No question Ted Cruz is eligible to be president

The Bryan-College Station Eagle ^ | January 10, 2016 | The Editorial Board

[RginTN]

Settled law situationally applied

[nopardons]

Thanks for the link; I had missed that thread and it's an interesting one.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't work for the government in any capacity, but I have read the Constitution, the FEDERALIST AND ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPERS and know someone who became a Naturalized citizen 10 years ago. Yes, the last bit IS important!

Ten years ago, the man I spoke of, was about to take the test to become a citizen ( which he passed with flying colors...Acing it ), his wife ( a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE USA ) was preggers at the time and he told me that now his son ( yes, they knew the sex of the baby before he was born ) could now become the president, IF he wanted to. And he told me ( read it to me, actually, over the phone ) what his study guide stated.

Now, this is FROM THE GOVERNMENT ! I haven't heard of any changes, yet somehow or other, Obama was allowed to break this law. I talked about this very thing, when he was in the Dem primaries, so this is NOT something "new" to me. Again, I learned about this 10 years ago, which is even before Obama even thought about running for president.

[Read Write Repeat]

I can’t believe I’m posting this, but George Romney’s parents were both US citizens, while Obama’s father definitely wasn’t a US citizen.

[jonrick46]

Did Sarah Palin think the barrage of ethical hits were wet dreams? The Democrats know their tactics well. If Senator Cruz does get the nomination, I worry. They will push the eligibility button and things will go boom. I don’t even think he will run against der Hildebeast because I think her indictment will end her campaign. The Democrats will try to destroy Senator Cruz with the eligibility question without a doubt. Trump will not have a thing to do with it. All he has done is warn his friend Ted. The warning is significant.

[nopardons]

You need to stop calling people names; you silly child.

It's a poll and many months out from the general debate and the election.

There is absolutely NO way that should Cruz get the nomination, that he can beat Hillary in the debates.

Cruz does NOT and shall NOT get the crossover nor the black votes that Trump has now; let alone the increase of that as time goes on. There is a very good chance that Trump can win N.Y. State in the general, election, which Cruz can't, under any circumstances. And that's not the only blue or purple state that are pretty sure bets that Trump will get. N.Y. is a HUGE "prize", which just about guarantee a DEM loss in the general!

It's way past time for you to face reality and stop being delusional!

I don't blame you for being excited about your choice; however, reality is what it is and you need to face that.

[jonrick46]

I researched it about 10 years ago too. I looked into Zer0’s political ties and everything. How the American people missed all the clues is unbelievable. It is the same thing they are missing about Senator Cruz’s eligibility. This is a serious situation and The Donald was correct to warn his friend, Ted about it. And, I am correct to portray it as a warning from a friend, because I believe Ted and Donald are friends.

[nopardons]

I agree !

[jonrick46]

Goodnight! Must get rest for the Seahawks game at 10 AM.

[SmokingJoe]

You need to stop calling people names; you silly child.

Awwwwwww. Are your feelings hurt Trumpbot?

It's a poll and many months out from the general debate and the election.

Yes. Cruz's numbers will only go higher. Since the debates started,Cruz's numbers have been going higher and higher. The more voters get to know Ted Cruz, the more they like him. The Gallup poll yesterday had Ted Cruz with the highest likability amongst voters, far ahead of Trump. Everyone knows Trump, and the general electorate don't much like what they see, a loud, nasty, evil tempered boastful creep of the highest order.

[sten]

keep repeating it... maybe people will start to believe it.

meanwhile, for those engulfed in the smoke, try to remember WHY the Founders used that exact phrase. it was only used ONCE for a single position... that of the President.

Their main concern was to insure no foreign king could ever take office. Additionally, they wanted to insure against split allegiances, at least by birth. some try to say being born with citizenship makes the person a natural born citizen... but that wouldn’t exclude foreign kings.

what to do. well, a book called ‘the law of nations’ was published in 1758. this was available to the Founders at the time of the writing of the Constitution. of interest:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
(In book one chapter 19 § 212)

and there you have it. excluding foreign kings while insuring no split allegiances. a common definition well known at the time of the writing.

now, you may ask why all the confusion if such a straight forward answer can be had. that’s simple. power and money.

many people want to see ‘their guy’ win the nomination and maybe the white house. others hope certain candidates will take the nomination so they can have him disqualified just before the election. don’t be fooled.

we already disregarded the Constitutional requirement once. do you think doing so again will improve things?

[Springfield Reformer]

I was in the thick of those birther wars, and there were several different schools of thought. One was as you say, that place mattered. This was pushed by the group that viewed birth under US jurisdiction as a requirement of NBC. Another school of thought was transference by parentage alone, in which there were two subdivisions, the one-citizen-parent and the two-citizen-parent varieties.

