Ted Cruz Takes Center Stage, Media Increases Attacks

Red State ^ | 5/29/2013 | Breeanne Howe

[IbJensen]

With news Wednesday morning that Michelle Bachmann won’t be running for re-election in 2014, the left has turned their sights quickly to another target: Ted Cruz. Not that they weren’t already focused on him. The left has been foaming at the mouth over Cruz since he boldly stepped on the scene and refused to play by their crooked rules. Bachmann’s exit, however, has introduced a new fervor on the left against Cruz and they’ve taken no time to come at him from every angle.

Seemingly within minutes of Bachmann’s announcement, Washington Bureau Chief of the Houston Chronicle Richard Dunham posted a piece questioning the legality of Ted Cruz running for president. If that doesn’t reveal how scared the left is of Cruz, I’m not sure what does. Calling it “Birther 2.0,” Dunham stated:

Five years after celebrity billionaire Donald Trump and a motley assortment of conservatives raised questions about a liberal Democratic candidate’s American birthplace, the shoe is on the other foot.

Now which liberal Democrat might Dunham be referring to? Well it certainly will be interesting watching the left lose their minds over Ted Cruz’s eligibility after years of them bashing birthers on the right for the same thing. Of course many on the right have consistently argued against the birthers on our side, at RedState they are banned along with those who talk of secession from the union. Yet, I have a feeling that, not only will the left highlight with pride their birthers, they won’t remember our attempts to move on to more important issues.

Even Dunham couldn’t escape the truth in the midst of trying to stir up the controversy:

But there is a wide range of jurisprudence on the issue _ which overwhelmingly favors the notion that Cruz is eligible to serve as president.

Thanks for playing Dunham, let’s see what’s next!

I’d have to say Chris Matthews summed up the left’s argument against Cruz pretty well on Friday when he referred to Cruz as, “the unsmiling contemptuous face of the wild, nasty hard right fringe…” Matthews also accused Cruz of being a “political bomb thrower,” while he spent a full minute throwing political bombs at him. Careful Chris, I think you have a little foam showing…

Matthews’ argument seeking to paint Cruz as a crazy right-winger, however, is ultimately the one of which we’ll be seeing more. Twitter was abuzz with transferring their Bachmann hate to Cruz Tuesday evening and, of course, Morning Joe took up the torch first thing Wednesday morning. After explaining that Bachmann made “inflammatory statements” because it “raised a lot of money” (not because she actually believed what she was saying!), Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough predicted wild man Cruz would be the next fading flower.

Well Joe, I have a prediction of my own. Ted Cruz won’t be fading away, instead he’ll continue to take a stand for conservatives across the country. As he continues his rise to the top, Cruz will have an army of conservatives behind him who’ve waited far too long for a leader who doesn’t compromise on the issues we hold dear. And watching liberals seethe in the background? Well, that’ll just make the ride that much more fun.

[DiogenesLamp]

Because (as noted by Bayard and approved by Chief Justice Marshall) "natural born citizen" only requires a person be a citizen at or by birth, and persons born US citizens overseas are eligible to be elected President.

More blatant lying by Jeff Winston. Chief Justice John Marshall was a heavy advocate of Vattel, and cited him constantly in most of his decisions. Bayard said nothing in Conflict with Vattel, but you dishonestly portray what he said as supporting your stupid "LAWS OF THE ENGLISH KING" theory of United States Citizenship.

As a matter of fact, Marshall EXPLICITLY cited Vattel on having the BEST DEFINITION of Citizenship.

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall.

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."

And the Authority of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall beats the ever living crap out of ANYBODY Jeff can put forth, and I haven't even pointed out that Justice Bushrod Washington (George Washington's Nephew) ALSO cited Vattel regarding citizenship!

[DiogenesLamp]

Born in Canada, to a US citizen mother.

And who is only a citizen thanks to a law passed by Congress in 1934. Before 1934, Ted Cruz would NOT be a citizen, yet Jeff has no difficulty at all swallowing the paradox of how someone could go from "non-citizen" to "natural citizen".

Jeff seems to think that Congress can act as an ongoing ad hoc constitutional convention. It's but one more examples of his lack of reasoning ability.

[DiogenesLamp]

To me it's clear, it means a Citizen according to Natural law. But if you believe Cruz is eligible to be President, then you must ascribe it some other purpose, and I'm curious as to what that purpose is.

