Did someone say Rove? ....and bad news?
Posted on 08/21/2013 9:09:21 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
He may be a right-wing nut, but the Texas senator can beat a Democrat in a general election. Here's why
There’s been some more buzz this week about Ted Cruz’s presidential prospects. The demagoguing senator took his first trip to Iowa just six months after being sworn in to office, and he’s pretty clearly reaching for the White House. Early reports are that it’s going well. And Rich Yeselson wrote a high-profile (and fascinating) essay arguing that, basically, Cruz is perfectly positioned for reaching the top of the Republican ticket.
The focus of this piece is on Cruz’s general election viability. When it comes to the primary, I’m not going to start handicapping the viable candidates seeking the Republican nomination yet; I’ll only say that I don’t see any reason not to include Cruz in that group, as of now. Viable candidates have conventional credentials and are in the mainstream of their party on questions of public policy. Cruz, from what we know now, qualifies. With four years in elected office by January 2017, he’ll be in a similar boat with Barack Obama (who, granted, had held lower office as well) and Mitt Romney (who at least had four full years before his campaign began). And while Cruz surely is planted at an edge of the Republican mainstream, I don’t see any reason, so far, to believe he’s close to falling off that edge. Whether or not Yeselson is correct that Cruz is a particularly strong candidate, it’s certainly very possible to see him nominated.
But what about the general election? Could he actually win?
What I hear from many liberals about Cruz’s chances are two things. One is just disbelief: Republicans wouldn’t really do something like nominate Cruz, would they? The key is that Ted Cruz isn’t Herman Cain or even Michele Bachmann; he’s a United States senator, and that counts for something (that is, conventional credentials count for something) in presidential elections. So, yes, they really could do something like that.
The other thing I hear, however, is perhaps even more wrong. Some liberals react by actively rooting for Cruz. The theory? The nuttier the nominee, the worse the chances of Republicans retaking the White House. Indeed, in conversation I’ve heard all sorts of justifications: Cruz couldn’t possibly win Florida! Therefore, he couldn’t win the White House!
Don’t listen to it.
I’m a strict construstionist no matter what. That ‘living document’ crap where the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean this week is what is the real danger to the Constitution.
If we want foreigners to be President then we can amend the Constitution to allow that. Until then...
Megan, Ted Cruz is not a “foreigner”. You ignore my point, BTW. Bob
Thanks for the ping, but for me and those I associate with, his support for immoral, unconstitutional NRTL “fetal pain” legislation disqualifies him.
Scripturally and constitutionally, what you are intrinsically, a human person made in the image and likeness of God, is the criteria, not whether or not you can supposedly feel it when somebody butchers and kills you.
>>>Megan, Ted Cruz is not a “foreigner”.<<<
True, but neither was he born on US soil and you may recall that his point was a matter of contention for John McCain who was born in the Canal Zone. That was resolved by noting that the Canal Zone was a US territory at the time McCain was born.
Canada, last I checked, is not a US territory and given that the USA & Canada do not have a mutual treaty of extraterritorial jurisdiction with regards to citizens of one country being born in the other then Ted Cruz’ Constitutional qualification cannot be judged the same as John McCain’s.
Therefore Ted Cruz was *born* a Canadian citizen and he is *entitled* to US citizenship via his mother.
Obama has yet to face a single serious legal challenge to his eligibility. Cruz won't either.
“With all of the millions of Republicans in the USA is it too much to ask that we can find at least ONE who was born in the USA to be President?”
Love the righteous indignation. Here are your most likely natural born citizen choices:
Jeb Bush
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul (OK by me)
John Thune
Rick Perry (OK by me)
Crsipy Kreme
John Kasich
Scott Brown
Mitch Daniels
I disagree.
I am not cherry-picking anything. The use of the term “natural born citizen” is preserved in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and again we see it in the writings of James Bayard in 1833, James being the son of an original US Senator known as the High Priest of the Constition, and the Grandson of one of the signatories to the US Constitution.
