Replies

jospehm20 wrote: "Cruz was a Canadian citizen less than two years ago. I do not think that a candidate holding citizenship from another country until he was over 40 years old and already in the US Senate is what the founders had in mind as somebody qualified to be President. There are many high positions in our government that Cruz would be very qualified for and great in but being President is not one of them.
"I keep hearing how smart Cruz is but I just can't square that with him not seeing this coming and doing more to get in front of it years ago. - If I had known all of what I know now about his situation earlier I would not have donated a penny to his campaign. - He simply is not a NBC and qualified to be President in my view."

See that kind of misses the point of how we should address this question as Constitutional Conservatives.

jospehm20's view; Cboldt's view; or my view and that of a number of similar members here isn't what counts.

On the merits, Cruz is likely to be the most effective Constitutional Conservative President out of the group so we should want to see him elected.

We have spent the last 32 years with a President who is not committed to Constitutional Governance and who is implementing policies, many of them in direct contravention of the Constitution, which are designed to eliminate our form of Government and install a culture totally inconsistent with that of a majority of our citizens.

The survival of our country is at stake and we need the most effective leader we can find to save us.

From a technical legal perspective, it is pretty likely that depending on the facts and circumstances on which the case reaches the Supreme Court, Cruz would be held eligible event though many of us can see sound legal arguments to the contrary.

I too have given Cruz money. And I too am particularly disappointed in his failure to address this issue in a timely way when I believe it could have been resolved to his advantage. But I am also prepared to suck up and get over it.

Josphehm20's argument about what the founders might have intended is probably correct. But what the founders intended is going to be seen in a Supreme Court opinion only if the Court has already decided the case on that basis for other reasons.

Between here and there, the issue that counts is what is best for the country on the choices before us.

> We have spent the last 32 years with a President who is not committed to Constitutional Governance and who is implementing policies, many of them in direct contravention of the Constitution, which are designed to eliminate our form of Government and install a culture totally inconsistent with that of a majority of our citizens.

Are you aware of the plan Heidi Cruz helped prepare and which she endorses? It is a form of “governance” inconsistent with our form of government.

http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

That was a nice post. Obviously you care. Your heart is in the right place.

I want to sort of "defend" or "explain" my point of view. Do you think I LIKE that Cruz is not qualified? That I somehow get pleasure out of tearing him down? I don't like that he's not qualified. I also don't like to see good, honest, and in a way gullible, maybe better call it a blind spot, I don't like to see people fooled - and the NBC clause is an important check on the preservation of the US as a nation over the long haul.

My only objection or purpose is to disabuse people of the fantasy that Cruz is qualified. If you are comfortable supporting a person who is not qualified, then do so. Plenty of people voted for unqualified Obama, and Congress let the NBC clause skate.

At any rate, my primary "goal" is open eyes. I do not enjoy being the bearer of bad news, but better to deal with reality, than to bury your head.