Posted on 01/12/2016 11:49:30 AM PST by SeekAndFind
A leftover from Sunday that I missed yesterday. If you’re going to stand on the Senate floor and call the majority leader a liar and a crony, I guess you shouldn’t be surprised when he won’t do you a favor.
Although … this is sort of a favor to Cruz, isn’t it? Every time he gets to tell his fans that it’s McCain or McConnell who’s behind the attacks on eligibility rather than Trump, it makes it easier for populist voters to dismiss them out of hand.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says the upper chamber won't issue a resolution on whether Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is constitutionally eligible to run for president.
"I just don't think the Senate ought to get into the middle of this," McConnell said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "These guys will all slug it out in Iowa and New Hampshire. We'll have a nominee hopefully by sometime in the spring."…
The Senate previously issued a resolution [in 2008] confirming then-nominee John McCain's eligibility to serve as president. The Arizona senator was born on a military base in Panama to American parents.
Actually, that may be a favor twice over. If McConnell brought that resolution to the floor, how would the vote go? Democrats had an incentive to join with Republicans in 2008 to confirm McCain’s eligibility, partly because they didn’t want to be seen as questioning the citizenship of kids born to military personnel abroad and partly because they knew it’d discourage the GOP from attacking Obama’s eligibility. Those incentives aren’t present with Cruz. You might get a bunch of Democrats (and a few Republicans, starting with Rand Paul) either voting no or “present,” which would give the issue even more momentum in Iowa. Imagine what Trump would do with the news if, say, 30 senators refused to vote yes in affirming Cruz’s eligibility. And imagine how Cruz fans would react to McConnell if he forced that vote, knowing how it might backfire on their guy. You can understand why McConnell’s laying low here.
I still can’t understand why Reince Priebus is, though. Especially after this:
Democratic National Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is supporting Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz on the question of whether he’s a citizen legally qualified to serve as president of the United States…
“No, I have no doubt. Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Wasserman Schultz said.
I’m … not sure why the Fourteenth Amendment, which addresses the citizenship of people who actually are born in the United States, would settle the question of whether someone born abroad like Cruz is a citizen, but let’s not get caught up in details. There’s no strategic advantage I can see in Wasserman Schultz handing Cruz a soundbite like this, knowing that members of her party really might try to challenge him later if he’s the nominee. Her angle, I think, is simply to exploit the moment to urge a broad reading of the Fourteenth Amendment so that she can say later, regarding birthright citizenship for illegals, “I was willing to give Ted Cruz the benefit of the doubt on citizenship. Why won’t Republicans give the benefit of the doubt to the ‘undocumented’?” Either way, we’re in a weird place where the chair of the DNC is vouching for Ted Cruz’s eligibility while the chair of the RNC studiously refrains. You’re not “meddling in the primaries” by asserting that each of the party’s candidates is constitutionally qualified to hold the office he’s running for. You would, however, piss off Donald Trump by doing so, which of course is the real reason Priebus is afraid to speak up. Remember that the next time Trump insists that the Republican leadership is weak. He’s not wrong.
YouGov conducted a national poll this week of whether adults agree with Trump that Cruz might not be eligible or with Cruz that he is. That’s not a hugely useful sample — a poll of Iowa, with crosstabs for how Trump’s and Cruz’s own voters feel about this, would have been much better. But this is the data we have, so here you go:
If that 18-19 percent consists mostly of Democrats and/or Trump fans who won’t vote for any other candidate, Cruz is fine. If it consists of Trump fans who are persuadable on Cruz or Cruz’s own voters, Cruz has a big problem. Erick Erickson posted earlier today that he thinks Trump’s attack on Cruz’s eligibility is actually a gift to Cruz in that it’s revealed how many leading members of the “Washington cartel,” starting with McConnell and McCain, despise Cruz enough not to go to bat for him. (Mitt Romney did go to bat for Cruz, but never mind that.) I’m highly skeptical of that. Cruz is trying his hardest to frame the issue that way, but realistically he’s fighting a losing battle given how yuge Trump’s media megaphone is. Everyone in Iowa and New Hampshire knows who’s leading the Birther charge, which makes it hard for Cruz to argue that it’s an “insider” smear. In fact, Erickson has a new post up within the past few hours arguing that, after talking to some campaign operatives, he may need to rethink: The Birther attack really might be helping Trump at Cruz’s expense. With Iowa as close as it is, Trump might need only one or two percent from undecideds to tilt his way over doubts about Cruz’s eligibility to decide the race. And if Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire a week later, that may be it. Who stops him after that, with Cruz having fumbled away his must-win state? Unless Rubio finished a surprisingly strong second in NH, it might be Trump’s race to lose.
There’s always downballot voting.
CRuz should’ve taken Trump’s advice....to (immediately) get the Declaratory Judgement. Then whatever yurtle the turtle and Rinse Prius say, wouldn’t matter.
It was a pre-emptive runaround. (Assuming the court would side with CRuz, of course. Which, if he has all of the required, supporting docs....no problemo.)
Yes, but sadly I live in the liberal hell hole near our nations governmental abyss.
So that answer must settle the question once and for all
CONGRESS is more afraid of CRUZ than they are of TRUMP. Gall-lee! Wait till they find Cruz is still in the building, better than ever in kicking a$$
Go TRUMP
Go CRUZ
We want the two of yous
Make AMERICA GREAT for GREAT AMERICANS
(A Senste resolution would be meaningless on the law anyway). What McConnell has just done is nothing more than to confirm what a useless ass he is. Hopefully we can get a much better person in that job ASAP
The only question is a con law question. Does a person who is not a citizen under the constitution, but is made a citizen at birth by an act of congress, a natural born citizen under the constitution?
Popular opinion, including by "learned legal scholars" is either that this question is unsettled law, or is answered in the affirmative.
the difference is that both Barry Goldwater and John McCain were born in U.S. territories; Cruz was born on Canadian soil.
Bitter turtle will soon be served at the local diner -in a soup bowl. It’s not soup yet, but he’s up to his neck in hot water. How I despise that creature; and I like turtles.
What party was Trump in back then?
The question is this — is a person born of one parent who is American on a foreign soil, a natural born citizen?
Some say ‘Yes’, some say ‘No’.
Who’s to decide?
This is not a viable argument. It is a deflection. Trump can be Satan himself and it does not change the fact that Ted Cruz was born in Canada.
It does not change the fact that James Madison INTENTIONALLY took the words “natural born citizen” out of the 1790 Act when he chaired the committee for the 1795 Act.
You need to stop defending Cruz as Cruz and look at it as if Charles Manson were in the same position. Because the next candidate that fits the same mold of citizenship could be far far far worse than Obama.
“The question is this â is a person born of one parent who is American on a foreign soil, a natural born citizen? Some say âYesâ, some say âNoâ. Whoâs to decide?”
that is indeed the issue, and as far as I can tell, it has NOT yet been decided one way or the other. Common sense says NO, or otherwise why would the founders bother to put that specific qualification in for President and for no other office. However, presumably the US Supreme Court would ultimately decide, but they are at least as corrupt as the rest of the government, so flipping a coin would give a result equally as valid as anything coming out of the Supreme Court.
Yeah, but you still can’t tell me what James Madison actually intended. Only what the experts assume he didn’t mean in 1795.
A naturalized citizen can qualify for a U.S. passport.
My children were born in England while I was stationed there and I obtained a certificate of birth from the Embassy. I consider them NBC so I am not a birther nut. What bothers me is the mystery of whether or not Cruz is NBC and that I suppose hinges on whether or not his mother became a Canadian citizen before Ted was born.
Until I know for sure I cannot in clear conscience vote for Cruz even though I like him very much. Equally disturbing is Cruz stating that he was unaware of his dual citizenship status prompting him to renounce Canada when he decided to be a Senator.
There is no way to know WHY he removed it. All that can be done is look at what he did. He removed the clause.
He didn’t want it there.
And that is significant.
You know what, that completely missed my view! Duh! You are correct, the only evidence that will establish citizen at birth is either a CRBA, or a Certificate of Citizenship.
-- Until I know for sure I cannot in clear conscience vote for Cruz --
I'm confident he'll produce his CRBA when it best suits his needs. You can't be the only one who "wonders," and most in that spot will accept that a CRBA = NBC.
Cruz has friends in no places.
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States"
James Madison himself said: "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."
For further reading on the founders views of a Natural Born citizen with extensive quotes, with the clear conclusion Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen: http://www.redstate.com/2012/05/21/on-this-natural-born-citizen-issue-part-i-from-alexander-hamilton-to-lynch-v-clarke/
Working better with .. is not the problem.
Prince is TERRIFIED OF CRUZ.
And .. McConnell will do whatever Prince tells him to do.
they’re both idiots.
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.