Posted on 05/27/2016 2:04:02 PM PDT by Beautiful_Gracious_Skies
Edited on 05/27/2016 2:23:26 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
CRUZ said it is his "hope" that the Republicans nominate a conservative, SIGNALING THAT THE NOMINEE HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED. "What I hope is that we have a Republican nominee that will actually defend conservative principles," Cruz said.
Cruz ... is still working to elect delegates, "even though Donald has the delegates to get the nomination." "One of the reasons that we are continuing to work to elect conservatives to be delegates, ... we intend to do everything we can to fight for conservative principles to prevent Washington forces from watering down the platform."....
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Conservatives had greater influence on the party in the past. We are out populated.
Now the categorization has proven to be an effective political springboard.
By the congressional record, most have proven to not represent conservatism.
I think at this point we just need to focus on saving America from invasion and globalism.
If we don’t win this election, the incoming invasion will make conservatism a moot point.
California is the example that Conservatives must study and vow not to expand nationwide.
Ted needs to get back to his day job as a career government employee
Citizen, maybe, natural born citizen, no.
Foreign birth and foreign national father are two strikes.
It only takes one.
“Cruz is speaking the truth.”
Cruz is an anus that somehow leaned to act somewhat human.
“Cruz is a sleazy politician.”
Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot: Cruz actually won 1,237 delegates from voters, and Trump had about half but Trump says,
“OK, I’ve suspended my campaign (uh, to spare myself further embarrassment) but I’ll keep trying to sign-up delegates for myself.
“The presumptive candidate (not Hillary) does not have my support, I won’t congratulate him, and I won’t `go away’ because I’m owed a consolation prize of ramrodding or running things in Cleveland as I see fit, as if I won.”
The question of whether or not he was ever “eligible” was what the SCOTUS calls a nonjusticiable `political question—the same as if someone were asking for an advisory opinion or a ruling on a matter not ripe for adjudication.
That part of the American people who pull the wagon/work for a living made their decision, even if Felito’s new GOP-e friends disagree: Felito’s a sleazy, greasy, ineligible piece of work.
Go away Cruz.
Oh just stop
This subject was settled months and months ago.Only in your mind.
Has this been proven in a court of law? No. Many state courts have determined he was a citizen and legal for the presidency. They only court not deciding was the supreme court or a federal court Donnie threatened to sue but did not have the guts to do it. Primarily because he said in the fall of 14 his lawyers concluded Cruz was legal.
So until you can provide legal decisions to the otherwise you are wasting your time.
As to all the articles you posted, you believe everything your read in the msm?
Courts have ruled he is a citizen.
“Kinda makes you understand why his fellow senators hate him.”
Since his fellow senators are such good, upstanding lawmakers without a hint of corruption who continually fight tirelessly for conservative principles and policies, why would I ever doubt their character judgments?
Many state courts have determined he was a citizen and legal for the presidency.Nice try. It's not true. Those cases were thrown out because of technicalities like the person filing the suit didn't have standing.
You're either misinformed, lying or just stupid.
“So until you can provide legal decisions to the otherwise you are wasting your time.”
(thanks to a Godebert post from three years ago)
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.” Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
“The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.”....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789 “
“And consequently now the Supreme Court is one appointee from destroying the Constitution forever.”
That’s interesting. How many divisions does supreme court general Sotomayer command?
If you create a checklist of everything a "True Conservative" must believe, then anybody who can't check everything on the list is not a "True Conservative," correct?
Ted’s parents were personally interviewed by election officials in their home.
They both swore that they were Canadian citizens residing permanently at their address and furnished identification proving they were over 18 years of age. They stated their occupations and attested that there were no others eligible to vote that resided at their address.
Rafael and Eleanor Cruz’s applications to vote were approved by the provincial election supervisor.
They were added to the list with the rest of their neighbors and the list was published in the paper and posted at locations throughout their community.
So now it’s your turn:
1) Explain why alien residents of Canada would lie to a deputized election enumerator in order to vote.
2) Explain why an American woman would not return to the USA and birth her child if she had no access to free Canadian maternity care. Especially when she had already lost an infant son a few years prior.
3) Explain why Ted’s mother and Ted have never been interviewed regarding his citizenship status and instead his campaign functioned as surrogates making excuses for the Cruz family.
4) Proclaiming that Daraugh, Wilson, Cruz was not residing in Canada long enough is not a definitive answer. That’s why Ted can only say, “My mother WAS BORN an American citizen.” It does not mean that she remained an American given her past foreign residencies. Ted had to seal all of their Canadian records which is why it took him 16 months to rescind his Canadian citizenship. It could have been done in two weeks!
5) His mother had spent most of her adult life living abroad until 1975. Six years plus in England and possibly eight years in Canada. Records are murky by their own intention. This family has been deceitful and not forthcoming.
There’s nothing that’s remotely Christian, Constitutional, Conservative, ethical, or honest about Cruz.
The ONLY court decisions pertaining to Cruz have all ruled he was legal to run for president and until a higher court rules different then your mess of postings is not pertinent.
That is the law.
How many divisions do patriotic Americans have?
Only in the minds of his fanboys.
Ted Cruz has yet to honor his pledge to "support the GOP nominee, no matter who it is."
He's currently in the same boat as Jeb Bush, who also has not honored that pledge.
This just goes to show how phony these gentlemen really are.
Ted Cruz should not be allowed to even speak at the convention unless he gets his head straight, accepts the fact that has lost resoundingly, and honors the pledge he made in front of the whole nation.
Vote Trump!
If this is the legal case then why did all the courts this years rule he was legal to run for the presidency? Give me a court ruling against Cruz and you win, otherwise you are wasting your time.
Also, if it was such a slam dunk deal why didn’t Trump file suit? Was he chicken? No, he has never hesitated to file court suits. It is because his very own lawyers told him otherwise.
As someone pointed out here upthread, the few cases in which you place so much stock were brought in courts that hear divorces, dog-bite cases and boundary line disputes, and they were dismissed on procedural grounds because the pro se plaintiff didn’t really know what s/he was doing.
I’m going to guess that you were arguing against Obama’s eligibility 8 years ago, like the rest of us.
But Zero at least claims to have be born in the US. It’s called `special pleading’ when you change the goalposts because your team has the ball.
Eduardo doesn’t have the ball anymore, so as a practical political matter, the matter is moot.
And the only ones in the country who don’t seem be aware of this development are Ted Cruz and a few of his fanatical supporters here on FR.
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.