Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McConnell: No, Senate won’t pass resolution affirming Cruz’s eligibility like it did for McCain
Hotair ^ | 01/12/2016 | AllahPundit

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:

cb

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 114th; cruznbc; douche; douchebag; mcconnell; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; tedcruzmccain; uniparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
To: PJBankard

There’s always downballot voting.


61 posted on 01/12/2016 12:45:20 PM PST by Norm Lenhart (Existential Cage Theory - An idea whose time has come)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

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.)


62 posted on 01/12/2016 12:48:11 PM PST by Jane Long (Go Trump, go! Make America Safe Again :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Yes, but sadly I live in the liberal hell hole near our nations governmental abyss.


63 posted on 01/12/2016 12:49:56 PM PST by PJBankard (It is the spirit of the men who leads that gains the victory. - Gen. George Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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


64 posted on 01/12/2016 12:54:25 PM PST by V K Lee (u TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP to TRIUMPH Follow the lead MAKE AMERICA GREAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

(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


65 posted on 01/12/2016 12:55:12 PM PST by faithhopecharity (Diff tween D's and R's is that the thatD's allow the poor to be corrupt, too. (O. Levant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Grayson's claims about Cruz's mother being a Canadian citizen are false. Cruz is a US citizen. He (or his parent(s)) submitted evidence sufficient to get a US passport for Ted.

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.

66 posted on 01/12/2016 12:59:34 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

the difference is that both Barry Goldwater and John McCain were born in U.S. territories; Cruz was born on Canadian soil.


67 posted on 01/12/2016 1:00:00 PM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LostInBayport

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.


68 posted on 01/12/2016 1:00:59 PM PST by V K Lee (u TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP to TRIUMPH Follow the lead MAKE AMERICA GREAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

What party was Trump in back then?


69 posted on 01/12/2016 1:01:23 PM PST by Idaho_Cowboy (Ride for the Brand. Joshua 24:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: catnipman

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?


70 posted on 01/12/2016 1:05:34 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: PJBankard

I agree with Freeper Norm Lenhart. Regardless of context, the leftists are always on the offense and perpetually attacking all things conservative. Period. Always. I would add, though, that if the case were argued on the grounds of "jus sanguinis" and "partus sequitur patrem", Obama and Cruz would fall into the same Constitutional pickle. The leftists could not tear down all that Cruz accomplishes without exposing all that Obama has done to the same treatment. Which is okay with me -- two less Supreme Court appointments and no Obamacare; I'm good with that. But I suspect, "stare decisis" would come into play. The Court accepts that the mistakes of the past cannot be undone and would adopt the "let it stand" doctrine. As such, the actions of Obama and Cruz would be protected. There may be an issue getting a second term in for Cruz; but that too would be unprecedented (to deny running for a second term after successful execution of the first) and I believe a winnable battle. I like Cruz. He has acted the role of strict Constitutionalist for quite some time. But I think he has to play ball with birthers (like me) to see this adjudicated, and put an end to this nonsense once and for all ... or he'll be viewed by a few percentage points as being a pretend Constitutionalist. And a few percentage points is a big enough margin to hand the election to Trump.


71 posted on 01/12/2016 1:08:31 PM PST by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy

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.


72 posted on 01/12/2016 1:31:53 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“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?”

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.


73 posted on 01/12/2016 1:40:08 PM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Yeah, but you still can’t tell me what James Madison actually intended. Only what the experts assume he didn’t mean in 1795.


74 posted on 01/12/2016 1:41:04 PM PST by Idaho_Cowboy (Ride for the Brand. Joshua 24:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

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.


75 posted on 01/12/2016 1:43:10 PM PST by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy

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.


76 posted on 01/12/2016 1:46:52 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
-- A naturalized citizen can qualify for a U.S. passport. --

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.

77 posted on 01/12/2016 1:54:39 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Cruz has friends in no places.


78 posted on 01/12/2016 2:01:40 PM PST by Vision Thing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
It's worth noting Alexander Hamilton's understanding of things was very simple:

"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/

79 posted on 01/12/2016 2:15:05 PM PST by Idaho_Cowboy (Ride for the Brand. Joshua 24:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

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.


80 posted on 01/12/2016 2:26:35 PM PST by CyberAnt ("The fields are white unto Harvest")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson