Posted on 01/10/2016 5:48:46 PM PST by randita
Well said, Molly. I also am not particularly crazy about this line of attack, but as you say, every candidate has his pros and cons. Trump takes occasional forays into territory that I don’ particularly agree with but these things come with the territory. It’s a package deal. The occasional bluster is part of it, but so is the patriotism, his willingness to fight, and the boldness. As they say, you can’t have Falstaff without the fat.
There are an abundance of good reasons to support Trump even if you disagree with this particular line of attack. Whether I like his particular approach in dealing with Cruz is not particularly important in the grand scheme of things. There are bigger fish to fry. Besides which, if I question Trump’s judgment on a particular tactic, nine times out of ten, he’s gonna end up being right and I’m gonna end up being wrong. That’s why he’s where he is and I’m where I am. So we’ll see.
And you’re right. Trump would be completely justified in coming out a lot harder on Cruz, based on Cruz’s comments.
- The tenth US president, John Tyler (1841-1845) was the First US born president. He was born in March 29, 1790, in the State of Virginia in USA.
I get it. That’s cute. They were foreign born because they were born in Virginia and Massachusetts prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Semantics can be fun.
Of course you’re aware of this relevant passage from Article II
‘No person except a natural born citizen, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION shall be eligible to the office of President.’
In other words, the situation of the first 8 Presidents was explicitly accounted for in the Constitution by the phrase ‘..a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution’. If you’re implying that Cruz is covered by that clause, then you’re embarrassing yourself.
Just pointing out who was not born in America. Ted Cruz is covered by The US Constitution which created equal rights for all citizens without a single exception. If you are suggesting otherwise then you are an embarrassment.
Maybe the Trump bots are too left wing for Cruz.
Shows how blind the trump bots are.
The U.S. Constitution created equal rights for all citizens? That’s news to me. It would be news to the framers too. The Constitution made a clear distinction between citizens who are natural born and those who are not, and clearly they granted unequal rights to these two classes of citizens when it came down to who had the right to be President and who didn’t.
If they thought the terms ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ were synonymous, then they wouldn’t have added the term ‘natural born’ into the eligibility clause. Common sense, and the writings of the time make it clear that the two terms had separate meaning.
Both classes of individuals are U.S. citizens and yet they don’t have an equal right under the Constitution to be President, so your false claim that the U.S. Constitution created equal rights for all citizens has no bearing on the debate.
All natural born citizens as Ted Cruz is granted by his American mother. Of course you can’t drive without first getting a license, or practice law or a great many other requirements... such as be a certain age and time in country to be President. That goes without saying.
That doesn’t change John Tyler (1841-1845) was the First undisputed US born president.
If you want to continue your rant against the birthright of a fellow American go ahead. I’ll take my advice from noted expert on the matter Mark Levin.
Again, the status of the first Presidents up to Tyler is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as the elegibility of all prior Presidents was explicitly provided for by a claus in article II that clearly doesn’t apply to Ted Cruz’s situation. So, the John Tyler point is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Let’s at least be honest about that.
My “rant” as you call it has never been about Cruz, but your introduction of irrelevant points to the debate. We can have a debate about Cruz if you like. I’m game. But if you’d paid attention to my posts, you’d notice that I haven’t made an argument either way about whether Cruz is eligible or not. I only challenged you on two points. Point 1, that the John Tyler scenario has any relevance to the debate about Cruz’s elegibility. Point 2, that the Constitution grants equal rights to all citizens. Clearly it doesn’t.
As far as Mark Levin’s position on the issue, try thinking for yourself rather than just assuming something’s true just because someone else tells you it is. As I said in my previous post. I haven’t argued one way or another about whether Cruz is eligible or not. Merely that the arguments you’ve provided are false and/or irrelevant to the discussion. And that goes for the fact that Mark Levin agrees with you. Levin may be right or he may be wrong. I’d have to hear his argument first to decide.
I made the wholly valid point about who was the first undisputed President born in the US. In a thread about a natural born citizen entitled by the US Constitution, who like many of the first Presidents was not born in the US.
Especially meaningful considering I reduced your rant to what you think the framers had in mind... which is hilarious considering they made themselves eligible - LoL!
Yea, thanks for adding. :)
Boy, you are incoherent tonight. Yes, your point about John Tyler is valid in that it’s factually correct. He was the first President to be born within the territorial boundries of the United States after 1788.
But it’s totally irrelevant to the discussion as to whether Cruz is eligible or not, as those President’s prior to Tyler were eligible based on a clause that doesn’t apply to Ted Cruz (i.e. they were U.S. citizens at the time the Constitution was ratified. Cruz was not. He was born in 1970). If you’re arguing that their eligibility proves that Cruz is eligible, then you’re fighting an argument that you can’t win. You can either double down on stupid, or bow out gracefully. It’s your choice.
Take your crazy rant to the Republican Party who seriously don’t like Cruz’s politics... but oh look he is allowed to run for the ticket.
Yea sometimes the simple truth of the matter hits the hardest.
Put some ice on that.
Don’t address what I said. Just keep changing the subject.
“crazy rant”
If that makes you feel better not yourself out. It’s easier than thinking.
You had your chance and failed. Sorry but your dime ran out.
He is truly a child how he has pursued this line of attack. Now I am seriously reconsidering whether I will even vote for Trumpy in the general.
“Maybe the Trump bots are too left wing for Cruz.”
Please show multiple posts on Free Republic in which Trump supporters are viciously disparaging the physical aesthetics of Ted Cruz.
I doubt you can produce that proof of your assertion that Trump supporters are more Left wing.
We are all aware that Dems use personal insults rather than intellectual talking points, especially when they feel they’re losing an argument.
I am somewhat surprised that so many of you Cruz supporters are buying into that manner of ‘discussion.’
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.