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.

[GBA]

You dodged because that's what you seem to do, rather than think your way through something. Others have called you on it, now, so have I. I might as well be blunt. The rest of your post to me is a lie, which is why I reminded you that there really isn't much time for that sort of thing.

Your quoting ability, selectively editing such as you do, has been well demonstrated and, if this truly is how you want to go out of this world, you might do well to send your resume to NBC.

After whatever Zimmerman's lawyer does to them, they may need someone like you to replace the ones they'll need to let go.

ABC might also need someone with your skill set for the same reasons.

They probably pay better than your current gig. You might was well live well for what's left of your short time here, right? What other options do you have?

[Larry - Moe and Curly]

” That means that Ted Cruz’s father Rafael negates Ted Cruz from being a true Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen since he owed allegiance to Cuba at Ted’s birth in Canada, another foreign sovereignty.”

This is a rather important point that seems to flow by a number of people here. They seem to understand that a child born to an American father overseas is an American citizen, but conveniently ignore the fact that a child born to a foreign father (whether in the US or some other country) is also a citizen of their father’s country and ALSO subject to that country’s jurisdiction.

It will be interesting to see if Ted Cruz formally renounced his Cuban and Canadian citizenships when he reached the age of majority.

[Kansas58]

The Constitution gives POTUS eligibility authority exclusively to the Congress, and to the Electors, once a State has placed a name on the ballot.

[campaignPete R-CT]

Justia, a major legal research database vendor, was caught red-handed altering its records to delete references to the SCOTUS ruling on Minor V Happersett, the 1875 precedent on NBC.

excellent. Information relevant and 2 points for the NBC crowd. Indeed, this topic and issue is judiciable.

[Jeff Winston]

We've been over this several times now.

The reasoning is not hard. And the authorities are crystal clear.

The question was what the Founders and Framers and their generation intended by "natural born citizen."

The best legal experts of early America have told us clearly what that means.

Rawle tells us, without mincing any words whatsoever, that if a person is born on US soil to non-citizen parents, that person is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, with all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity:

Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

With ALL the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

Tucker and Swift both agree that natural born citizens are those born within a State. No mention at all of parentage.

And yes, in the case of Swift, he speaks for one State only. But what he says is consistent with Rawle and Tucker.

Bayard tells us that it's not necessary for a person to be born in the United States to be a natural born citizen. Being BORN A CITIZEN is quite enough:

"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."

Marshall, Story and Kent are all in agreement with Bayard.

In both instances, being born a citizen is enough to make one a natural born citizen.

NOW. If you had a case, you would be able to produce NOT ONE, but SEVERAL of our MAJOR EARLY LEGAL EXPERTS, who would have given the birther "definition" of natural born citizen.

But you can't produce even ONE.

All you and the rest of the birthers can do is produce some quote like Marshall's quoting Vattel on an international law case that doesn't even MENTION the phrase "natural born citizen," which isn't even ABOUT the DEFINITION of citizenship, but is instead about how we treat acknowledged citizens who are currently living in an enemy country - and then claim that THAT bullshit supports your claim.

That's it. It's over. You lost the debate.

And you lost the debate because the FACTS AND THE TRUTH WERE NEVER WITH YOU.

[Jeff Winston]

You dodged because that's what you seem to do, rather than think your way through something. Others have called you on it, now, so have I. I might as well be blunt. The rest of your post to me is a lie, which is why I reminded you that there really isn't much time for that sort of thing.

Your quoting ability, selectively editing such as you do, has been well demonstrated and, if this truly is how you want to go out of this world, you might do well to send your resume to NBC.

No, YOU dodged, as soon as I pointed out the truth in 349.

You tried to blow as much smoke as possible in post 377.

You tried to blow as much smoke as possible by coming up with some stupid THEORY.

"Citizenship is, blah, blah, blah. And blah, blah, blah."

You don't determine what happened in history by coming up with some THEORY. "Well, I think the Founding Fathers WOULD HAVE required only the highest form of citizenship. Blah, blah, blah. I also think they would've DEFINITELY wanted everyone in America to have health care. Oh, and they wouldn't have wanted anyone to go hungry. So they were DEFINITELY on board for food stamps for all."

You can pull some stupid THEORY out of your backside and say the Founding Fathers were in favor of WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT.

THAT'S NOT HOW ANYONE WITH THE SLIGHTEST AMOUNT OF HISTORICAL COMPETENCE DEALS WITH HISTORY.

Only QUACKS deal with history in that manner.

If you want to know what the Founding Fathers intended, YOU GO AND READ THEIR WORDS TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY INTENDED.

And you don't make up your mind beforehand.

