Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

Cato Institute ^ | August 26, 2013 | Ilya Shapiro

[SatinDoll]

Yeah, right. All laws are meaningless, and I bet you didn’t even read the post!

Taking apart the law is the first step to taking away everyone’s constitutional liberties. But then you don’t care about that, do you?

The First Amendment is under assault at this moment by atheists and the radical homosexual lobby, and the Second Amendment will be voided by BHO2 (who is a foreigner) and the United Nations. But then it’s just crap, isn’t it Johnny?

The man who calls himself Barak Hussein Obama II, and has referred to himself as “just a Jakarta street kid”, is a foreigner and Indonesian citizen. But I guess that’s okay for an American President, and worth allowing a repeat.

Who needs a constitution anyway! Hell, we’ll just ignore it. /sarc

Delbert Belton was beaten to death with flashlights by lawless thugs. That’s our future - anarchy - if we don’t start upholding the laws, all laws!

[JRandomFreeper]

I did read it to recognize it for the repeated crap that gets spouted over and over.

Your opinion on NCB isn't law, as much as want it to be. It's your long-winded, rehashed, repeated ad-nauseum opinion.

/johnny

[SoConPubbie]

Sure thing CatherineofAragon!

[CatherineofAragon]

Thank you

[GBA]

You'd almost think that someone intentionally pitted us against each other...

A most excellent observation!

We are so easily played at the point when we forget what was once common knowledge.

We just needed the right distraction. Just like with obama...

[Constitution 123]

"""""I won’t argue your opinion. You’re entitled to that. I do however, differ on the question of whether the SCrOTUS has rejected birther cases based on standing.""""

Well I do not know why they turned these cases away.... I expect they did not want to deal with such a hot potato. but because, they have not given a reason, we can only speculate. However, one thing is for sure. Standing is a legal issue and in my opinion, often abused. Eligibility, is a constitutional issue that in my opinion, needs to be addressed.... Not ignored.

[SoConPubbie]

Your opinion on NCB isn't law, as much as want it to be. It's your long-winded, rehashed, repeated ad-nauseum opinion.

He's right SatinDoll.

Your opinion has not been codified into Law by either the Constitution, Amendment to the Constitution, Congressional Law or Supreme Court Ruling.

It's simply your opinion about what is constitutional.

[acehai]

People who know what theyÂ’re talking about donÂ’t need PowerPoint.

At last—a well-taken point, “pal” ;) Better get yer PowerPoint.

[SoConPubbie]

Please post the relevant Supreme Court ruling that codifies your position that requires Potential POTUSes to have 2 parents with US Citizenship.

Not your opinion, not somebody elses opinion, but either the relevant part of the Constitution or US Law as passed by Congress and signed by a US President or a ruling by the Supreme Court.

[SoConPubbie]

To clarify my position, I believe that it is time for the Supreme Court to stop rejecting cases placed before them and make a ruling that includes a clear definition of NBC. We need to document the intent of the framers..... This why our government was established with co-equal branches including checks and balances.

On this we agree.

[SoConPubbie]

The constitution is a very short document..... There is no room to define terms..... but the framers all agreed on the meaning of what they wrote when they authored it. Today because of ignorance and the fact that language over time changes, there is some debate as to some meanings....

True, but since they did not give a succint and complete definition of Natural Born, they left it up to succeeding generations to define the term.

[Hugh the Scot]

It occurs to me that we are on the same side here... I’m just a bit more cynical.

[SoConPubbie]

Like campaign finance, Obamacare, abortion and eminent domain...right?

Sorry, but in terms of legality, at the current moment of time, yes.

What you are terming Constitutional is original intent, but according to the rules setup by the Constutition itself, those items, like it or not are constitutional as of this point it time.

That being said, tomorrow, if we had an honest, honorable majority of Supreme Court Justices, these abominations would be overturned in a New York minute.

[Constitution 123]

"""""Please post the relevant Supreme Court ruling that codifies your position that requires Potential POTUSes to have 2 parents with US Citizenship""""

We, who to have followed this issue since 2008 all know the arguments..... You, asking posters to repeat these arguments is a waste of time.... just review all the posts here since Obummer ran the first time. and educate yourself instead of asking stupid questions.

[JRandomFreeper]

If your sign-up date is 2013, how is it you know all about the posts from 2008? Not a retread are you?

/johnny

[penelopesire]

I explained it to you and I have no problem with you Lucy. I normally like your pings. Just did not care for this one. I don’t like seeing thinly disguised attacks on one of the brightest conservatives to come around in a long time. And it was an effort to smear the man. You may not have recognized it as such, but it was.

[SoConPubbie]

We, who to have followed this issue since 2008 all know the arguments..... You, asking posters to repeat these arguments is a waste of time.... just review all the posts here since Obummer ran the first time. and educate yourself instead of asking stupid questions.

So I take it you can not prove your position by relevant US Law, the US Constitution, or Supreme Court Ruling.

In effect, you are stating your opinion concerning what is constitutional, not what is legally considered constitution as of right now by US Law.

[SoConPubbie]

In effect, you are stating your opinion concerning what is constitutional, not what is legally considered constitution as of right now by US Law.

Should have been:

In effect, you are stating your opinion concerning what is constitutional, not what is legally considered constitutional as of right now by US Law.

[FreeReign]

Or is he just a liar? because he has also stated that his mother once told him that he had Canadian citizenship. So he didn't just find that out from reading the Dallas News.

Your link doesn't support your claim.

From the article:

Cruz’s mother told him if he wanted Canadian citizenship, he could pursue it, but he never did and Cruz said he thought that settled the matter.

[Constitution 123]

""""True, but since they did not give a succint and complete definition of Natural Born, they left it up to succeeding generations to define the term."""

NO You are wrong again.... The founders knew exactly what they meant when they authored it. They all agreed. Like I said, they debated every single word untill they agreed. I understand what they meant. It is very clear to me. BUT you think they intentionally made the meaning ambiguous? Jeesh