Skip to comments.
5 Signs Sen. Ted Cruz Will Run for President in 2016
ABCNews.com ^
| Sep 7, 2013 10:06am
| Elizabeth Hartfield
Posted on 09/07/2013 12:03:25 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 next last
To: txhurl
I think pointing out problems like not enough experience should be discussed!
81
posted on
09/07/2013 3:46:29 PM PDT
by
napscoordinator
( Santorum-Bachmann 2016 for the future of the Country!)
To: fwdude
Take it up with Traitor Roberts.
82
posted on
09/07/2013 3:52:24 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: napscoordinator
I think you are an idiot that has mysteriously escaped zotting, especially during the primaries. Look into some schizotherapy.
83
posted on
09/07/2013 3:57:24 PM PDT
by
txhurl
('The DOG ate my homework. That homework, too. ALL my homework. OK?' - POSHITUS)
To: txhurl
To: JRandomFreeper
You think what these creeps did to Perry was disgusting, wait’ll they get their diseased flapping gums on Cruz. Kill ‘em all now, let DARPA sort ‘em out.
85
posted on
09/07/2013 4:19:45 PM PDT
by
txhurl
('The DOG ate my homework. That homework, too. ALL my homework. OK?' - POSHITUS)
To: SoConPubbie
Oh and I found this one for you too:
Webster’s Dictionary:
parent [s]: a mother or a father
parents [p]: a mother and a father
Does that help???
To: txhurl
Jim was pretty clear he's not going to allow that crap this time around.
/johnny
To: COBOL2Java
What do you mean “by 2016 . . . .?”
88
posted on
09/07/2013 4:27:48 PM PDT
by
LS
('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
To: JRandomFreeper
I know, I saw the BOOM!
And I think we have clearance to enforce it ourselves as it creeps in. **** these 'freepers'.
89
posted on
09/07/2013 4:29:27 PM PDT
by
txhurl
('The DOG ate my homework. That homework, too. ALL my homework. OK?' - POSHITUS)
To: Uncle Chip
Does that help???
Yes it does, it proves that Senator Cruz is constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
The Supreme Court reference you provided did not state that 2 citizen parents are required. It stated that parents which applies to 2, or 1 parent.
So, once again, Please prove your point using the US Constitution and providing the relevant passages that clearly define "Natural Born" as explicitly requiring 2 citizen parents at birth.
Lacking that, please provide the relevant US Law(s), passed by Congress and signed by a US President that define "Natural Born" as explicitly requiring 2 citizen parents at birth.
Lacking that, please provide the relevant Supreme Court rulings that confirm your definition of "Natural Born" as explicitly requiring 2 citizen parents at birth.
You won't because there aren't any, so what we are left with is your opinion and assumptions, which is absolutely worthless in determining the legality of your opinion.
As it now stands in US Law, constitutionally speaking, Ted Cruz is completely Eligible to be POTUS.
90
posted on
09/07/2013 4:34:10 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
How many parents did you have???
Two — a mommy and a daddy — right???
Unless you want to argue the two mommies or two daddies thing, the word “parents” is understood universally to mean a mommy and a daddy.
To: napscoordinator
Well so far he has a whole 9 months of experience. Lord the country is in trouble!
So you require what in terms of experience before you think someone is acceptable for the job of POTUS?
Are you discounting his experience arguing before the Supreme Court?
How much national elective office experience did Abraham Lincoln have before he ran for President?
Juxtapose that with how many years of national elective office experience Senator Ted Cruz will have by the time 2016 and then repeat the question.
92
posted on
09/07/2013 4:40:03 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
Crapscoordinator is a sleeper, don’t waste your energy.
93
posted on
09/07/2013 4:45:15 PM PDT
by
txhurl
('The DOG ate my homework. That homework, too. ALL my homework. OK?' - POSHITUS)
To: napscoordinator
“I think pointing out problems like not enough experience should be discussed!”
Take from this what you may...I’ve come to the conclusion that it doesn’t take much experience nor a long political tenure to aspire for leadership. In fact, some of the best ideas and governing principles came from reluctant farmers and regular folk, who doubled as “thinkers”. Being guided by the light of liberty is enough for me. I, actually, lean as much as possible towards men and women who have had the least contact with the bile of D.C. due to all of our most favorable, veteran leaders having the Statist infection to some degree. It’s not necessarily advantageous to understand or know the political sewage system if your intent is to destroy it. Additionally, how much experience does it take to understand that staying out of the way of the private sector and citizenry is the most important aspect of governing? Also, does it really require years and years of holding office or being a captain of industry to follow the Constitution?
Anyways, this is one of the reasons that the GOP has lost my broad support. They present governance as a highly complicated equation, which they alone are the standard bearer for instruction and definition. It’s not...
94
posted on
09/07/2013 4:49:23 PM PDT
by
Kaosinla
(The More the Plans Fail. The More the Planners Plan.)
To: Uncle Chip
FYI...This is pretty clear.
Read the article above carefully and my comments carefully, because no matter how many times you ask, youre going to get the same answer. This thread is my advance notice.
IF he runs and IF hes the strongest conservative running (which Im pretty sure he will be) Ill support Ted Cruz as a natural born citizen and constitutionally qualified candidate for the President of United States to the HILT!!
And Im pretty sure that most freepers and most grassroots tea party conservatives will be right there with us. Those who wish to work against us on this and torpedo his chances thus allowing the democrats and GOP-e RINOs free reign to continue destroying America are certainly free to do so. Somewhere else. I wont try to stop them or beg them to stay here.
Free RepublicSecuring the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity!!
Rebellion is ON!!
Dont tread on me!!
566 posted on Sunday, September 01, 2013 11:31:22 AM by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3060736/posts?page=566#566
95
posted on
09/07/2013 4:53:13 PM PDT
by
jazusamo
("I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white." T. Sowell)
To: Uncle Chip
Unless you want to argue the two mommies or two daddies thing, the word parents is understood universally to mean a mommy and a daddy.
Sorry, another assumption by you.
The term applies to one parent that is a US Citizen and Two parents that are US Citizens.
Assumptions don't count when talking about constitutional concepts, only settled US Law.
You have none on your side, just your contention and opinion, that the founders meant two parents, when in fact, there is historical evidence, that at the time, all they were concerned with was the father, however, that as well, was never codified into US Constitutional law, much as the snippet you provided never codified into US Law that it takes both parents being US Citizens for someone to be "Natural Born".
Bottom line, until you can provide an instance where US Law or Supreme Court ruling states unequivocally that it takes 2 parents being US Citizens for someone to be eligible to be POTUS, all we are dealing with is YOUR opinion and assumptions, and until then, Senator Cruz is unquestionably eligible to be POTUS.
In other words, someone will have to take this to the Supreme Court and get the Supremes to weigh in on it to prove you are right.
96
posted on
09/07/2013 4:53:27 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
Can you provide a source for your definition of “parents” and show where it was around when Justice Waite wrote in 1873???
To: SoConPubbie
Can you provide a source for your definition of “parents” meaning other that a mommy and a daddy???
To: Uncle Chip
Can you provide a source for your definition of parents and show where it was around when Justice Waite wrote in 1873???
There is no need.
You are assuming it means 2 US Citizen parents, when, in terms of English, it can apply to both a 1 citizen Parent and 2 citizen parents.
99
posted on
09/07/2013 5:03:22 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: Uncle Chip
Furthermore, was that statement a RULING by the supreme court, or simply a statement by a Supreme Court Justice?
Only one of those has the weight of being a legally binding.
100
posted on
09/07/2013 5:04:47 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson