Posted on 01/17/2016 8:01:33 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Presidential candidate Donald Trump told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he'll consider filing a lawsuit against Ted Cruz regarding his U.S. citizenship. Trump made the comments after Stephanopoulos asked whether he'd sue.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Do you understand what a margin loan is? Educate yourself, there is a thing called Google.
I don’t want to go here, but since I keep mentioning glass houses, I don’t think it was Cruz supporters who invented a mental illness to diagnose people with who disagreed with their candidate.
Not that anyone should engage in name calling period
What people overlook is that Trump is a competitor and he competes to win and be number 1. We are seeing how a president Trump would fight. If there is one thing to be sure of is that Trump competes to dominate and be on top and he does anything and everything to get there. That is what I want in a president.
Cruz needs to show us how he fights to get on top and to win. That is all that matters at this point. Either candidates would be ok with me. Given the problems this country faces I want to see a president who will fight at any cost to win for the country.
Frankly, senators have never made good presidents. They just make lousy presidents. If Trump wins that is my first choice. If Cruz wins that is ok too. If Cruz wins over Trump that shows he has a superior killer instinct to win and that is all that matters at this point. He will need it against Hillary and then against the world if he becomes president.
And why would a man of Cruz education, talent and knowledge play
second fiddle to a real estate developer/reality star who has
admitted to illegally donating to politicians for favor,
who has used the eminent domain laws to cease property, and
the bankruptcy laws to stick citizens with his debt.
SC, very good!
A potential Cruz defense at SC, IF 0bama is not eligible, should 0bama’s SC appointments be forced to recuse themselves?
she cites English Common Law from 1608 describing a natural born citizen as having that status due to sui juris solis (right of soil) but ignores English Common Law references to by sui juris sanguinis (right of blood). BOTH are present in common law. It is under the latter, that Cruz is a "natural born citizen."
Natural born citizenship is revokable for a number of causes, including the failure of a "by right of blood" Natural Born Citizen to subsequently take up residence within the United States (SCOTUS case Rogers v. Bellei, 1970,1971). Bellei was born in Italy of a US citizen mother, subsequently did not live in the US, then applied for a job at NATO with the US government, but was disqualified because he had lost his US citizenship by failure of residency. Bellei was "denaturalized." Cruz does not have Bellei's problem.
Another issue is dual citizenship. It used to be (When Cruz was a kid) that one could not be firstly a citizen of a different country and subsequently gain citizenship of the US without renouncing the prior citizenship. But was his Canadian citizenship "prior", since he gained natural born citizenship of the US at birth by right of blood (his US citizen mother) , yet by right of soil simultaneously gained Canadian citizenship (since she was temporarily in Canada when she gave birth?
The objection is raised that Cruz' parents had to "register" his birth, but that is an administrative function to give evidence of the birth (pointless for the NB citizenship argument unless someone wants to argue that Ted Cruz was switched at birth and had a Canadian mother). It isn't the registration that grants citizenship, it's the birth, and the Canadian citizenship did not precede the US citizenship. If he was "naturalized," where is the evidence of his swearing loyalty to the United States? When and where did that occur? It doesn't exist, because he had citizenship from birth. The only question is: Is he the son of his mother or not, and is there any grounds in law for revocation?
A lot of the polarization is due to various kinds of puppetry and wishful blog-pimping, I thinks. It doesn't really matter unless it gets out of hand and impacts FR unduly. At which point JR will engage the ban.
Apparently only conservatives care about birth citizenship, so Trump probably can exploit this (and FR!) without impact on the general election. Face it, the RINOs and the media will give Trump a free ride on Cruz birther attacks, and it probably doesn't matter to the general election. If the media play it, it will appear in FR.
Candidates must play an effective game to win the nomination. That's all that matters right now. Frankly the RINO elite is still in apparent control of the convention, so all candidates must flirt with them one way or another. For now.
Just out of curiousity, how is it that you know that? What is the authority for such an opinion?
I support Cruz. Trump has been my second choice. I've defended Trump when he was attacked from the left. I defended Trump against critiques of his Mexico comment, his NJ 9/11 comments, against his blood comment, against Megyn gotcha question...etc.
I won't be doing that anymore. I can't stand him anymore.
Yes recluse. Because all he signed would be null and void. Therefore decision would be made by Scalia Thomas Roberts Alito Kennedy Ginsberg and Breyer.
Shame /s
The iron is hot Time to strike.
I don’t use that term.
If you look at the unbiased posters here, all say that both sides behave badly at times, but outright hatred is shown by the Cruz folks. Threats, insults, and condescension are the norm.
Check this and my response out. A factor I hadn’t considered.
Another billet point in analysis.
There in lies the problem. I see you joined in 2010. Almost every time there is an election it gets real cantankerous here on FR. Years ago some Freepers even got banned.
That’s what I thought. Then why would someone say that about me?
I think theoretically Rush could easily have numbers like that at a rally. He has 15 or 20 million listeners a week and has delivered a conservative pro AmerIca message for almost 30 years. That carries a lot more credibility than 6 or 7 months.
I’d say it’s unsettled enough for it be reviewed.
I wish Cruz would have got this settled before running for President. He is a Constitutional scholar and should have seen all this coming, especially with Hillary and Democrats having this ace in the hole to contest his eligibility.
I find it just so disheartening that we have Hillary with her lies, fraud, felonies committed with her private server, classified information and she won’t be touched or held accountable. There will be no charges from Obama DOJ. I wonder how many Republicans knew about her email address years ago and her private server? Someone had to email her at some point. Boehner? Republicans fell on their sword not letting the bird out of cage on Hillary years ago.
Now here we are, Trump, Cruz attacking one another. Cruz and his finance fiasco, his Canadian citizenship issues.
Once again we have been snookered with the candidates; each has flaws, issues to address that could bring them down.
Hillary gets in- Supreme Court will be filled with more Liberals.
Nobody is talking about revoking Cruz’s citizenship. The only point made by the existence of Rogers v. Bellei is that Cruz, like Bellei, is a naturalized citizen.
The legal doctrine is de facto officer or official.
Yup.
Recall Trump and Cruz had a closed door meeting at Trump tower.
I first bought into the idea Trump would be a rodeo clown, establish the issues all candidates would debate and absorb all MSM shots on behalf of the other candidates.
Now, I am set for never-ending surprises
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.