Posted on 01/16/2016 2:27:15 PM PST by Red Steel
Cruz himself should not openly turn to this, but it could be a useful cat’s paw for him, and a chance for conservatives to unite. Builds a bridge rather than stage a cage fight between Cruz supporters and everyone else.
Might as well give it a shot. It corners the worst Cruz critics — how badly do they want to criticize his eligibility? But we could put some teeth in it.
A convention would have the power to subjectively amend that English-speaking parents with Canadian citizenship also help qualify natural born status. Why not? It’s not some radical Islamo-nut nation like Indonesia after all. Even Quebec is not so bad either.
But Cruz himself? If he turns to this openly as a solution, I would think it makes him look weak.
Overall, this is a good thing. It gets people thinking about how national conventions can solve problems. And states will begin the process of networking and learning the process.
Actually, an amendment would make more sense than a convention.
‘There is no way to get this resolved to everybody’s satisfaction until a case is heard by the court.’
Basically we have a male-dominant ‘original intent’ which appears outdated according to Cruz supporters.
The question, as John Valentine pointed out .... what will be the widest consensus? There are two kinds of consensue to consider:
1. Judges?
I think John Valentine is correct so far as court rooms go.
Judges don’t want to ‘declare war against’ female equality regardless of original intent. So Cruz would most likely win every eligibily case, especially after appeals. [Note Valentine’s post 155, but if you are like me and don’t know Latin, good luck trying to understand it.]
2. Political Dissent
People don’t respect judges anymore. And people like Glenn Beck have no idea how little the judges’ opinions matter to people.
Obama’s eligibility question already demonstrated that the debate rages on. We and Trump had been up to our necks in it and experienced the political dissent against Obama first-hand. It’s a powerful force of nature — any arguable doubt will open the door to a MOAB of criticism and loathing.
Progressive republicans? I think they would be ‘all in’ for ‘rah-rah’ Constitution when it suits them. ‘Sabotage Cruz.’ Mitch Mc-Con-Man already did.
Democrats? They keep their powder dry. Then if Cruz wins the nomination they become gleeful imps who would run ads to make Cruz supporters look hypocritical, self-contradictory, and divided. [As loony-tunes as possible.] And the Establishment Republicans have already offered them a lifetime of material.
Leftist college students and the New Black Panthers? If people think that we Obama-birthers were bad, they ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Leftist college students and the New Black Panthers would swear blood pacts to undermine Cruz.
In other words — the result would be chaos. Cruz might still win. But his administration would be tainted.
We had a lively and fairly polite debate about Cruz eligibility on another thread yesterday:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3384380/posts
[After initial bashing of the worthless article.]
Here is Valentine’s Take about legal consensus being different than original intent:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3384380/posts?page=155#155
Not if it is defined explicitly via an amendment.
An amendment could either: l) alter Article II Section 1 NBC clause to be more specific, or 2) be an independent amendment redefining citizenship to fully address who is NBC, naturalized, and unknown origin.
-PJ
Unnecessary.
All this would do is keep the nonsense in the news, which is not good for Cruz.
"The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become 'nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.' In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens - or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere - citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.
That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 - Cruz was born in 1970 - someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz's mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.
So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there's no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen? Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn't have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn't have mattered whether that birth took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else. (For those born since 1986, by the way, the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years, at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)"
Conservatives ignore this and they have lost all claim to being for ‘original intent’... There surely must be a liberal gene bred in all of US.
The cage fight continues.
Original intent v. Cruz and ‘equality of women’.
It’s a no-win either way for conservatives.
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.