As far as Jeff is concerned, the word "natural" doesn't even need to be in the US Constitution. He keeps trying to shove that Law of English Kings down our throat. In English Common Law usage, the "natural" in "natural born subject" means that it is in accordance with nature that you are born owing allegiance TO THE KING!

It's why I keep telling him that our very existence was a REJECTION of "natural born subject."

Here is Jeff's "natural" explained by an Englishman.

Sir Michael Foster:

Sect. 1. With regard to Natural-born Subjects there can be no Doubt. They owe Allegiance to the Crown at all Times and in all Places. This is what We call Natural Allegiance, in Contradistinction to that which is Local. The Duty of Allegiance, whether Natural or Local, is founded in the Relation the Person standeth in to the Crown, and in the Privileges He deriveth from that Relation. Local Allegiance is founded in the Protection a Foreigner enjoyeth for his Person, his Family or Effects during his Residence here; and it Ceaseth whenever He withdraweth with his Family and Effects. Natural Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member; and on the peculiar Privileges He deriveth from that Relation, which are with great Propriety called his Birthright. This Birthright nothing but his own Demerit can deprive Him of; it is Indefeasible and perpetual. And consequently the Duty of Allegiance which ariseth out of it, and is inseperably Connected with it, is in Consideration of Law likewise Unalienable and Perpetual.

Yeah, Jeff, our citizenship is based on English Law alright. Pull the other one.

[lonestar]

First, he’s for a massive amnesty by wanting to legalize the tens of millions of illegals already here.

Where in the world did you get that?

[Georgia Girl 2]

“The Problem is that in order to restore the Republic, we must restore the Constitution and it’s time honored an proven reliable tenets”

OK lets elect Bob McDonnell, Paul Ryan, John Thune, Jeb Bush in 2016. All hale and hearty NBC’s. Not one of them will do ziddly to cut the size of govt and restore the republic. Do you see where I’m going here?

IMO natural born citizen is born in the USA of two citizen parents. God knows I’ve posted it enough times on FR. But technically its not spelled out in the actual body of the Constitution. As we all know. You have to look to the Federalist papers and Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as well as the 4 previous SCOTUS rulings none of which was actually just about the natural born clause.

But sadly my opinion and yours my friend have no weight in our current society. If they did Barack Obama would not be sitting in the Whitehouse.

And that leads to the next question: How did Barack Obama get into the Whitehouse? The answer is that both sides of the aisle in Congress cut a deal back in 2008 because they both had ineligible candidates that they wanted to run and so they shook hands and agreed not to contest either candidate. Well they did make McStain show his birth certificate. That wasn’t really good enough because he was born on foreign soil and lets don’t argue that one today but anyway because it wasn’t quite good enough the Senate then got together and passed a resolution declaring McCain a natural born citizen. The resolution carried no weight of law and was not binding in any way but it put an end to any further questions about his eligibility to run. Of course if anyone had started to question Obama’s eligibility it would have sunk him immediately as his father isn’t even an American and his mother was too young to confer citizenship so they all just STFU about it.

The Supreme Court needs to take up the issue of NBC and make a final once and for all ruling on it. I am prepared to accept whatever they decide on. But they are not going to do it. They are dodging the issue and Clarence thomas admitted it.

Lower courts are either kicking eligibility cases upstairs or indicating that the Congress of the United States needs to make these determinations. Well they already have. As I stated above they made that determination back in 2008. Out of 535 members of our elected bodies not one stood up and questioned the eligiblity of Barack H. Obama. Not one. Not even one.

So that brings us to today and looking forward to the 2016 election which I am somewhat doubtful we will even have but lets just say we get there before CWII breaks out or the ChiComs hack the grid and we are all sitting in the dark.

Again IMO if we have any chance of getting the Republic back through the ballot box (which I’m doubtful) we need to elect the person who will work the hardest to acheive that goal. Right now I would have to go with Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or Jim DeMint. ( I’d throw Rick Perry in but I just don’t want to get flamed today.) So there is one slightly ineligible candidate thrown in there.

I can almost guarantee that if Cruz wants to run he will be allowed to so we all have to ask ourselves at some point down the road who is going to be the best person for the good of the country. I don’t know yet I’m going to watch all of these guys and see how they hold up over the the next 2 years. But if push comes to shove and Cruz looks like a real keeper than I may just go ahead and vote for him.

