Skip to comments.
Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President
Cato Institute ^
| August 26, 2013
| Ilya Shapiro
Posted on 08/26/2013 1:51:55 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 321-327 next last
To: Brown Deer
Now where the hell did you find that picture of my GRANMA!!! (haha!)
Yeah, I do think they’re going to run Slick Willyette on the D side.
And I do believe Ted Cruz will try for the nomination on our side. As will RINO Christie and whatever other squish moedrate the ball-less GOPe try to foist on us.
121
posted on
08/26/2013 4:29:15 PM PDT
by
NFHale
(The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
To: Jeff Winston
All that is required Constitutionally is that a person be BORN A CITIZEN.
LIAR!
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
Jeff Winston claims that President Thomas Jefferson was a French Citizen!
"I'm no Constitutional scholar..." posted on 03/24/2010 9:36:02 PM PDT by Jeff Winston (6th post at FR)
122
posted on
08/26/2013 4:29:55 PM PDT
by
Brown Deer
(Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
To: BIV
It amazes me to see lawyers take the position that the crafting of our Constitution was very deliberative, and nothing was placed without due consideration of the then-current meanings of the words and phrases used. Had the Founders not needed the differentiation going forward, they still need to grandfather themselves in, but would have permitted any citizen to run thereafter.
By the way, turn it back on them: Where is "Citizen" defined in the Constitution?
123
posted on
08/26/2013 4:30:15 PM PDT
by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
To: Hugh the Scot
I dont trust the courts to decide anything in favor of the American people, and I see no reason why we would intentionally expose ourselves to that risk. Cruz is not the only patriot available. I agree, but will she run? That is the question.
124
posted on
08/26/2013 4:32:33 PM PDT
by
Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
To: txrangerette
Do you really want a man who was born in Canada, and has a law degree from Harvard University, but was too stupid to know that he was a citizen of Canada, running our country?
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.
125
posted on
08/26/2013 4:33:01 PM PDT
by
Brown Deer
(Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
To: brityank; Windflier
My point is that those believing there is no difference should use the constitutional procedure to resolve it.
Until then, neither Cruz nor Soetoro/Obama are qualified.
Sorry my FRiend, but you have it exactly backwards as to what is constitutionally correct.
Your definition does not pass constitutional muster today AS THE LAW IS WRITTEN TODAY.
There IS NOT DEFINITION in the Constitution or in current US Law that requires both parents to be US Citizens at birth.
That is the point being made on this thread.
If you, and the other birthers want the requirement to be stated exactly as you believe IT WAS INTENDED, you, and those who believe as you do, will have to shepherd this through the process that is defined in the Constitution to amend the Constitution.
126
posted on
08/26/2013 4:33:22 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: COBOL2Java
""""Original intent is the go-to catch-all for the birthers."""
Since you lecture us with your academic double speak which includes a fundamental lack of knowledge of ordinal intent and then use the word birthers pejoratively, I will use baby talk to educate you.... But my words are more for others in this forum than to you because I do not think you have the capacity to understand.
To protect and defend the constitution in as oath all in government and the military swear to.... They do not take an oath to a man like Obama or an office like the presidency. Therefor, the most agree that meaning of the Constitution is very important. Right? The constitution was written by our founders who painfully debated every single word. AND to quote Rush.... "Words mean things" So therefore the original intent is not just a catch-all as you put it. But rather a window into how the framers of the constitution wanted to establish the union...... God Bless
127
posted on
08/26/2013 4:33:44 PM PDT
by
Constitution 123
(someintrest from the legeslature, perhaps then they will heal some appeals brought them.)
To: Constitution 123; COBOL2Java
COBOL2Java didn't originally post that, newb. I did.
/johnny
To: JRandomFreeper
OK - Then please show me where - in the Constitution - the term “citizen” is defined.
129
posted on
08/26/2013 4:39:55 PM PDT
by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
To: Constitution 123; COBOL2Java
To protect and defend the constitution in as oath all in government and the military swear to.... They do not take an oath to a man like Obama or an office like the presidency. Therefor, the most agree that meaning of the Constitution is very important. Right? The constitution was written by our founders who painfully debated every single word. AND to quote Rush.... "Words mean things" So therefore the original intent is not just a catch-all as you put it. But rather a window into how the framers of the constitution wanted to establish the union...... God Bless
And yet, those of you that hold that this is the original intent of all signers cannot point the relevant details in the constitution or any documents that can clearly remove this point from the debate as being totally settled.
And as others have pointed out, there were differences in opinion about this from some of the original founders.
