Sen. Ted Cruz Triumphs in 2016 Presidential Straw Poll: Wins Early GOP Vote Over Walker, Paul

Washington TImes ^ | 5 minutes ago | By Matthew Patane

[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.

[Kansas58]

Wrong, as far as the Courts needing or even being able to decide these things.
The Courts have virtually no role at all, under our Constitution, in matters of eligibility for POTUS.

[USNBandit]

Hate to see what happens when you find something you feel strongly about.

[DiogenesLamp]

Please educate yourself by reading Title 8 Section 1401 subsection G.

You cannot educate yourself by reading misinformation. All acts of Congress are subservient to US Constitutional law. The Constitution GRANTS power to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the government, it doesn't work the other way around.

Section 1401 Subsection G does not determine what is a "natural born citizen." It simply states who is a citizen as decided by Congress exercising their power of naturalization.

I will also point out to you that the section you quoted says this.

a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:...

So what kind of a citizen do you have if born in Canada to a 13 year old mother?

How does a law make you a "natural born citizen" if the mother's old enough, but not a citizen at all if she's not?

[DiogenesLamp]

Huh? People like you make me wish we still had intelligence tests for voters.

I concur. You are too stupid to vote.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

I can’t wait to see his answer to that!

[Kansas58]

HUH?
I think George Will and Ann Coulter are absolutely correct about the 14th Amendment and “anchor babies” — I think a very strong argument can be made that if illegal immigrant mothers give birth in the USA, it is difficult to determine child custody and child support issues, in United States Courts, if neither parent is a U.S. Citizen.
My Senator, Jerry Moran, and I have briefly discussed this matter. He has actually sponsored legislation to clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment. “Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof” gives us a Legislative remedy, which can be enacted by simple majority if Congress.
NOTHING that George Will or Ann Coulter have said supports your wild-eyed birther nonsense on POTUS eligibility.
I am guessing that Coulter and Will BOTH think that Cruz is eligible. My guess is better than your guess.
Stop claiming supporters you do not have.

[taxcontrol]

I don't have a statute that makes me a citizen

If you were born in the US or one of it's jurisdictions, that is incorrect. Title 8 section 1401 (the very same one I have been refering to) states in subsection A:

"a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"

I am assuming that you were born in the US just as I was. However, if that is not the case, please provide the details of your birth and we can sort out your citizenship.

[DiogenesLamp]

Please read Tile 8 Section 1401 subsection G which qualifies Mr Cruz as a citizen at birth. Thus he is a natural born citizen.

Referencing a naturalization statute proves the opposite of what you say. Again, if the mother is 13 years old, is the child a citizen or not?

[DiogenesLamp]

Please explain how you believe I engaged in double think.

You invoke Congress' power of "naturalization" to assert that someone is a "natural born citizen."

Congress cannot MAKE "natural citizens", they can only naturalize.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your opinion is WORTHLESS, and you represent the lunatic fringe.

It's funny to watch little children mouthing off at adults.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, you have given me no living legal authority who agrees with you.

Here we go again. What does that make this, about the 12th time he's said that in this thread alone? He really doesn't grasp the fact that nobody takes him seriously because he just keeps repeating a fallacy.

[Kansas58]

Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth and nothing else.
It is NATURE that made one a citizen, through the act of Birth, under the laws in effect at the time of Birth.
Want proof of my argument?

A question for you -— the size of the United States and its territories has not stayed the same through the years, those boundaries have changed several times. Those boundaries changed by act of a PEN! Someone WROTE A BILL, Congress VOTED on that Bill, and a President SIGNED that Bill into Law.
So, it was not an “Act of God” that changed the boundaries of the USA and its territories. It was purely the combined acts of many men.
There goes your “Natural Law” nonsense, huh?
Those born outside of the original 13 States owe their Citizenship to the pen that drew the new boundaries, in whatever State or Territory they were born.

[DiogenesLamp]

Red Steel writes to a parrot:
Yes I have, you must be a parrot or maybe a word salad machine.

He's the one on the right.

Jeff is the other one.

[DiogenesLamp]

NAME a living attorney who agrees with your nonsense? Name a living historian who agrees with your nonsense? Name an elected official who agrees with your nonsense? Name Judge who agrees with your nonsense? Name a conservative leader who agrees with your nonsense?

And back to the same rant. Polly want a cracker?

[Red Steel]

If Congress uses their powers of naturalization to make him a citizen, then he is defacto a "naturalized" citizen. Actually, this is exactly what the Supreme Court held in Rogers v Bellei.

Thanks for the link to the Supreme Court opinion.

[DiogenesLamp]

but he admits that the matter of IF Obama was born outside the US would make him ineligible by making him not a natural born citizen.

I wouldn't worry about the idiot parrot changing his tune. All he knows how to say is "No legal authority agrees with you!" Reality does not intrude into the circles of that mind.

[Kansas58]

Again with the Saul Alinsky type insults?

If what you claim to be true really was the law, why don't you have any support to speak of?

And YES, POPULAR SUPPORT MATTERS! The POLITICAL BRANCHES of government, the States and Congress, were expressly given the power to decide these matters. They do so through the political process, they interpret the law but they are subject to political will, as was intended by the Founders.

Argument from authority is valid.
Popular support is valid.
Legal authority is valid.

All three of the above are valid arguments against you. Our Constitution EXPRESSLY gives the power to determine eligibility to POLITICAL professionals.

Political decisions are to be expected and to be supported as LAW in these matters.

[taxcontrol]

If the one US Citizen parent in subsection G did not meet the requirements and the individual in question did not qualify as a citizen under any other subsection, then they would not be (per the first sentence) ...” nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:”. Thus they would not be citizens and would need to be naturalized.

The age of the mother affects the transference of citizenship at birth because .... because it is the law of the land, because Congress said so. The very same reason that citizenship is granted to those born on US soil regardless of parentage - cause Congress said so. Because Congress has the specific authority to say so per Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution.

If Congress wanted to say that a person born with 6 fingers on the right has citizenship at birth, regardless of parentage, location or any other factor, it is within their power to do so.

[DiogenesLamp]

It didn’t stop Romney, either. His folks were born in Mexico.

George Romney was an American citizen who happened to be born in Mexico. Though I didn't much care for Romney, he was a natural born citizen because he was born to two American parents, and he was born in the United States. (Which I don't consider important to the point.)

[DiogenesLamp]

Being born in Canada has no effect as long as he is born of two American citizen parents.

I would tend to agree if the facts were as you stated above, but they are not.

Ted Cruz's father was not an American when Ted was born. He became an American LATER, but when Ted was born, His father was a Cuban national.