5 Signs Sen. Ted Cruz Will Run for President in 2016

ABCNews.com ^ | Sep 7, 2013 10:06am | Elizabeth Hartfield

[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,

[napscoordinator]

I think pointing out problems like not enough experience should be discussed!

[Paladin2]

Take it up with Traitor Roberts.

[txhurl]

I think you are an idiot that has mysteriously escaped zotting, especially during the primaries. Look into some schizotherapy.

[JRandomFreeper]

LOL!

/johnny

[txhurl]

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.

[Uncle Chip]

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???

[JRandomFreeper]

Jim was pretty clear he's not going to allow that crap this time around.

/johnny

[LS]

What do you mean “by 2016 . . . .?”

[txhurl]

I know, I saw the BOOM!

And I think we have clearance to enforce it ourselves as it creeps in. **** these 'freepers'.

[SoConPubbie]

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.

[Uncle Chip]

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.

[SoConPubbie]

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.

[txhurl]

Crapscoordinator is a sleeper, don’t waste your energy.

[Kaosinla]

“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...

[jazusamo]

FYI...This is pretty clear.

Read the article above carefully and my comments carefully, because no matter how many times you ask, you’re going to get the same answer. This thread is my advance notice.

IF he runs and IF he’s the strongest conservative running (which I’m pretty sure he will be) I’ll support Ted Cruz as a natural born citizen and constitutionally qualified candidate for the President of United States to the HILT!!

And I’m 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 won’t try to stop them or beg them to stay here.

Free Republic—Securing the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity!!

Rebellion is ON!!

Don’t 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

[SoConPubbie]

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.

[Uncle Chip]

Can you provide a source for your definition of “parents” and show where it was around when Justice Waite wrote in 1873???

[Uncle Chip]

Can you provide a source for your definition of “parents” meaning other that a mommy and a daddy???

[SoConPubbie]

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.

[SoConPubbie]

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.