Trump Holds Lead in South Carolina; Cruz in Second as Bush Moves Up to Third In Contest

southernpoliticalreport.com ^ | Jan 17, 2016 | admin

[GonzoII]

Trump Holds Lead in South Carolina; Cruz in Second as Bush Moves Up to Third In Contest

by admin Jan 17, 2016 Top Story

A post-debate poll of likely voters in South Carolina's GOP presidential primary conducted by OpinionSavvy for the Morris News Service/InsiderAdvantage shows Donald Trump continuing to dominate the contest, leading his closest opponent, Ted Cruz, by some 14 points. Jeb Bush has moved into third place, just 4 points behind Cruz. The survey was conducted January 15th by both IVR phone and mobile devices. The poll has a margin of error of 3.7%. The survey also shows that South Carolinians believe Trump won the debate held in North Charleston by a wide margin. 37% of the respondents who watched the debate declared Trump the winner with Ted Cruz coming in second at 22%.

When asked who they would vote for if the primary were held today, likely voters responded:

Trump: 32%

Cruz: 18%

Bush: 13%

Rubio: 11%

Carson: 9%

Christie: 4%

Fiorina: 3%

Huckabee: 2%

Kasich: 2%

Paul: 2%

Santorum: 1%

Undecided: 3%

Analysis by InsiderAdvantage founder/Opinion Savvy analyst Matt Towery:

"Trump leads in the poll among respondents who describe themselves as 'very conservative' but by only six points over Cruz. But Trump's lead over Cruz widens among those who say they are 'somewhat conservative'– he receives 33% versus 15% for Cruz and Bush. Trump led among those who said they were moderate but with Bush and Rubio receiving solid second place percentages. Trump led among all age groups but does better with the youngest of voters (40%).

"The poll confirms that Donald Trump is the force to be reckoned with in South Carolina. He has led in our prior surveys and his lead expanded a bit after the debate. Cruz, as expected, is giving Trump his closest challenge– albeit a somewhat distant one at the moment.

"Most interesting was Jeb Bush's leap to third place in the South Carolina contest. It has been my belief that one "establishment" Republican will survive to take on Trump and Cruz in South Carolina. Bush's lead over Marco Rubio is tenuous but it is nevertheless a lead. It may be the first glimpse of some momentum for the Bush camp. South Carolina has shown its willingness to go for the more "establishment" type candidate in some contests (McCain over Huckabee in 2008) but in recent years has grown far more inclined to support the more "populist conservative" type such as Newt Gingrich in 2012.

"As for the debate, Trump scored big with viewers in South Carolina leading his closest opponent, Cruz, by 14 points. When asked who performed the worst, Bush took 'the prize' with 27% and John Kasich receiving a dubious second place 17% for worst performance."

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Natural born citizen is not defined by the US Constitution

Neither are things like "speech" or "privacy." We go to what the founders intended so we do not have Congress redefining our rights away. That's constitutional conservatism 101.

So instead, we rely on the US code and various acts (such as the Naturalization Act of 1790) to determine intent.

And that intent rules Ted Cruz out as an eligible candidate for President, including the 1790 naturalization act.

[LS]

Key phrase, Trump led in previous poll and EXPANDED his lead after the debate,”

[Democratic-Republican]

Natural born citizen is not defined by the US Constitution. So instead, we rely on the US code and various acts (such as the Naturalization Act of 1790) to determine intent.

US Code of course stipulates it is passed through the mother, as I’m pretty sure most sensable people would support. Heck, if a woman can vote, maybe citizenship can pass through her as well...

"US Code" is fancy talk for all laws passed by Congress and signed by the President ( but lately means omnibus continuing resolutions and midnight riders signed in toto by a President without a line item veto ). It is nothing so noble as the word handed down to Moses from God, or even James Madison.

Why would you ever think that a mere law countermands, defines, edits, clarifies, or supercedes the Constitution?

Are you saying that the 13/14/15th Amendments were not necessary and Congress could have made black folks whole by mere statute? Could they have created women's suffrage? 18-year old vote? Presidential term limits? Presidential succession and removal from incapacitation? Could Newt have passed a statue to make Congressional Term Limits?