We all have to realize that Congress is the decider on the NBC issue at the moment and they have decided you don’t necessarily have to be born on American soil and both your parents don’t have to be American citizens. They decided this in 2008. Not the Democrats but the two headed Hydra I refer to as Republicrats made this decision. Unless the SCOTUS decides to weigh in on this issue we are pretty much stuck with it. I don’t like it but that is the way it is.

[DiogenesLamp]

But since it appaears we are doing away with the Natural born citizen rule then they should both be allowed to run for president in 2016.

And I more or less agree with this. If the Democrats got away with an illegal candidate, we ought not to worry about doing it ourselves. Lincoln said he had to suspend parts of the Constitution in order to save the more important parts.

I guess that has now become the order of the day.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Constitution is all or nothing. Either it's the highest law in the land, or it's not. You can't say only some parts are important.

Some parts are more important than others. It is the ugly reality with which we are now forced to live. I don't like it, but the country has become too stupid nowadays to do anything about it. We have to save what we can from the fire.

[DiogenesLamp]

Natural born citizen = born citizen = naturalized citizen = dual citizen = triple citizen?

Yes, Jeff pretty much advocates using a standard that serves no useful purpose. He believes in nonsensical interpretations which yield nonsensical results, though he has expressed concern over the "anchor baby" issue, which he is against, but in his delusional understanding, he thinks we need a constitutional amendment to fix it rather than just interpreting the 14th amendment correctly.

[9YearLurker]

He’s essentially for legalizing all the illegals, per the proposed comprehensive amnesty—except for holding back citizenship.

Without regard for the fact that citizenship would easily be slipped in in a future year and he hasn’t said that he won’t support the current bill once his amendments are rejected, he would make legal tens of millions of illegals here currently.

[DiogenesLamp]

...and we should jail Pelosi for certifying him,...

And this is a point upon which I am constantly harping. The ONLY evidence offered so far that he is eligible to be President is a piece of Paper signed by Nancy Pelosi who doesn't even know which way is up, let alone what is the correct meaning of "natural citizen."

I am SO DISGUSTED that 50 State Election officials were ignorant and incompetent in the performance of their duties, and should NOT have allowed him on the ballot until he provided some sort of actual proof that he was even a citizen, let alone the issue of his being a "natural" citizen.

Pelosi is a fool, and the bigger fools are the ones who accepted her ignorant word on anything.

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

Jeff wrote:
“No, what I’m saying is: If you’re born a United States citizen, then you’re a “natural born citizen” as far as the Constitution is concerned.”

My reply is:
YES, that’s EXACTLY what you’re saying - that your definition of natural born citizen is anyone born anywhere in the world with one US citizen parent, or born in the US regardless of the status of either or both parents, regardless of the fact that other countries may have LEGAL claim on that person.

Your definition is incompatible with the Founders’ stated intent that the President and Commander-in-Chief not be subject to any influence by another country.

[DiogenesLamp]

Kudos for slogging through Jeff's wall of craptastic misrepresentation.

Jeff makes great use of "Argumentum ad nauseam."

[Jeff Winston]

I've asked many times (AND NEVER GOTTEN A SINGLE REPLY), if you believe that 'natural born Citizen' equates to 'born a citizen', then what legal purpose do you ascribe to the word 'natural', other than by 'Natural law'?

The term "natural born subject" was a legal term of art that originally came from natural law. Over time, it was expanded to include children born abroad to both the king and his subjects.

We used the same term in the Colonies. When we changed "subject" to "citizen," "natural born subject" changed to "natural born citizen."

The two terms were used absolutely synonymously in early America, and wherever "natural born subject" was used, it was replaced with "natural born citizen."

I hope that helps.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, what I'm saying is: If you're born a United States citizen, then you're a "natural born citizen" as far as the Constitution is concerned.

Which, once again, renders the word "Natural" in article II irrelevant. Unnatural citizens are just fine as far as Jeff is concerned.

It's a pretty simple idea, and it's in harmony with literally every credible voice in history that wasn't contradicted by someone of equal of (usually, greater) authority.

Your highest authority is Rawle. My pair of Supreme Court Justices beats your British Lawyer, who was in fact misleading everyone anyway.

His book was entitled "a View of the Constitution." It wasn't "An Accurate Account of the Constitution." It was his view, and one which he knew was incorrect.

Rawle was the same dingbat that believed Americans had a new "birth" as a result of the revolution. Du Ponceau describing the incident below.

On the other hand, there is not one single voice of any real authority, in all of United States history, who has ever claimed that it took both birth on US soil plus two citizen parents, in order for a person to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.

