Posted on 01/25/2016 8:03:19 AM PST by justlittleoleme
Seven years ago, during the confirmation hearings for John Roberts, Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz penned a gushing op-ed for National Review.
-snip-
Not anymore. When Roberts helped save "Obamacare," Cruz immediately blasted the Court for having "abdicated its responsibility to safeguard the Constitution." He didn't mention Roberts by name, but he insisted that the decision was more proof that Republicans needed to reject Cruz's opponent, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. "My opponent is, by nature and by over a decade of political office, a conciliator. Now is not a time for conciliation."
right!
[The people should cry out to God to lead them in faith regardless of who sits on the throne.]
We’ll see. Many are crying out God.
>>We’ll see. Many are crying out God.
Many are, but not a majority by far. Less than 20% of Americans even spend one hour in church a week.
“Was Cruz’a mother a naturalized citizen....?”
No. She was a natural born citizen.
Trump’s mom was naturalized, though.
It only takes a spark to get a fire going. A good example is Rhinehard Bonnke’s ministy. The Lord placed a desire for him to minister to Africa when he was a small boy living in Germany.
(Worth watching the millions that attend his crusades)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxJD-8jVfhU
Sorry, but since the term was not defined when the constitution was written, then neither you nor any other "originalist" can say what the definition was when the constitution was written. But since the constitution specifically gives congress the authority "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," (Article I, Section 8), then statutory law passed by Congress and signed by the President that defines citizenship by virtue of birth is in fact the law that stands as written on the matter. To argue otherwise is to argue that a judge can insert his own opinion as the definition into the constitution to override the duly enacted law of the land. (Not a very originalist position.)
No. The mistake you just made is glaring and should be obvious. You have the Article I enumerated power correct, but you made a superman leap of logic.
Naturalization is the act of converting ALIENS into CITIZENS. That's the extent of their power granted to them by We The People.
NBC is a completely mutually exclusive set of people than ALIENS or CITIZENS. Congress has no authority to create NBC ( doesn't even make logical sense, We The People created Congress ). There is no intersect between Congress and NBC. Whatever law they enact does not impact NBC, it cannot.
When they utilize a term of art such as Citizen-at-Birth it is to identify and delineate the pool of people who do not require the Naturalization they are legislating. It's like a doctor operating on your lungs who says, no, don't touch his teeth. The doctor does not define the teeth or create them, he is only empowered and trained to work on the lungs.
Amendments are the only thing that may alter the Constitution ... blacks folks are not people --> amendment --> black folks are natural born citizens ... no law or statute can do this. Same for all other qualifications, terms of office, who can vote, etc.
Can Congress now pass a law/statute/act that says only a person born in USA to Two Citizens be considered NBC? No, this must come from us.
The Supreme Court kicked it back to We The People to decide for ourselves. And after 8 years of this I now believe Roberts accidentally did the right thing. Who knows what they might say about a given case.
As I said in another thread, if you want to vote for a President Of The United States who was born in Canada, Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Libya, Bangladesh, then no-one will stop you. Just make sure he is 35 years old so that we keep out the unqualified and potentially dangerous ones ;-)
IMHO this should underline the ludicrous nature of our current level of due diligence with respect to the highest office in the land.
What the hell difference does that make? No, she's not. He'd be just as Cuban/Canadian if she was.
It is, but only if you amend it, and have it ratified by the states.
WHOA! I didn't know that.
Does Canada require citizenship, or was she an illegal voter?
Some people are saying it was a voters roll that could have been in error. To be legitimately on the voter’s roll yes you must be a Canadian citizen. There are a lot of questions and the numbers don’t add up. For me there is a lot of mud in the water about Cruz’s eligibility and HE could clear it up, but he seems to rather dodge the questions, keep his records sealed, and double talk...legalese his way to a different subject. I don’t KNOW, but i suspect there is a gross problem.
Will let you know if and when something is uncovered. I don’t like the idea of our nominee being vulnerable to an eligibility attack by the Dems. WHY won’t Cruz clear things up? The longer he stalls, the worse it will get.
I am sure he has paid for more than a few abortions.
Didn't want those little problems getting in the way.
But that was before he was running.
He has seen the light. All that matters is what he says today.
The originalist position is based on Vattel’s Law of Nature with which all the Framers were thoroughly familiar. Look it up. E. Vattel or Law of Nature. Then look upo john Jays letter to George Washington citing “natural born citizen” and the fact that the word citizen was changed to “natural born citizen” in the final draft of the constitution a few days after Washington received the letter. Ben Franklin and others are documented as to the importance of Vattel in the deliberations. Do some research. To change a restriction imposed by the constitution required an Article 5 convention. The law of the constitution is supreme over any law written by congress. the rules must be obeyed.
A Naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen. Naturalization is taking a non citizen and making him a citizen. that does not make him a natural born citizen. The Framers used one term: Natural born citizen for eligibility to the presidency.
Trumps father was a natural born citizen, Cruz’s father was not.
I am well aware of that. I was answering a question and pointing out an irony.
Glad to hear it. So many do not. :>)
Trumps father was a natural born citizen, Cruz's father was not.
You've got very good posts in this thread.
BTW ... has anyone attempted yet to explain what Ted said in the last debate? I mean that incomprehensible attempt to drag Trump's mother into this mess.
The fact that no-one wants to dissect and diagram that logical disaster speaks volumes to me. Apprently he knows less about the NBC issue than Barry.
( and I do like Ted, don't anyone get me wrong )
Yes, there was a thread about it shortly after the debate in which I attacked Ted’s attempt to divert the attention from himself on to Trump. A few of us caught it as the diversionary tactic it was, but most sluffed it off as unimportant. It was brought up that Trump’s mother was a naturalized citizen well before ..several years in fact...before his birth. Therefor Trump was born of Two Citizen parents and on American soil, the qualifications according to Vattel’s Law of Nations.For someone supposedly an expert on the Constitution, I find Cruz lacking in either knowledge or honesty, one or the other.
Thank you for the compliment. It is appreciated.
Ii must begetting tired. Excuse me. The Title is Law of Nations rather than Law of Nature in which he explains natural law...part of the original title in French. Check Vattel and The Law of Nations.
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.