Rick Santorum: Ted Cruz 'Misinforming The Public' Saying 'Natural Born' Citizen Issue 'Settled Law'

Breitbart ^ | 13 Jan 2016 | Alex Swoyer

[Red Steel]

GOP presidential candidate former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum says that fellow GOP candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is "misinforming the public" about him being a "natural born" citizen and eligible to run for President of the United States.

The Des Moines Register's politics reporter Jennifer Jacobs posted on Twitter:

Ted Cruz is "misinforming the public" by saying "natural born" issue is "settled law," Rick Santorum says in Iowa. Supreme Court must rule. -Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) January 13, 2016

[biff]

Do not forget about Rubio, he is an anchor baby, the child of two non-citizens. Oh, forgot, does anybody here know he is already fighting his own eligibility case in Florida?

[Ray76]

As I pointed out, the parents can apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA). According to the article you've linked, they did apply for a CRBA and it was given.

[BlackElk]

Obama has similar concerns with an identical non-existent level of integrity and intellect.

[BruinX66]

Serious question for Cruz supporters. Can you tell us who is conservative to you? It seems that your’e picking fights against regions of the country, and against anyone who criticizes Cruz. Who will be left after you’ve criticized nearly everyone not named Cruz? Stunning how far things have gone in just 2 weeks

[DouglasKC]

Nothing is settled law when Democrats are intent on retaining power. That’s the whole point.

Exactly. I'm a Cruz fan but he's NOT going to get a pass on this. Nobody is going to pass a resolution ala McCain that he is qualified. The media isn't going to smear "birthers" as nut jobs as they did with Obama. Judges aren't going to dismiss suits. It will be the full force of both parties going against Cruz and using every means at their disposal to get him disqualified.

[Dstorm]

Many in the Military married foreigners and had children born abroad. I’m sure I could find clever wordsmiths who would paint anyone opposed as Anti-Military. This is the world we live in, it may not be fair and it may not conform to your interpretation, but I would be trying to influence jellyfish politicians, not keyboard constitution experts. How do you think they would come down on this issue?

[DouglasKC]

But the real kicker is this. Say you get a live case, someone with standing, and SCOTUS decides to hear it. Even if the court were stacked with nine conservatives and original intent and sound historical analysis were used to decide the question, there is almost zero probability the court would find him unqualified. But modern jurisprudence, especially the recent Nguyen case (2001), is breaking in favor of a simple two-category sense, where naturalization can only happen after birth, not at birth, with the default result that anyone not naturalized will be consider natural born.

And there's no way that certain provisions of Obamacare could be constitutional either. Yet all it too was the tortured logic of one blackmailed/bribed judge to make it so...

[Squeako]

I honestly think it’s really just a handful of posters. The unfortunate thing is they spam every single article so it’s almost pointless to read the responses until the general election.

[Springfield Reformer]

The Obamacare case is different. Among other things, it is an outgrowth of a systematic abuse of the Commerce Clause that has been going on for a very long time. Whereas some of the best arguments for the NBC status of Ted Cruz derive from the 1790 Naturalization Act, which was created under the direct supervision of the framers of the Constitution. There’s really no comparison.

Peace,

SR

[Squeako]

You can't define conservative principles? If you want to define those as "Republican" principles, you can range from Pete King (NY) or Mitt Romney all the way to Jeff Sessions (AL).

I think you'd be hard pressed to say Pete King and Mitt Romney are conservative compared to Jeff Sessions or Ted Cruz.

[BlackElk]

Ted Cruz is and always has been a Republican and a conservative. On that basis, he seeks the presidency. The Donald is a late-breaking opportunist primarily on the matter of immigration. Single issue obsessives are still sticking with him in spite of a decidedly non-conservative track record but his political harem are not subject to turning because well, the wall, and that's all! And he talks dirty like a real New Yawker, speaking of childish and really annoying.

