Senator Cruz ROCKS!
Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin
Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.
President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.
“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
If you do find some holes in my reasoning, let me know. If I find they're legitimate holes, I will of course correct them.
If I wanted to go after you, I'd start with your assertions about Rawle. That would appear to be the shortest route. But these people can't be bothered with it. It's all "lies." And I'm a "troll" for pointing it out. Like I stated, a cult.
There are still some things I know biographically about Rawle that I've never even gotten around to writing about. He was an even better source than I've even written about.
In other words, you'd indulge me but I need to agree with you first. That's some remarkable critical thinking skills. Public education, no doubt.
Who can refute vomit?
Anyone who posts facts that DL doesn't like is a "troll" who posts "crap."
No, anyone who posts crap and calls it a "fact" is a troll, and therefore DL doesn't like them.
You never have an idea what you're talking about. That doesn't stop you, of course.
Vattel believed in a right of expatriation. English Common Law did not permit expatriation. US law did and does.
Exactly. I have tried to avoid using that term, but it's clearly true.
I am noticing the development of a similar kind of cult among folks who believe that Zimmerman was guilty, that the Zimmerman jury was wrong and that some court must remedy the jury's error by reversing the jury's decision and enter its own finding of guilt. They just cannot accept that no court has the power to reverse the jury's acquittal. They believe that there must somehow be a judicial solution for every action they view as a "mistake."
At what point will these Vattel fans accept that the voters and their electors have decided these eligibility issues and will again in 2016? At what point will it dawn on them that our Supreme Court knows that it has no power to disqualify candidates, to select presidents or to overrule the decisions of the voters and their electors? In 2008 and again in 2012, the Chief Justice volunteered to administer the oath of office to Obama. He's not required to do that. In 2008 and again in 2012, most of the members of our Supreme Court volunteered to attend the inauguration ceremony for Obama. Shouldn't that be enough evidence for anyone not in a cult to conclude that the members of the Supreme Court either do not agree with this cult's exotic views regarding "natural born citizen" or recognize that it is not a proper judicial function to second-guess the decisions of voters and their electors?
If Ted Cruz runs in 2016, he will have my support and I will work to convince other voters that he is very qualified to serve as our next president. I pray that they agree with me.
Ted Cruz - 2016
Ted Cruz - 2016
Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the birthers, what follows? Impeachment in the House, and removal by the Senate. Anyone care to lay odds?
In other words, instead of lobbying their respective State legislatures to tighten eligibility requirements, a notable goal, they expect the Supreme Court to parachute in and overturn two elections. It's silly.
You appear to have no reading comprehension.
English Common Law treated subjects as feudal serfs, tied to the land, once an Englishman always and forever an Englishman. Allegiance to England could not ever be changed as far as English Common Law was concerned
Vattel was the foremost proponent of the constitutional republic in the founding era, you know, the form of governance we ended up with, the one that allows the expatriation that Vattel advocated, that allows people to throw off their allegiance and take up another, to cease being US citizens to become a citizen of another nation if they want?
You’re advocating the thing you think you oppose, and you’re opposing the thing you think you advocate, here.
I honestly can't think of much of anything.
Most of the birthers don't even get into the details. They just sling insults. DiogenesLamp is currently the main defender of the birther BS. I have a list of several dozen bogus claims made by him and a few of the other birthers. If the BS continues I will probably eventually get around to writing up all of the BS arguments and exactly WHY they are BS. So there's no direction for them to go except down.
His pattern is to make a bunch of fallacious claims and then keep repeating them. You debunk one, he moves to another. You debunk that, he moves to another. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually he comes back to the same ones, because he only has a limited set of BS. Fairly large, but still limited.
There was an incident in which he falsely accused me of deliberately hiding stuff because I didn't include all of a John Bingham quote that had all the wording he liked. The accusation was complete and obvious BS because earlier in the same thread I had actually included a quote from Bingham that said pretty much exactly the same thing.
He also complained about Rawle because he came from a Loyalist family. He also accused Rawle of being a liar. Fine. But like I say, there are other things about Rawle that haven't even been brought to light.
Well, I'll mention a couple. Rawle's grandfather once hired a young guy to do a printing job. The young guy wanted to get into the printing business, and the elder Rawle was his very first customer.
The young man's name was Benjamin Franklin, and that began a decades-long friendship between Franklin and the Rawle family.
In fact, DiogenesLamp has made much of the fact that Rawle went to England to study law. Ah, but do you know why? The US was so torn up with the War that opportunities to study there were limited, to say the least. And Rawle knew before he ever left for England that his plan was to go to England, study, and then return to become a lawyer in Philadelphia.
No matter which way the War went.