I started out in the two-citizen parent AND must be born under US jurisdiction camp. Eventually I realized that the Founders and the case law were all reacting to a core distinction between natural versus artificial creation of citizenship status, and that this distinction rested on a principle of natural law, that one who is a citizen by any means has a natural right to pass that along to their child. I further realized that Vattel and the Founders and all the case law following could neither create nor destroy said right, but could do a better or a worse job recognizing it.

For example, we also say the right of self-defense is a natural right, such that no statute, nor even the mutilation of our Constitution by some radically leftist administration, could ever extinguish it, because natural rights are God-given, not man-made. If Hillary was president and tried to deny us our Second Amenment rights, and got the Constitution changed to make it stick, would we settle for that? Why not?  It would be settled law. Like Dred Scott. Or Roe v Wade.  Or Kelo. Or Obergfel.

But true conservatives don't accept as settled law any law that goes against natural law. At least that's what I think of as being conservative. We aren't conserving old law just because it's old.  We conserve what we do because we believe it is right, and we work to change the law when it get's off track. We can do that because we are the inheritors of the Judeo-Christian tradition that informs our understanding that there is a law higher than man's, and it cannot be successfully or finally contradicted, but in the end will always prevail.

Which is why I don't understand all the FReeper debate on this topic. Of all people who should be lining up behind a natural rights understanding of citizenship, I would think conservatives, if for no other reason but to be consistent, would stand behind Cruz's claim to be qualified. Because even if US law botched it up for decades or centuries, the natural right to pass citizenship from parent to child, such that the Constitution could recognize that virtually any second generation American citizen could rise to be Commander in Chief, is the view most consistent with the natural law underpinnings of the American system, and so the most conservative view.

But as someone else was pointing out, folks have made commitments, and are deeply invested in their particular view of Obama's qualifications (or lack thereof), and probably feel
that to be consistent, they have to impose their view on Cruz. I believe that is an error. Cruz is unquestionably qualified to be president, and would be found so and rather quickly if anyone can be found who has standing to bring the challenge to SCOTUS.

Peace,

SR

[SmokingJoe]

Did Sarah Palin think the barrage of ethical hits were wet dreams?

Wrong question. Right question: Did all the birthirism and lawsuits against Barack Obama over his birth get anywhere? Nope. The courts wouldn't even countenance it. So far challenges to Ted Cruz over his birth in liberal New Hampshire, went exactly nowhere. It was rejected out of hand.LOL!
And oh, Ted Cruz is no Sarah Palin. He knows the constitution probably more than almost anyone else, certainly knows the constitution a heck of a lot more than some loudmouth called Trump.

[nopardons]

Goodnight....must get some rest before tomorrow’s rally and thread !

[jonrick46]

I am talking about the Beast Mode that the Democrats are capable of playing. I used the Sarah Palin episode to remind you that it is how Democrats play the game. The Republicans were wimps when it came to Zer0 eligibility. The Democrats will go Beast Mode against Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz’s eligibility. Take that to the bank.

[nopardons]

No, you can't "hurt my feelings"; I'm attempting to get you to act like an adult, instead of a high, slum living, backward 15 year old, is all.

Okay, you wanna play the poll game?

Cruz is ONLY winning in Iowa or tied with Trump there;. otherwise he is doing abominably. And in the general, he isn't doing all that well either. Psssssssssssssssssssst..."likability" counts for diddly, kid, especially in this election.

Nobody, but NOBODY, can touch Trump, in ANY poll, when they are asked who can do best with jobs, the economy, the military, fighting ISIS et al, protecting gun rights, and more. He runs away with with many tens of points higher than any other candidate.

And Trump's popularity grows and grows by the day. He only rises in the polls.

So read this and weep and then toddle off to bedy byes like a good child.

[Josh Painter]

Bush41’s presidential library is on the campus, and Rick Perry is a Texas A&M almmus, but Aggieland is clearly Cruz Country.

Gig ‘Em

= JP

[lewislynn]

The Bryan-College Station Eagle = The Editorial Board

LOL! Is this the conservative constitutionalist's legal team?

[2ndDivisionVet]

An old acquaintance of mine from Iowa is the education director at that library.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Ted Cruz’s Surge is Real: Now Leads in California
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3380276/posts

[SmokingJoe]

‘m attempting to get you to act like an adult

Trumpbots are like children. You gotta talk to them at their own level. When I see an adult, I will talk to them in Adultspeak.

Cruz is ONLY winning in Iowa or tied with Trump there;.

Cruz is beating Trump in Iowa in the RCP average and in yesterday's Fox poll, Cruz increased his lead over Trump in Iowa and Trump's numbers actually went down.

otherwise he is doing abominably.

Cruz is doing pretty well actually.

And in the general, he isn't doing all that well either.

Cruz is doing a heck of a lot better against Hilary Clinton in the general than Trump is. And Trump has close to 100% name recognition and has like 90% of the media coverage. He has no upside. Cruz has lots of upside.