Posted on 07/28/2013 6:13:04 PM PDT by drewh
Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t said whether he has presidential ambitions, but Sunday he won one of the first straw polls for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
The Texas Republican captured 45 percent of the 504 votes cast by attendees at the Western Conservative Summit, a day after drawing several standing ovations during his luncheon speech at the fourth annual conference.
“We shall see what sort of crystal ball summiteers have in awarding that decisive nod to Sen. Ted Cruz, who was so magnificent from this platform,” said John Andrews, founder of the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, which hosted the event.
Placing second was Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who delivered the keynote address Friday at the three-day summit, with 13 percent of the vote.
Tied for third were Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, and former Rep. Allen B. West, Florida Republican, with 9 percent each. Mr. West was the conference’s featured speaker Sunday, while Mr. Paul received the most votes among those on the ballot who didn’t attend the conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
“Cruz became a Citizen at birth.
That is ALL that is required”
Nope Mr. Obfuscate. It takes more. It takes a natural born Citizen with parents (plural) who owe no allegiance to a foreign sovereignty, Here is what the father of the 14th Amendment John Bingham defined a natural born Citizen as:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Ted Cruz was not born within the jurisdiction of the United States and his father OWED allegiance to a foreign sovereignty called Cuba.
Like Obama, Ted Cruz is not a Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen. He is in fact a statutory U.S. Citizen. A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
I want everyone to listen to respected constitutional scholar and lawyer Herb Titus as he sits down to explain what a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen is. Herb Titus credentials are impeccable when it comes to the matter of Constitutional Law and our founders original intent, especially on the subject of the presidency. Titus gives a clear understandable meaning of why the founders wanted to have a natural born Citizen ONLY for the presidential requirement to hold the executive office of the United States. It is clear after listening to Herb Titus in the two part video that you will understand why Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Barack Obama are not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of the presidency.
First, here are his credentials:
Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.
Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.
Listen to Titus as he explains in 6 minutes the founders ORIGINAL INTENT of what a natural born Citizen is:
Play close attention for this educational lesson Kansas58
Part 1——4:32
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8
Part 2——2:06
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ
Well, at least it's not Bush. ;-)
Wrong again. A lot can happen until 2016.
I believe the voters showed their desire when they voted for Obama not their responsibility. Happens all the time with people in myriad of life’s situations. I maintain that with Obama it was a case of desire to have a black, hip POTUSA. Many forgot or disregarded the intent and warnings of the Founders and the Constitution with It’s long tradition of building the best and most prosperous nation on Earth. The USA will take a long time to regain a necessary Constitutional balance between citizen responsibility and human desires.
Well, I hope nothing but good things happen to you until 2016.
I hate to get into flame wars with morons so I have to restrain myself on this thread. I don’t even want to read their comments, it makes my blood boil Pete.
There may be some trolls on this thread doing advance work for the Christine Christie campaign but I have to conclude that most of them are just good ole’ fashioned idiots.
Run Cruz run. If he wins the nomination these people can start “Birthers for Clinton”.
You have a logic problem.
You have an English language problem.
You clearly do not understand what you read.
To say that all red barns are red is true.
To say that all red barns are barns is true.
To say that everything that is read is a barn is false.
To say that every barn is red is false.
That you have people who FACTUALLY state that certain facts produce a Natural Born Citizen does not, in any way, exclude another set of facts which might also produce a Natural Born Citizen.
If one set of facts produces/states it’s own “natural born citizen” and another set of facts/states it’s own “natural born citizen” and even add any number of such incidents of facts does this rule out or eliminate any one set of ‘facts’ from being truth for substance of intentions e.g. by the Founding Fathers
And this is the bottom line. It's not a standard if nobody enforces it.
This is more or less my position. It is foolish for us to adhere to rules when our opposition doesn't.
No, we're not on YOUR side.
Go back to the lunatic fringe.
As near as I can tell, you don't understand simple logic, so we really don't care what you have to say about the law.
Again, you simply cannot comprehend the fallacy of your argument. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so simple minded as to keep asserting this STUPID claim.
The "Legal" authorities gave us Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, Plessy v Ferguson, Wickard v. Filburn, Dred Scott v Sanford, and a whole host of vile, wicked and WRONG decisions, yet here you are saying we should RESPECT the opinions of all these "Legal authorities."
Once again, I regard you are one of the silliest people I've ever encountered on Free Republic.
You will get talking head, "herd mentality" out of that one. Might as well ask a parrot.
Ted Crus owes his citizenship to an act of congress, not natural circumstances. "Natural" born-citizens are not created by an act of Congress, they are citizens by their very nature.
"Natural" citizenship is a characteristic that is inherent, like hair or eye color. "Natural" citizens are citizens by an act of Nature, not by an act of congress.
Ted Cruz shares the exact same birth circumstances as did Aldo Mario Bellei who's citizenship was stripped from him because he did not adhere to the residency CONDITIONS which congress imposed on such citizens when they created the law.
"Natural" Citizens do not have residency conditions. In fact, "natural citizens" do not have any conditions whatsoever.
Your commentary is not worth reading. So I won’t.
Roe v Wade.
Again, only a fool thinks the STATE DEPARTMENT trumps the Constitution. It’s the other way around.
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.