Walker draws scrutiny for changing positions; Cruz facing birth-related scrutiny

WDUN-FM / The Associated Press ^ | March 14, 2015

[2ndDivisionVet]

Scott Walker's rivals see him as an up-and-comer in the Republican race for president, so they are focusing on the Wisconsin governor's changing positions on a number of issues. Meanwhile, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, another potential candidate, is also under scrutiny but for another reason: is the Canadian-born Cruz constitutionally eligible to run for the White House?

WALKER

The still-unofficial campaigns of several Republicans have assembled internal memos, research papers and detailed spreadsheets that highlight and track Walker's shifts on positions from immigration to ethanol to abortion.

They say Walker has a broad pattern of flip-flopping that will be his greatest vulnerability....

[2ndDivisionVet]

Notice they almost never do this to Democrats and RINOs? E-Mailgate against Hillary came from Team Obama, it turns out.

[PROCON]

Gov. Walker ought to pull an obama on the drive-bys and say his positions have “evolved”.

[1010RD]

A smart politician keeps his options open.

[iowacornman]

“Some have questioned whether Cruz is constitutionally eligible to run for the White House because he was born in a Canadian hospital to an American mother.”
I am literally stunned. This cannot be. If obama was born in Kenya (with a US citizen mother) — That is perfectly all right.He was totally illegible and this “birther “nonsense was a joke. What does “Natural Born” mean in Article 2 of the Constitution? Does that mean without Cesarian section? No test tube baby can be president? I am truly stunned that this is an issue at all.

[stanne]

Stunned? Cruz could sell his soul to the altar if birth control tomorrow and have his people measure curtains in the living quarters of the White House

That he stands as at least an oppositional figure to the god of the west, birth control, the rules of biased scrutiny apply.

And birth control is the only dividing factor. Not commerce corruption not prayer in schools not breaching security at state not common core not jihad nor bomb threats and mass casualties but birth control. It’s what drives the voters. Definitely not the founding documents and the rule of law. Not decency not the economy nor invasion by Mexico

Hillary’s polling numbers have not budged any more than she has. It’s not her. It’s her tapping into what generates the power. Birth control. The media is driven by their numbers who demand it and all of its trappings

Let’s get over it. Cruz could have been born in the White House to a mother who was the president herself and he’d be slammed. It’s only just starting. Let’s stop whining and start praying unless we can’t see the Dems’ having to dismantle Hillary themselves as perhaps an answer to prayers for our country

Progressives are in charge. Give up or get it back. It’s a choice

[Graybeard58]

I am truly stunned that this is an issue at all.

A story only to the leftists barking moon bats.

[Slyfox]

You mean to say that there are leftist birthers?

[X-spurt]

Very selective lib birthers.

[OldSmaj]

...is the Canadian-born Cruz constitutionally eligible to run for the White House?

Yes, he is.

And any argument to the contrary is just racist in nature.

See what I did there?

Two can play that silly ass game.

[Rashputin]

At least Canada is on the same continent as the US.

Kenya isn't.

[Nucluside]

I like both of those boys. I agree on the whining, but prayer and whining cessation alone will not beat those bastards. God helps those who help themselves, and helping in this instance means fighting and fighting some more. Both Cruz and Walker will do that. I’m leaning towards Walker now; he’s beaten them in three straight elections in three years on their turf and hasn’t deviated from conservative principles to do it.

The best candidate for 2016 can best be found by nominating the candidate the liberals hate the most, and I think, so far, that it could be Walker.

[Nucluside]

Just took a quick look at the Constitution, and yep, you’re right!

[stanne]

We’d better get used to the fact that the only good nominee will be the one the GOP hates the most.

Not only are they full of contempt for the Constitution and our way of life, and they do not represent Americans, they do not want to win elections.

[MMaschin]

Do you honestly believe that liberal activist judges are going to avoid the argument the way that conservative judges have?


1) The Republicans, and conservative judges avoided the issue out of fear of being called racists, liberal judges do not have that concern.

2) Obama provided a birth certificate showing that he has born in the State of Hawaii.


All a liberal judge has to do is cite SCOTUS precedent of Minor v. Happersett

"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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

So, the court determined that Minor did not become a US Citizen as a result of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, because she was already a citizen, because she was what the Constitution recognized as a "natural-born citizen".

Some argue that the above is not precedent, and was merely dicta, but that is clearly not the case. How is that known? Because the SCOTUS cites that part of the ruling in another case it heard - Ex Parte Lockwood. In Minor the SCOTUS construed the legal term-of-art natural-born Citizen, and in Ex parte Lockwood the Court cites it;

"In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution."

If Cruz does run, I believe there is a 100% chance that a liberal judge will rule him ineligible. They will argue that since Obama was born in Hawaii, and his mom was a Citizen, he fits the definition, but since Cruz was born in Canada, he does not.


The above is not what I want to see happen, but as conservatives we do not have 1) the race card to avoid scrutiny, and 2) the media to bury it's head in the sand. If Cruz runs, and get the nomination, you will first see legal analysts on every liberal news outlet citing the above cases, and declaring him ineligible. And then a liberal judge will rule that yes, he is ineligible.

[MrB]

I think the proper response for any lefty that questions Cruz’ eligibility as a natural born citizen
after defending the guy that’s in there now

would be a simple punch in the mouth.

[DoodleDawg]

I am literally stunned. This cannot be. If obama was born in Kenya (with a US citizen mother) — That is perfectly all right.He was totally illegible and this “birther “nonsense was a joke. What does “Natural Born” mean in Article 2 of the Constitution? Does that mean without Cesarian section? No test tube baby can be president? I am truly stunned that this is an issue at all.

It's not Democrats who are making an issue out of this. It's Republicans, most calling themselves conservatives.

[MMaschin]

It's not Democrats who are making an issue out of this. It's Republicans, most calling themselves conservatives.


Why would the left want to attack Cruz over this issue now? Cruz IS the most likely candidate to win for the Republican. And, he's the one that would do the most damage to Obama's legacy. Because of that, they will sit back and wait, and if Cruz becomes the nominee, then a liberal judge will throw out a "he's not eligible" ruling.

The best way to avoid the above, is to actually have someone challenge Cruz's eligibility, and have a Conservative judge uphold it.

[Godebert]

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Biggest Cover-up in American History