George Washington signed the 1790 act, Congress wrote that act, and no one EVER disputed their use of the term “natural born citizen.”
So, right now the Major Media has us trying to destroy Ted Cruz with the presidential election more than 3 years away. We have an intervening national election in 2014 in which he could be a huge benefit to many in districts across the nation. He is trying to lead the charge in Congress to defund ObamaCare. He could some day run for Governor, run again for the Senate, or even be a Supreme Court justice. His credentials are out of sight.
And we’re busy tearing him down over something that hasn’t even happened yet and won’t happen for years.
I think conservatives are stupid. In the Stupid Party that’s pretty bad.
He’s one of the few trying to lead against ObamaCare and the Mainstream Media has us destroying any momentum he might gain by having us talking about something years in the future.
True, but Ted Cruz IS a natural born citizen, and here’s why:
“The Immigration and Nationality Act TITLE lll
Chapter 1 - SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401]
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States AT BIRTH:”
“At Birth” means exactly what it says. The newborn, just by virtue of it’s birth is a Natural Born Citizen. Meaning, to acquire that citizenship, no naturalization process is required.
Next we come to paragraph (d) which states:
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, where his parents, Eleanor Darragh and Rafael Cruz, were working in the oil business. His father was a Cuban immigrant to the United States during the Cuban Revolution. His mother was born and reared in Delaware, in a family of Irish and Italian descent. Cruz’s parents, WHO HAD BOTH ATTENDED COLLEGE IN TEXAS, RETURNED THERE WHEN TED WAS ABOUT FOUR YEARS OLD. ~ Wikipedia~
Since both of Cruz’s parents attended college in Texas BEFORE moving to Canada, it is obvious that his mother satisfies the above stated requirements. As such, Ted Cruz IS eligible.”
These so-called Constitution loving Conservatives who would vote for Cruz are traitors....I will not go against my principles....I will vote for Rand Paul.
BTW....I am in Texas and I voted for Ted Cruz 2 times in the runoff for Senator....BUT HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PREZ!
Put that in you pipe and smoke it!
BTTT Ted is our antidote.
It's only some conservatives that are stupid, but they are very vocal with their stupidity.
SoConPubbie, you have been at FR long enough to have heard this dozens of times, and perhaps even read Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny with Madison's explanation for why there are not definitions in the Constitution. Language change over time so our framers explicitly left definitions to our common-law and language at the time of the framers.
"If you are unable to do that, please provide the relevant US Law passed by Congress and signed by a US President that provides the necessary justification for your position/definition for Natural Born."
Again SoCal, Obama has caused most of us, not lawyers, to learn that separation of powers prevents Congress from passing any law that alters or interprets an article of the Constitution. There was only one such law, the Naturalization Act of the 1st Congress in 1790, the act about which Mark Levin was patently wrong when he opined on Hannity that it ended discussion of whether Cruz was eligible. The 1790 Act was entirely repealed in 1795, signed by Washington, and mention of natural born citizen removed forever from U.S. Code. Only the Supreme Court could have extended the Marshall/Vattel common-law, and they haven't - yet. Obama and his campaign co-chair McCaskill tried, with Senate Bill 2678, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act”, in February 2008, but it failed to pass, let alone be designated an amendment.
"Barring that, please provide the relevant US Supreme Court case ruling that provides the necessary justification for your position/definition for Natural Born."
That one is easy SoCon, though Soro’s acolytes did their best to hide it by mucking up the reference specification in some twenty five Supreme Court cases citing Minor v. Happersett on the most accessed legal web site, Justia.com, founded by Center for American Progress fellow Tim Stanley, and at Cornell Law by Center for American Progress CIO, Karl Malamud. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, (1875):
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Actually, Megan, you have been led to believe that McCain was eligible, and that was the plan, but McCain's ineligibility was explained by Dem law professor from the U of Arizona, Gabriel Chin, and paraded in the WaPo and NYT until Obama became the candidate in 2008, With Obama running McCain's ineligibility provided cover and neither candidate was vetted. Even Calero, a non-citizen, ran in many states.