Here's the kicker ... Could Congress pass a law that says NBC is both parents citizens and born in a USA State? Apparently that is the kind of thing you were looking for in the US Code.

This is a separation of powers issue. Congress has nothing to say about NBC because it is beyond their enumerated powers to naturalize ALIENS into plain old CITIZENS. When you even mention US Code or a naturalization act you have already admitted to a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the federal government.

The Immigration Act cited is the legislation during the 1st Congress to create the necessary mechanism required for a new country to turn ALIENS into CITIZENS as enumerated in the Article I Section 8 power to create uniform rules for naturalization ... BUT ... how did you miss the fact that this was subsequently modified to exclude the very term that confuses you ( "natural born citizen" ) and bring the law/statute/code into line with original intent.

All subsequent legislation uses the non-confusing term-of-art "citizen at birth" ONLY to reference the pool of people that the legislation does NOT affect. This is the key to understanding - Congress's enumerated naturalization authority operates on a completely mutually exclusive pool of people ( ALIENS ) than those who are NBC. They do not create NBC by law/statute/code/decree or wishful thinking. NBC are who they are because that is who they are. Congress has nothing to do with this matter. Nor does the president.

The answer which eludes you is that only We The People determine the requirements/qualifications/terms/etc for the FedGov, and all changes are from Amendments. This is why the Supreme Court punted the issue back to the people to decide for themselves. So fret not, if you like that your guy was born in Canada or Kenya or Saudi Arabia, you still get to vote for him.

Whether or not the Supreme Court can define the term is an interesting question and a potential Constitutional crisis. If they do assume the role of defining base Constitutional terms, then there is no real limit to their power. They will be like Wikipedia super editors, non co-equal highest authority and the last word ( absent Constitutional Amendments ), which would then lead to another can of worms: ping pong between We The People and the Court over original intent. Given their ideological makeup and track record with Roe and Obamacare, maybe this issue *is* best left alone and for We The People to kick around ourselves.

FWIW, and at the risk of arguments from my fellow Constitutionalists, I believe now after 8 years of this issue percolating and seeing the widespread ignorance of fellow citizens too lazy to do even do the most basic research, that Roberts accidentally arrived at the correct answer ... PUNT.

( pinged another Constitutionalist for his/her opinion )

[WHBates]

So do you get paid to spew this crap? If you have some proof of this then post that. This really isn’t about Cruz anymore. You guy’s make stuff up out of whole cloth. This isn’t unique the Trump but it is a trade mark of the DNC and was also used by the GOPe to get Cochran re-elected in Mississippi. Trump is sure revealing himself. So it goes.

[bert]

within the margin of error, bush, rubio and carson are tied.

[LS]

Wish there were real internals, but the fact that Trump leads Cruz by 6 among “very conservative” has to sting.

[LS]

Good one.

[dforest]

I am starting to get that old 2008 nauseated feeling. Nobody liked McCain......and yet somehow....he won.

He picked Palin, a fresh populist face, to liven up his dead azzed hated persona.

Watch out, we could get Jeb yet.

If that happens, I won’t get fooled again and vote for the VP while disregarding my contempt for the POTUS candidate.

[LS]

Um, how do you see that gphappening? Trump EXPANDED his lead over their last poll. Cruz may-—or may not-—be taken out by a “circular firing squad” but not Vanadium-covered Trump. It just goes back the direction it was sent.

[NKP_Vet]

Uber RINO, Southern heritage hating Gov. Nimrata Randhawa, will endorse uber RINO Low Energy Bush any day now. This dimwitted fake and fraud thinks she can carry the state for Low Energy Bush. She’s wrong.

[CAluvdubya]

I seriously wish all the infighting between Trump and Cruz would stop as I'm worried that the GOPe will slip Bush in there somehow.

I fully expect that they (GOPe) will pull some shenanigans at the convention to get a candidate that ISN'T Trump or Cruz.

I think we should stay focused against our establishment 'leaders'.

