Posted on 03/24/2015 1:46:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I love Ted Cruz. That’s all that matters.
I'm all for pushing them into no-win positions; for example, I'd love to see a challenge of the ACA claiming it violates the same constitutional right to [medical] privacy
that Roe v. Wade used to justify abortion-on-demand — make the court sacrifice abortion to keep healthcare, or healthcare to keep abortion.
Ted and his supporters are going to have to repeal, rollback, rescind everything zero’s done on our own, manually, one by one, based on the constitution.
I agree that there's a lot that needs rolled back, repealed, and rescinded… but that's going to be difficult, just look at how the Republican and Democrat parties as-a-whole generally agree (the lack of a hammer-of-justice falling on the NSA for the domestic-espionage or the IRS for its political targeting corruption or the absolutely contraconstitutional raison d'être of the BATFE).
>> Is there anything in my explanation of how a conservative could “be considered anti-Cruz” which was untrue or misleading?
>
> Because the man was a natural born citizen at his birth by virtue of his mother’s citizenship,i.e. he was born a citizen of America.
> There is no reason for a conservative or anyone else for that matter to be anti-Cruz on that basis, and I am really sick of hearing about it.
Non sequitur.
And besides, there is a reasonable basis for considering it
— Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212.
— Perkins v. Elg. 307 U.S. 325 (1939).
— Congressman and Judge John Bingham (a framer of the 14th Amendment)
The lattermost said this in the definition entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866 during the discussion concerning the 14th Amendment:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
None of that makes the Obama Cruz analogy anything other than absurd...which was Rush’ point.
That’s great.
Seeing as how Mr. Cruz was never naturalized, but certainly met the qualification to be a senator, which is to be an american citizen, then how exactly did he get his citizenship?
The answer is he got it when he was born, by virtue of his mother’s citizenship, otherwise he would not even qualify to be a senator, unless of course he had been naturalized, which he hasn’t.
So go tell that shit to someone who gives a damn, bud, because it sure ain’t me.
Excellently.
I can say that getting my computer science degree certainly helped in being able to understand the importance of definitions, scope, and in following reasoning paths, in addition it didn't push absolute crap on me which, if we're honest, any legal school has in its own interest: given the disparity between government-as-it-is and what-the-constitution-says it's in their interest to adhere to the idea that precedent is king and encourage that insidious thought that the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it does.
conservativejustice said this:
So, apparently it's fine to justify enacting law under the commerce clause that doesn't have anything directly to do with commerce. (Under this reasoning Congress could pass a law forbidding you from raising a garden because many people gardening would substantially affect interstate commerce
[to wit, groceries].)
And that's considered conservative?
Okay, got it now...u be a paul bot.
Raich? Really? Pothead much?
Naturalization can be a product of birth.
Indeed, take a look at congressional acts conferring citizenship: the only power congress has WRT citizenship is that of naturalization, so any federal law touching on this MUST be under that power.
Upthread, someone posted that Cruz himself appealed to such [federal] law, which as shown above, makes the claim that he is natural born inconsistent/self-contradictory.
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.IOW, he said exactly the same thing I did — does that make him a pothead/paul-bot?
My point was you tried to pass Raich off as some kind of home gardening thing, you know, like for vegetables.
I’m not saying I agree with the decision, but I am standing by the fact that it’s very very thin in the scope of this argument, and totally not relevant in fact.
No, it doesn’t.
If a person is born with American citizenship, then he is a natural born citizen.
He wasn’t born with some lesser version of citizenship.
He was either born a citizen or he was not.
I’m not going to tell anyone that was an American citizen at their birth that they do not have the right to be president.
I actually wasn't trying to equate pot-growing with gardening; but the regulation of gardening did spring to mind more from the fact that my parents and grandparents do a nice chunk of gardening (I've done a bit, but usually logistics don't permit it for me).
I’m not saying I agree with the decision, but I am standing by the fact that it’s very very thin in the scope of this argument, and totally not relevant in fact.
This argument, right now was you essentially asserting that my opinion on law was irrelevant due (a) to lack of education, and (b) that any education I had wouldn't stack against the credentials of Cruz/Dershowitz (Harvard/Yale, which produced all the current justices); but I have an education, one heavily dependent on understanding definitions and following logical reasoning, that addresses (a) and to address (b) I had to show that Harvard/Yale doesn't [of necessity] produce good reasoning {Raich, King, Kelo, and ACA all present huge failings on the underlying reasoning, and TTBOMK are still considered good law
}.
And my point is (typing very slowly) is that ALL these people, who disagree on a lot, all agree Cruz is eligible. Period.
Logic? Reason? don’t expect one wing to understand......
This is incorrect — In fact, here's a naturalization act (Immigration and Nationality Act
) that does so; Chapter 1 is titled nationality at birth and by collective naturalization and has a section [305] persons born in Hawaii. These are obviously being naturalized, and it is making birth the qualifying factor.
And my point is that they’re appealing to laws whose citizenship powers derive from naturalization.
Forgot the link: http://www.immigration-usa.com/ina_96_title_3.html
A citizen is a citizen. Cruz is a citizen. He is over 35 years old. Period. End of discussion.
> A citizen is a citizen. Cruz is a citizen. He is over 35 years old. Period. End of discussion.
And here it is; you make the constitution’s requirement of no effect.
No, you are being too cute by half - trying to prove your own brilliance by seeing what others do not see. You are over complicating it on purpose.
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.