The technicality had to do with “sovereign territory”. Only Congress can designate sovereign territory, and does it explicitly for each case other than the obvious embassies and consular offices. They hadn't yet designated the Canal Zone sovereign territory when McCain was born, and finally did so in 1937, the year after McCain was born. We often find the use of technicalities insufferable, but that is our law.
There could have been, and should have been an amendment extending Article II Section 1 for children of military citizens. The Democrats understood that and Senator Obama and campaign co-chair McCaskill sponsored Senate Bill 2678, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’ in February 2008. But it failed to pass.
Ted Cruz fails eligibility for the same reason Obama told us, knowing that few would understand, that he is a ‘naturalized citizen’. Obama said "I am a native-born citizen of the U.S. That is the language of the 14th amendment. American Indians were native-born, and not made citizens. U.S. code based upon the 14th Amendment, a naturalization amendment, made Obama and Cruz, citizens at birth, because their mothers were citizens, but could not make them natural born citizens, as Wong Kim Ark resolved. The 14th Amendment using Article 1 Section 8, Congress’ authority to create “An Uniform Rule for Naturalization”. The 14th Amendment's author made it absolutely clear that his bill (S61) did not touch natural born citizenship, nor did it mention it. Here is what Congressman John Bingham said to the House in 1866:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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….,/blockquote
Ted Cruz is “entitled” to U.S. Citizenship, as is Obama, but neither is a natural born citizen. Republicans seem to have a preference for naturalized citizens in the oval office, beginning with McCain, then Jindal, then Haley, then Rubio and now Cruz. Why do you think that is, with seasoned veterans like Suzanne Martinez, Sarah Palin, Alan West, Jim Dement, Louis Gomert, Michelle Bachmann..., all natural born citizens? Could it be the damage to the brand when honest discussion reveals that they traded McCain's ineligibility for silence about Obama’s honest admission to having been naturalized?
We know about McCain, but could Rubio and Jindal, and now Cruz, be more malleable when special favors are required for friends of the mainstream republicans. Who would be more likely to consent to continue supporting the Muslim Brotherhood that McCain is working to return to power in Egypt, Rubio or Cruz, or Allen West, who fought the Muslim Brotherhood? With a Muslim Brother as Director of the CIA, and Muslim Sister as senior aide to Sec. of State Hillary, and Muslim Brother sponsor, Grover Norquist controlling lobbying plums to "Conservatives", who would Republicans find easier to work with, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, or Michelle Bachmann, who was savaged by McCain and Graham for suggesting an investigation into Huma's lifelong association with the Muslim Brotherhood?
Mobs and massive media suppression of ‘public opinion’ do not amend the Constitution in a constitutional republic. Cruz has played cute with questions about eligibility, another Harvard Law grad who says he doesn't know the law and will leave it to the (corrupt) courts to decide. Alwaleed bin-Talal 'donated twenty million dollars to Harvard just about as Barack was admitted. Look at control over our economy the Saudi Family possess, using Obama to block the Keystone pipeline and fund hundreds of complete boondoggles like Solyndra, and our money to keep major Saudi investments afloat, Citibank, GE, Google, Cisco, and News Corp (Fox and WSJ), ... Levin, whose reputation is based upon knowing the law, but who blatantly cited a repealed statute, the 1790 Naturalization Act, the same ploy used by Larry Tribe for Obama's stage show, Senate Res. 511, April 2008, to provide the media with talking points covering McCain's ineligibility to hide his own. The 1790 Act was repealed in 1795, a fact both Tribe and Levin failed to mention. We must find legislators, executives and judges who will know, as well as preserve, protect and defend the Constituion.
Did someone say Rove? ....and bad news?
....and yet, Levin does not agree with you.....
...yes and he emailed me just that...”so sick”.....indeed...
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.