[plewis1250]

Who said anything about US code superseding the constitution???

Of course it doesn’t.

However, the constitution does not define what natural born means.

By all of your definitions, the founders would themselves have not been eligible for the Presidency...

Ted Cruz was born of a citizen of the United States outside of our borders. He is a citizen. Deal with it.

Dislike him on TPA.. Dislike him because you feel he is beholden to the Illuminati or some tin foil had conspiracy like that, but do not invent garbage and pass it off as fact.

[plewis1250]

False.

Deal with it. He is a citizen.

[VerySadAmerican]

Never count out the gopE rinos. This race is a long way from over. I will not be surprised if Bush gets the nomination. At this point in past races I would have bet McCain and Romney would go down in defeat.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Deal with it. He is a citizen.

This basically demonstrates how little you know about the subject. Yes, Cruz is a citizen. He is not a natural born citizen.

[CottonBall]

Trump ‘holds’ his lead?

In a normal election cycle, a double digit lead is a lot more than just holding a lead!

[CottonBall]

“Now it’s out there that Cruz’s mother voted in Canada, which is an acceptance of citizenship there.”

I hadn’t heard that one!

[CottonBall]

“Defeat the man on the ideological playing field if you must, not this birther garbage.”

Someone with ties to another country might be lenient on others with the same. Could explain why Cruz has been silent, and then vague, about illegals.

How’s that for tying the reason I won’t back him to this issue?

[CottonBall]

“Deal with it. He is a citizen.”

That has yet to be proven.

Cruz supporters think just because they want something, they can say it is so. Cruz is going to need much more than that. How could he not have thought this would be an issue?

[Democratic-Republican]

The least you could do is pay more attention to my post than you do the Constitution. I even made it easy by using [1] and [2] as a template for a specific non time-wasting response.

Who said anything about US code superseding the constitution???

Of course it doesn’t.

You did! You said: we rely on the US code and various acts (such as the Naturalization Act of 1790) to determine intent. So you don't even understand what you yourself are saying here in realtime, let alone what the Founders did 229 years ago. That would be a stealth amendment. And who's "we"? Looking at laws that have nothing to do with NBC is almost as bad as looking at foreign law. Neither have anything to do with the Founders hammering out the Constitution which sets up the structure of FedGov. What you are implying is that FedGov gets to edit its own birth certificate. Don't you watch science fiction? That would cause a spacetime continuum catastrophe.

By all of your definitions, the founders would themselves have not been eligible for the Presidency...

This is "OMG" worthy. Do you not recall the actual words of Article II Section 8 in what we now refer to as a grandfather clause. I've gotta ask ( and no offense meant ) but how did you seriously write this: the founders would themselves have not been eligible for the Presidency. If you are young and never researched your Constitution, that's fine. But you have to make that clear to whoever you are communicating with as a courtesy so they don't assume you know the basics and waste a ton of time writing detailed comments that are only going to be ignored. Isn't that a reasonable request?

The purpose of a grandfathering clause is because the alternative would be to leave the office of the President vacant until at least 1823 when a newborn after ratification in 1788 turned at least 35 years old. I hope you understand now why that statement of yours is "OMG" worthy.

Ted Cruz was born of a citizen of the United States outside of our borders. He is a citizen. Deal with it.

Deal with it? Who said he wasn't a citizen? But to be specific that is a half citizen unless you make believe the other half does not count. Does it count? Secondly, the "half" status places the person in the gray area where he has loyalty to more than one nation and/or heritage. Finally, as I clearly asked with the clear label [1] What office requires something ABOVE a mere citizen? And if you might also address [2] What elected Presidents had a foreign parent?

Dislike him on TPA.. Dislike him because you feel he is beholden to the Illuminati or some tin foil had conspiracy like that, but do not invent garbage and pass it off as fact.

I understand you're flustered, but none of that last bit should be directed at me. And if you want to get into the mud, no problem. Just have the courtesy to be specific with your ramblings ( Illuminati, tinfoil, conspiracy, invented garbage ) because I don't recognize any of those topics coming from me, and definitely not from me to you.