And if they weren't explicit enough, you consult the early legal experts of our Republic. In fact, what you REALLY do is find out what the Founding Fathers said, and also find out what our early legal experts said.

And in THIS case (see post 405) ALL OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, AND ALL OF OUR EARLY LEGAL EXPERTS, WERE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT.

And they ALL agree that birthers are full of shit.

[Jeff Winston]

Oh. And one more thing.

You've accused me of "lying" and of "selectively editing."

PROVE IT, JERK. OR STFU.

You and other birthers have repeatedly falsely accused me of such things. Neither you nor anyone else has been able to document ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of any deception at all on my part.

And don't give me that BULLSHIT about my not quoting all of a John Bingham quote, because I had already previously quoted him saying virtually the exact same thing upthread.

[GBA]

Ahhh...there he is! That's the "Jeff Winters" character we've come to know so well. Welcome back!

Next, will you please treat us all to your Screamin' Conservative thing you do and, oh yeah, definitely don't forget the mega spam post-a-quotes cut and pastes! Classics, man. I LOVE those!!!

(Fwiw, I forgive you your trespasses against me. I honestly don't think you have a clue about the game you're playing ain't no game.)

[Jeff Winston]

In other words, you make a false accusation, and you can’t back it up.

Thank you for playing.

[Jeff Winston]

You show what birthers are.

You have no facts. You have no truth.

You have nothing but false accusations against others, that you can’t back up.

But you make them anyway.

[Nero Germanicus]

Yeah, I agree. I often quote this court ruling concerning Obama’s eligibility which makes that very point.

Barnett, Keyes, et. al. v Obama, et. al., US District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf

[GBA]

I have made no false accusations, JW.

Not to you or about you. Just my observations of your behavior, along with what I was taught in school and the logic of how the related concepts apply to real life, so anyone can see them, if they want to.

You and your clan like to say that anyone born here is an American NBC.

Your clan also likes to say that a child born anywhere in the world is also a American NBC as long as one of that child's bio-parents is American. Either parent, doesn't matter which.

I guess if every child born here is a natural born citizen, no matter what, and any child born anywhere else is a natural born citizen, too, as long as some of their DNA is American, then America must be the all powerful ruler of the world!

We claim everyone!

Yeah, I'm sure that's what the FFs had in mind. All inclusive, we take anybody, rather than an exclusive position limited to the highest quality citizenship, for the single most powerful office in charge of the Armed Forces.

With such progressive thinking, you might think they'd have let everyone vote, too, even women!

[Nero Germanicus]

From “The Father of the Constitution”

James Madison, House of Representatives
22 May 1789 Papers 12:179—82

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"Had my Beeber set wrong."

I'm stuned. Can you pick your Worth Les Beeber out of this lineup, by any chance?

[GBA]

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance."

So, Cruz's allegiance is to Canada and Juan McLame's allegiance is to Panama? Got it. Thanks.

I guess that means James Madison won't be voting for Ted Cruz for POTUS and that Juan McLame also wasn't eligible and didn't get his vote either.

[GBA]

Wow! Nice collection. I felt the need to stand and salute.

Got me one of the before Richlite models, thanks to obama's Gibson ebony raids and someone stealing the one I had many years ago.

Thing's heavier than a D5 Cat, sustains forever, gorgeous tiger striped wine red Custom with a satanic number of the beast serial number. *sigh* If only I knew how to play a guitar...

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

That means Cruz wouldn’t be considered eligible by Madison since he was born in a foreign sovereignty negating his allegiance to the United States.

[Nero Germanicus]

James Madison was in Congress, representing the 5th district of Virginia when the Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed which said: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

And jumping ahead 223 years, current U.S. law states that a person born overseas to one American parent is a Citizen of the United States At Birth if the American citizen parent meets certain residency requirements which Senator Cruz’s Delaware born mother does meet.

[GBA]

So, he contradicted himself? Silly to use that as your example. Wacky.

And, all you have written depends upon the US being able to tell the world people born on their soil aren't their citizens, not if they have some American DNA?

Like I said, according to you and your clan, when it comes to babies, we are the all powerful US of A and all your base are belong to us.

That's not natural born, that's bureaucratic and by treaty BS.

Natural born, by definition, needs no bureaucrat or treaty to make us agree about a person's citizenship or claim to a nation or the nation's claim on them.

It's Obvious! It's simple! It's easy to understand, as opposed to the convoluted mess your clan keeps pushing on US.

Here's a quote for you to research:

"What a tangled web we weave..."

[Nero Germanicus]

The law of the land covers who is and who isn’t a natural born citizen/citizen of the United States at birth:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: “ http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

Any court of law looking at this issue will go first with the definitions provided in the current U.S. Code of Laws.