So lacking any solid proof that all the founders/signers of the constitution believe as you do, that to be POTUS, both parents have to be US Citizens at the time of birth, and lacking any substantive and complete definition either in the US Constitution or US Laws whereby this issue can be put to bed(in either direction), basically, your position boils down, in all honesty, that you would have us believe that your opinion is settled constitutionally law, which by definition, it cannot be.
130
posted on
08/26/2013 4:40:08 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: Constitution 123
131
posted on
08/26/2013 4:41:18 PM PDT
by
Constitution 123
(someintrest from the legeslature, perhaps then they will heal some appeals brought them.)
To: BfloGuy
Please cite the law that requires both parent to be citizens.
Check out Minor vs Heppersett US Supreme Court.
Your ignorance is troubling, pal!
132
posted on
08/26/2013 4:43:04 PM PDT
by
acehai
To: brityank; JRandomFreeper
OK - Then please show me where - in the Constitution - the term citizen is defined.
Which just makes my point.
You cannot declare something as Constitutionally settled, unless it is clearly defined in either the Constitution, or supporting US Law.
You have neither to support your contention that POTUS requirements include the requirement that both parents have to be Citizens at time of birth.
All you have is your opinion and that does not make it constitutional.
Only the US Constitution, Laws passed by Congress and Signed by a US President, and rulings by the Supreme Court can truly be considered Constitutional.
Everything else is conjecture, until it passes through one of those three "Gates".
133
posted on
08/26/2013 4:44:15 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
OK - Then please show me where - in the Constitution - the term citizen is defined.
134
posted on
08/26/2013 4:45:06 PM PDT
by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
To: JRandomFreeper
The idiots are the ones that write page-long rambling references to quotes that aren't law, and that is most of their posting on the forum. One trick ponies. The same can be said of many of those posting from the other side of the argument. It's one of the most contentious topics we've ever seen on this forum, and passions run hot on both sides.
The man now occupying the White House is of questionable eligibility to hold the office, and his defenders and shills have showed up here to argue the anti-birther side since he was first elected.
They argue for the weaker version of presidential eligibility because they truly fear their man really isn't eligible. Some on our side argue for the weaker version because they fear that insisting upon (what I think is) the 18th century understanding of the Constitution will make us look like 'wacko birds'.
My personal conclusion on all of this, is that the Framers intended to restrict the office to those whose loyalty to America could be reasonably trusted. The best way they could think of to accomplish that, was to only allow citizens with ties to the blood and soil of this country to hold the office. It just makes no logical sense to me that they would have purposefully included the NBC requirement in the Constitution for that office (and that office only) for any other reason.
Again - I'm not going to call another Freeper an idiot for thinking otherwise.
135
posted on
08/26/2013 4:46:47 PM PDT
by
Windflier
(To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
To: brityank
OK - Then please show me where - in the Constitution - the term citizen is defined.
Why?
Prove your position is constitutional using the three CONSTITUTIONAL sources I've described and I'll show you where the term "citizen" is defined in the Consitution.
136
posted on
08/26/2013 4:51:45 PM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
"""""your position boils down, in all honesty, that you would have us believe that your opinion is settled"""""
You misstate my position..... Even though I believe that the framers all new what they meant when they used both terms Citizen and natural born citizen in the came clause, because there are those like you who disagree, by definition it is not settled.
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.
137
posted on
08/26/2013 4:56:53 PM PDT
by
Constitution 123
(someintrest from the legeslature, perhaps then they will heal some appeals brought them.)
To: acehai
Your ignorance is troubling, pal!The Nineteenth Amendment, passed on 1920, effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett.
What do you say about that, Pal? The law's the law. You can't just pick the parts you like and ignore the rest. Pal. Even if you like those parts, pal.
In future, how about discussing the law and leaving out the patronizing diminutives.
138
posted on
08/26/2013 4:57:38 PM PDT
by
BfloGuy
(People who know what theyÂ’re talking about donÂ’t need PowerPoint.)
To: SoConPubbie
If Cruz runs, I’ll vote for him so fast I’ll fall over my own feet trying to get there.
Can you add me to the Cruz ping list, please?
139
posted on
08/26/2013 5:02:44 PM PDT
by
CatherineofAragon
(Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization.)
To: 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....
When this comes up before the Judiciary, it is their role and duty to make a ruling.
140
posted on
08/26/2013 5:05:06 PM PDT
by
Constitution 123
(someintrest from the legeslature, perhaps then they will heal some appeals brought them.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 321-327 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson