Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Would you be opposed to a court ruling before the 2016 primary in which the judiciary defines NBC so that what you say is so legally certain really IS legally certain?
Why or why not?
You seem concerned about that. Deeply concerned.
I really can’t stand it any longer.
I can’t wait till it’s Cruz versus Christine and these people go the way of the Romneybot.
As previously discussed I know some are good people who are just obsessed with this garbage but there are some obvious trolls on this thread.
I’ll just wait for your answer.
While you two cozy up, I’ll just wait for your answer to my question.
That’s for sure. I love how indignant they act.
So what your saying is Cruz can’t be President?
So who are you supporting in 2016 ?
Can you believe that in a Country of 300 million we can’t find a leader born here of two American parents. What does that mean?
Maybe overseas, America Teacher Unions couldn’t reach out and get their communist teaching hooks in.
I like Allen West.
I’d like to wait until I know what the options are. I would love Ted Cruz to be President if he’s eligible. I would first want to protect him from getting sucker-punched by Hillary and John Roberts.
I’d love Palin to be President if we could get her elected. The media’s been so jerk-ish to her and I’m not sure if she could overcome that with the uninformed voters, which is a very sad thing to say. To be truthful, the media is the nation’s biggest enemy at this point and we’ve got to bust them somehow if we’re going to get real conservatives who will fight the DC corruption.
I supported Herman Cain until he dropped out and then I supported Newt Gingrich. I voted for Mitt Romney because I thought anything would be better than Obama but it was hard to say much about him in the general election because I had written a letter to the editor during the primary urging support for Newt, explaining that Romney was the FIRST to force Catholic hospitals to administer abortifacients. I severed ties with several supposedly “pro-life” groups after they endorsed Romney in the primary in return for money.
At this point it’s too early to say how things will look in 2016. I’d like to clear the way so that the eligibility issue really IS resolved before we have to vote in a primary. I will abide by the law of the land and if it is ruled that Cruz is eligible I would like to vote for him. If he isn’t, then I hope he would become the majority leader for the Senate, as I explained to Graewoulf earlier. As long as we’ve got somebody solid as President to put in a truly good Cabinet, the POTUS isn’t as critical, although being able to communicate is critical for whoever is POTUS. But the leadership of the House and Senate are crucial positions. I like what both Cruz and Lee have done there so far. Aside from Palin there’s nobody who really excites me for POTUS other than those 2 guys. Jason Chaffetz was pretty good on the Benghazi hearing but I don’t know much else about him. So was Trey Gowdy but again, I don’t know much about them. I will gag a thousand times if we nominate Jeb Bush.
As I already implied to you in my first post I don’t believe a ruling is necessary anymore than a ruling is necessary on the meaning of “is”.
Tell me, you’re the Judge in your fictitious Hillary Clinton legal challenge , how do you rule? Please let Jim Robinson know the answer. I’ve wasted enough time feeding you, troll.
I was very disappointed in West’s vote for the NDAA even though it didn’t define “belligerent”. I loved the way he fought against the election fraud. I was disappointed with his response to Mike Zullo’s evidence, making a politically-expedient decision rather than a principled one. I understand it, but I’m disappointed. I do think he’s a fighter though, and I’d like to see him back in Congress or maybe have a Cabinet position.
I didn’t ask if you thought it was needed. I asked if you would be opposed to having a decision that made certain what you already think is certain. What harm do you see in making sure that it really IS legally certain?
I’m an Australian, I don’t give HOOT who you support in 2016, you can vote for Mickey Mouse for all I care, I came into this thread as the result of being asked some questions, which I answered to the best of my knowledge.
I don’t like your tone or your attitude.I’ve never heard from you before and if I never hear from you again it will be too soon. Now get off my back you bully.
You go ahead and file the lawsuit, Hilly.
YOU initiated conversation with me Freddy and now you’re doing it again. I’d be pleased to never speak with you again.
If I was the judge, I don’t know how I would rule. I haven’t researched this issue nearly as much as other things I’m willing to express a public opinion about. At this point I just want to make sure that the rules don’t change in mid-stream for political purposes. I think it is crazy for the courts to refuse to do their job and give us a ruling so we can all know the definition.
Well, you’ll be happy to learn that Ted Cruz is eligible. I’m supporting him, and the website owner and founder is also supporting him.
My name is Nellie and I won’t be filing a lawsuit. I’d like a State to pass an eligibility bill based on Vattel’s definition (and requiring documentation of eligibility) so that somebody - probably DOJ, maybe Cruz or somebody else - can have standing to challenge it and force the judiciary to give a decision before the 2016 primary. That way no candidate would have to go through an expensive campaign before being able to find out if they qualify for the position. If a prospective candidate had to challenge it because DOJ wouldn’t, I would want to help fund what I could to help pay for the lawsuit. My understanding is that because a State would be a party in the suit, SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction so the process could be streamlined.
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.