Just to review the bidding: As owner of the Miss Universe contest, the Donald insisted on allowing a "transgender" contestant. Trump opposed the Partial Birth Abortion ban but now calls himself a "pro-lifer." What has he DONE about it? Immensely wealthy as he is, has he given material support to the pro-life movement? Is it that hard for him to write a check? Mitch McConnell and Rahm Emmanuel have not noticed. He said in 2015 that his militant pro-abortion sister, a federal district court judge, would be a "phenomenal" appointment to SCOTUS. Shall we go on? Anyone unquestioning in support of Trump for the nomination AND calling him/herself a conservative must be at least confused if not deaf and blind though not dumb.

[Springfield Reformer]

I am sorry, but no, it is disrespectful to those trying to follow a line of argument, as I have done myself many times. If you say things that seem to need refutation or response, and it is to your statement I am responding, then to you I will respond. Again, if you think at any point I go over the edge of proper public discourse, ping the moderator. I will try to keep it to a minimum.

Peace,

SR

[Cboldt]

I want to add a few more remarks, along the lines of our PM exchange. My contempt for you is limited to a chatroom forum. As a person, I love you, as the Bible teaches us to love our fellow man. You and I likely agree on many things, and almost certainly agree on matters of importance. I do not want you to think that my contempt is toward you as a person, it is not. I believe that should we ever meet in person, it would be a time of fun, sometimes spirited disagreement, but nothing so important that we would distance ourselves. And when we meet in the hereafter, we will laugh about our earthly concerns.

[beandog]

I have been gone from FR for a while due to some personal issues. I’m shocked to come back and find what appears to be the majority of FR’s supporting Trump over Cruz. Has FR been taken over by liberals while I was gone?

[Springfield Reformer]

I appreciate your effort to make this less painful, but “contempt” is a word I would not use of any person made in the image of God. If you dislike my ideas, why can you not direct your ire to the specific ideas that you don’t like? It would be an easy way to make the conversation healthier and more productive.

Peace,

SR

[Cboldt]

I have never pinged the moderator on a fellow poster, and doubt I ever will. Do as you feel you must. I have made my reasonable request, and you are free to disrespect it.

[Cboldt]

I do not want to have a conversation with you. I don’t know how to make that more clear. We’ve exhausted this argument. It is complete, finished.

[frog in a pot]

However...[Cruz] had better resolve this issue...

Ordinarily, I would agree. Assuming the issue will only be resolved by the USSC, then we must be very concerned about the quality and fullness of the arguments presented to the court as well as the political mood of the court.

When I say fullness of the arguments, that would include the fact that what distinguishes the president's qualifications from that of all other politicians is the fact that office alone serves as the supreme commander-in-chief of the nation's armed forces.

Jay and others at the time, of course, knew full well that our nation required a CIC that was not obligated in the slightest to another sovereign by dint of parental ancestry. For them NBC was not an issue, just as the difference between the colors red and blue is not an issue for us.

IMHO, the political mood of the present court, which is one vote from castrating the 2dA, is not the court to consider and decide the issue. The court must consider what the ratifiers intended, not what subsequent lower courts may have opined or said in passing, or what any legislative action short of a constitutional amendment may have accomplished.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.

I’d love to support either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump for POTUS ... and I’m a staunch Ted Cruz campaigner.

Why ?

We all want a BIG Wall with Mexico.

We all want to cancel ObamaCare.

We all want to scrap the Iran Deal.

We all want to rebuild the U.S. Military.

We all want to ship Syrian Islamic Terrorist Refugees back to the Middle East.

We all want to protect the Second Amendment.

We all want to fix the Veteran’s Admin health care system.

We all want to delete Common Core.

We all want to exterminate ISIS.

We all want to stop Islamic Visas into America until we get a better handle on accurate screening processes.

Need I continue ?

The acrimony between political camps at Free Republic is downright assinine (sp) and stupid.

How about we just let the Iowa and New Hampshire voters do their primaries ?

Thank GOD that neither Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney or John Kasisch will win ANY 2016 GOP state primaries.

.

[lodi90]

Ted Cruz is and always has been a Republican and a conservative. On that basis, he seeks the presidency.

---

How many babies has Ted Cruz saved? None.

He is a Republican and a careerist politican. How conservative he is depends on the issue at hand and what his donor wants. No “solid conservative” would ever campaign for Barack Obama as Ted Cruz has.

So it seems to me your support for him is not based on conservatism but rather religion. That is your choice. Good day.