A Willful and knowing LIE. I've pointed out to you countless times that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall and Justice Bushrod Washington both explicitly cite Vattel and Vattel's definition regarding citizenship. Stop repeating your lie Jeff. You must say THE VERY BEST of Early Legal authorities EXPLICITLY use Vattel's definition of Citizen, and ignore the English Common Law version.

[Jeff Winston]

Oh, and - as has been noted UNCOUNTABLE times now:

Minor v. Happersett didn’t define the term for the purposes of Presidential eligibility.

Minor v. Happersett never stated that children born on US soil to non-citizen parents weren’t natural born citizens.

The comment in Minor v. Happersett was dicta, a total side comment unsupported by any authority whatsoever, and therefore of no value at all in setting any kind of precedent.

Even if it had defined the term and set some precedent, that would’ve been overruled by US v. Wong Kim Ark, which discussed natural born citizenship for literally dozens of pages before finding that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen.

And no, they didn’t spell it out in the final proclamation. But the core reasoning clearly established that he was a natural born citizen.

[Jeff Winston]

A Willful and knowing LIE. I've pointed out to you countless times that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall and Justice Bushrod Washington both explicitly cite Vattel and Vattel's definition regarding citizenship. Stop repeating your lie Jeff. You must say THE VERY BEST of Early Legal authorities EXPLICITLY use Vattel's definition of Citizen, and ignore the English Common Law version.

They never even used the term "natural born citizen," and you know it.

Asshat.

[Jeff Winston]

Your definition is incompatible with the Founders’ stated intent that the President and Commander-in-Chief not be subject to any influence by another country.

Obviously, their statement didn't mean what you think it meant, because everything else they said is compatible with the historical understanding of natural born citizen.

[DiogenesLamp]

The quotes illustrate the fact that it never required both birth on US soil, plus two citizen parents, for a person to be a natural born citizen or eligible to be President.

That is axiomatic from what is required to be a natural citizen.

And they further illustrate what I stated above, that the term never came from Vattel. It had nothing to do with Vattel. It clearly came from the common law.

Except that we didn't USE common law. 100,000 Children of British Loyalists, Several Million Slaves, and Several Million Indians are all examples of where your theory hits the brick wall of reality. Had these people been born in England, they would all have been English Subjects. (Well, the 100,000 Children of British Loyalists were anyway, despite being born here.) They were born in the United States, and they WERE NOT American citizens.

And by the principles of the common law, virtually every person born in the country was a “natural born” citizen or subject.

Nope. Originally only the children of Europeans who came here to naturalize themselves.

And the national legislature also had the ability to specify, through legislation, which other persons, born abroad to citizens, were to be considered natural born citizens as well.

"Considered" does not mean "are." Congress cannot re-write constitutional terms. They must submit an amendment to the states, of which 3/4ths are required.

This understanding is in harmony with virtually everything that has ever been said about Presidential eligibility throughout our entire history.

Only in the Hollow belfry echo-chamber of your mind. The Best Authorities, John Marshall and Bushrod Washington EXPLICITLY rebuke your theory.

[Jeff Winston]

That is axiomatic from what is required to be a natural citizen.

History is not "axiomatic."

You don't read the term "natural born citizen" and say, "Hmm. Natural. Born. Citizen. That means [insert what you think it means.] Therefore, it means [whatever you decided from some idiotic birther theory that it 'means.']"

You go to history and law to FIND OUT what the hell it means.

And it simply does not, and never did mean, "born on US soil of two citizen parents."

[Jeff Winston]

Only in the Hollow belfry echo-chamber of your mind. The Best Authorities, John Marshall and Bushrod Washington EXPLICITLY rebuke your theory.

No, they don't.

I've read what they wrote, asshat.

In fact, Marshall CONFIRMS the HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING that "natural born citizen" means "citizen by birth," because he wrote a letter to James Bayard saying he'd read his book and found nothing in it to disagree with except that Congress didn't need permission from the States to build post and military roads.

And Bayard said EXPLICITLY that when it came to Presidential eligibility, you didn't have to be born in the United States; being a CITIZEN BY BIRTH was enough, so children born citizens to US citizen parents abroad - JUST LIKE TED CRUZ, YOU ASSHAT - were ELIGIBLE.

Chief Justice John Marshall found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to disagree with about that statement.

PS - Did I mention you're an asshat?