on three separate occasions in less than 12 months. For the the conservative Cruz, the state known for fried butter and the first electoral event in the nation would be a key piece of his presidential primary puzzle. The state boasts a strong and involved evangelical base to whom Cruz appeals, and retail politicking is a key to success – a strength of the one-time Ivy League debate champion.
. . . .
5) His own language on the subject. The final indicator of Cruz’s intentions for political tea-leaf readers is his own purposely vague rhetoric on the matter. When asked by ABC News‘ Jonathan Karl if he was planning to run in 2016,
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
/johnny
If Cruz’s mother went to Canada to have an abortion, would she be aborting a Canadian or an American?
“A little birdie is telling me that the birthers who insist on hijacking every Cruz thread with this nonsense are going to start falling by the wayside. If FR is not their cup of tea they should start looking for a new home.” — Jim Robinson.
Hear! Hear! They need to go.
Not if the conservatives settle on a single candidate right out of the gate. I’m totally behind Cruz.
Run Ted Run!
Neither —
Canadian citizenship is at birth
Can you provide the name of any dual citizenship US family before 1922???
“Not if the conservatives settle on a single candidate right out of the gate. I’m totally behind Cruz.”
With respect, I’m a Virginian. And as you might recall when our state affiliate of the uniparty decided that our ballot might be cluttered with too many gop candidates for president in 2012, they limited our choices to two.
NOT ELIGIBLE!
**************
Unless and until those nine black robed Justices at the Supreme Court of the United States
issues a verdict so saying then if Cruz runs and is elected he’ll serve as President of the USA.
That’s the only path to fulfill your conclusion.
Amen. In retrospect I’m glad nobody has ‘standing’.
So definitive. Plus his son is visiting Iowa and New Hampshire just for vacations.
Considering the many ridiculously stupid things you've said, it's not just your questions that aren't worth answering.........
We’ll get’em, one by one.
A site with a lot of data/info collected at one place on citizenship.
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html
Yeah, the Cato Institute, which threw its full support behind redefining marriage.
Excuse me if they've lost all credibility in my eyes and the eyes of all thinking people.
I don’t rate the CATO institute as being some sort of eminent authority, but they do have a few legal scholars over there.
The question is ‘what is a natural born citizen’, and since one of the widely accepted definitions is one which Cruz falls under, is it really going to be an issue.
Honestly, do you think Cruz is going to be going to court to sort this out?
No.
It is understood in the plain reading of anything on the subject since the wife upon marriage assumed the nationality of the husband, thus this Supreme Court definition:
“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 the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” [Justice Waite -- Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.]
Well so far he has a whole 9 months of experience. Lord the country is in trouble!
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.