After about 7 months (I believe, I'm speaking from memory here) Rawle cut short his studies in England because the war was winding down, and he was eager to get back to Pennsylvania. On his way back, he bopped over to Paris to visit... guess who?
Benjamin Franklin.
Franklin's Society for Political Enquiries was an arm of the core group of Revolutionaries who started our country. They met in Franklin's house, which was THREE BLOCKS from the site of the Constitutional Convention, and they did so in preparation for that Convention. Rawle was there. He even served as the group's consultant on immigration in the runup to the Constitutional Convention, so he obviously knew something about citizenship.
George Washington and Franklin were members of the group, and it seems to be there that Rawle grew close to Washington.
The Society included at least 6 of Pennsylvania's 8 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, so it wasn't just Washington and Franklin that Rawle spent time with. I'd have to look it up again, but I'm pretty sure that all 6 of those signed the Constitution. So Rawle seems to have known at least about 1 out of every 6 or 7 signers of the Constitution.
I've noticed a lot of similarity between the birther cult and the lynch-Zimmerman cult.
If the 2016 election was to be held today, Hillary Clinton would defeat any prospective Republican candidate.
http://www.pollingreport.com/2016.htm
You forget that liberals and moderates only care about scandals on the right. Liberals and moderates made up 65% of the electorate in 2012.
Obama got 86%of the liberal vote and 56% of the moderate vote despite Reverend Wright, birthergates, Fast &Furious, Benghazi, and an overall record of failure.
I am just quoting what Vattel said. I just assume he meant it.
And, yes, I have always said that impeachment is the sole means of removing a president. These poor folks are wasting their time hanging around courthouses.
The common law of this country varied colony by colony in the colonial era and continued to vary state by state after nationhood.
There was no consistent common law in the British North American Colonies. Some colonies were created via royal charter, some were proprietorships, some were tantamount to corporations, some were acquired/assumed from other nations. Some ignored English rule altogether, some were grudging or spotty about it, some adhered as best they were able, moreso in settled areas, much less so in rustic frontier areas.
There were a variety of influences upon the various colonial legal systems as a result. Many allowed and recognized common law marriage by consent and cohabitation with no legal or religious requirements whatsoever, which was very unlike England and more like ancient Rome, which inspired it.
Common law in the United States did not and does not at all mean what you appear to believe it means. It did not mean English Common Law in force and enforced across all the colonies, and of course it did not mean that after nationhood, either. Every State had common law, sometimes unique to that State.
This extended to determining just who was and who was not a citizen. Sone States had citizens in their colonial period. Some States had subjects in their colonial period. This spilled over in State courts under Starehood.
Attempting to equate State law with Federal law is also a mistake.
I will add, though, that this plan doesn't seem to have been entirely set in stone. I think Rawle did at least consider the possibility of staying in England and becoming a lawyer there if the opportunities were better in England.
They weren't, though.
I think what you’re suggesting is that our constitutional republic had no inspiration by historical example, contemorary example or literature espousing and detailing that form of governance, that it just sprung out of feudal allegiance to a lord or king whole and somehow unchanged, which is ludicrous.
One is led to wonder just what the heck that whole Revolution thingie was all about, let alone the War Of 1812, from attempting to read your replies here.
You’re attempting to cheerlead for a particular outcome while having no grasp at all of the subject matter, and are not helping other, more informed individuals with whom you apparently agree but don’t quite know why.
Maybe you should just let those who have bothered themselves to study the matter hash it out, and you can just post monosyllabic replies of emotional support whenever the mood hits you.
The Constitution provides that a president must be 35 years old, must have been a resident of the US for 14 years and must be a NBC. Thus, voters and their electors cannot choose just anyone they want. Their choices must conform to the constitutional provisions mentioned. They must choose a candidate who is 35, who has been a resident for 14 years and who is a NBC. They are constitutionally charged with the obligation to apply these standards to candidates and to resolve questions which arise in the process. Their decisions in that regard are final. No one is constitutionally empowered to reverse their decisions.
The framers of our Constitution did not provide elaborate definitions (how are the 14 years to be measured, how are the 35 years to be proved, etc.) of the terms they used. I assume that they provided the level of guidance that they wanted to provide. Maybe they couldn't agree on other details, maybe they didn't think greater detail was important, maybe they wanted the electors to provide more content to the provisions. Who knows why they stopped writing when they stopped writing? It's enough for our purposes to point out that they quit writing before they provided for any kind of candidate screening role to the Supreme Court. That is why the Supreme Court has never even hinted that it had the power to disqualify a presidential candidate.
Our Constitution also provides that a president can only be removed by the impeachment process and that the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. There isn't any judicial shortcut to these provisions. The courts are not relevant to this process.
Fool.
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.