Posted on 07/24/2013 2:03:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A Marist poll released Wednesday indicates that Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2016, and that there is a very crowded and tight field among Republicans. Yahoo asked voters: Which candidate are you backing and why? Here's one perspective.
COMMENTARY | The latest Marist poll of potential presidential candidates shows a couple of interesting results. First, Hillary Clinton is blowing away other Democrats. Second, the Republicans appear to be bunched up with no clear front runner.
Turning one's attention to the Republican field, one looks upon Ted Cruz, the junior senator from Texas. Hot Air, relying on a piece by Byron York, has a pretty good run down on why Cruz is appealing to conservatives. Writing, though, from this conservative's perspective, the one thing most appealing about Cruz is his lack of nuance, especially on the issues.
Illegal immigration? He's against it. Gun control. He's against that as well. What to do about Obamacare? Repeal it. Taxes? Cut them. Spending? Cut it.
To be sure, there are some details that show that Cruz has a more subtle grasp of the issues. When fighting against the Senate version of the immigration reform bill, Cruz proposed a host of amendments that would loosen legal immigration, both to make illegal immigration less appealing and to attract the sort of immigrants who would benefit the United States.
Cruz was a champion debater at Princeton and is a graduate of Harvard Law, which means that unlike every other Republican from Ronald Reagan to Sarah Palin, he can't be accused of being stupid. He is like fire when on the stump, with the capability of bringing people to their feet without effort, much like Reagan and Palin.....
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Here come the birthers.
I’ll canvass the neighborhoods and be a block captain again for his race should he run.
The only thing about “birthers -” and I am one, ‘cause I don’t think Obama was born here, either that or there is some Big Secret on his birth certificate -
is, the rule has to apply to all, or none.
If we don’t get to see proof positive of Obama’s nativity, I don’t think we should have to see proof positive of anyone else’s.
I want the Constitution to be followed. But not by just half the country.
I am “all in” for Cruz!
I’m a birther. And I’d vote for Cruz for president. So what’s your point?
it’s pretty simple. any republican desiring the conservative party mantle can come to the conservative party convention. but exactly one of them or an independent conservative leaves.
I apologize for the pre-empted strike. It was made out frustration in past postings, my bad.
Cruz is among a few republicans I would love to support for president.
Others are Palin, Lee, Sessions.
I really cannot think of anyone else.
Well, after the ênyan’s presidency, Natural Born, along with the rest of the Constitution is no longer relevant so Cruz has just as much right to be President as anyone else on Earth.
I’m fine with Cruz, although it would be fun watching Hillary stand next to Sarah on a stage.
I’m still not convinced Biden isn’t going to run, and there will be blacks and maybe Hispanics running. Hillary may have a cakewalk to the general election, but not before stepping on a lot of toes.
The Democrat dog and pony show might be more entertaining than the Republican show.
RIGHT! So if the Left uses the Constitution for toilet paper, we should, too. It's only fair.
Do you really think we should ratify the junking of the Constitution? It served us pretty well for a couple of centuries. Are we beyond that now?
CLOSE. ENOUGH.
Wow.
Ted Cruz... President.
Greg Abbot... Governer of Texas.
Wow.
.
Its quite all right. Like you - I have seen FReepers who would REFUSE to vote for Cruz.
I could understand their reasoning. Except the courts have refused to rule Obama is ineligible, so therefore Cruz is most certainly qualified.
Do you really think we should ratify the junking of the Constitution? It served us pretty well for a couple of centuries. Are we beyond that now?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Puh-leaze. Allowing the courts to rule against a certain class of citizenship that only pertains to the president of the US and no one else is not “junking” the Constitution.
I’m a birther but if we don’t get somebody of substance in the Oval Office real soon there won’t be a Constitution to follow or a country to save. I will gladly vote for Cruz if he still looks this good in 2016.
Cruz’s Canadian birth certificate is too controversial and will be a major distraction. It will be like Romney’s mormonism in the previous election.
As much as we would like to think that most people will get past it, the fact is that many never will. The discussion will never end and nobody will change their minds.
Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee have an almost identical voting record. The smart play here is for Rand Paul to run for president and for the other two to stay in the sidelines so as not to divide the vote. Then Cruz can be appointed attorney general and Mike Lee treasury secretary. Just my opinion.
See post 12.
I saw post 12. I replied to post 12.
See post 15.
Now that's funny. I don't care who you are.
It would be kind of hypocritical to knock Barry all this time and then shut up for a similar situation except it's your guy.
OTOH, much of law operates on precedent... and for them to start shouting about it now would open themselves up to attack.
I think on this one the Dems have painted themselves into a corner BUT... the right justifiable prides itself on following the law and the Constitution (even when we get clobbered by a lawless opponent backed up by an equally lawless Justice Department when we do it) so if we stand on consistent principle, Ted's out of it.
I like that.
I want to see the Constitution followed, or lawfully amended.
But we can’t function with just half the country submitting to it. It doesn’t work.
We appear to be at a crossroads. It won’t be neat and clean. I don’t know what to do, frankly.
I don’t care if you don’t give a $hit about the Constitution....Look how well that whole....lets go after him on other issues went.....
With all that, it is pretty clear that the president is not any Citizen at all having taken (by legal proxy) Indonesian citizenship which by Indonesian law requires renunciation of American citizenship followed by no legal reclamation of American citizenship. The man is an Indonesian, not an American. The circumstances of his birth are just an oh-by-the-way to that.
With all that, it is pretty clear that the president is not any Citizen at all having taken (by legal proxy) Indonesian citizenship which by Indonesian law requires renunciation of American citizenship, followed by no legal reclamation of American citizenship. The man is an Indonesian, not an American. The circumstances of his birth are just an oh-by-the-way to that.
It appears to me the only way this is going to be resolved in case such as Cruz and Rubio and Jindal is for the SCOTUS to accept a case...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I dunno. By SCOTUS remaining silent on hundreds of lower court rulings, does that not send a clear signal that Obama is eligible?
I don’t think we need a new Amendment reversing the NBC clause of the Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling. The lower courts have ruled; the precedent is set. Therefore....
Ted Cruz - 2016
Disagree. Just because the bad guys got away with defecating on the constitution, doesn’t mean that we should.
Cruz is not NBC. Let him be Secretary of State.
Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly.
I believe there was a question about the mother’s age when he was born that puts his citizenship in question
It would be nice to have a president with class
I take that I am a ‘birther’. I am a firm believer that once precedent is established there is a hole in the dike,so to speak, that destroys the land and the Nation’s foundation. That I will not compromise in light of my WWII service and the death of my only brother on Okinawa. Obama has obfuscated with the help of enablers his credentials for POTUSA eligibility. His is not a case of having a solid verified claim for eligibility. The important first effort is to tear away his shroud of covering and maintain what The Constitution intended for eligibility. Cruz has no such shroud which is to his credit. As far as I believe now he is a true patriot dedicated to our Constitution. However, as for me he is by nature of birth not to the standards the Founders intended in the Constitution for POTUSA.
Canadian / American wants to be president of the US
seems legit
The Proper solution is a Congressional Act. The wording of the Constitutional provision seems to call for such an act at an appropriate time.
Nope. We have better options than Cruz, folks who are actually eligible. This is just as much a waste of time as it was holding out for Palin when she never announced that she would ever run in 2012.
Well said sir.
If he ran, I would work tirelessly to push him to victory. After Rubio’s downfall, he’s really a contender, since there is no clear favorite right now among the RINOS and Rand Paul who will inherit his father’s base and grow it. I could support Rand in the general enthusiastically, but some of his actions would make me go solidly Cruz in the primary fight. This man is in the mold of the Founders, and I don’t say that lightly.
Cruz would help a ticket immensely as a VP too. He wouldn’t be weak lemonade like Paul Ryan.
Although Cruz looks pretty good right now, isn’t it a bit early to decide who to give the nomination to? I’m waiting for the GOP Establishment and MSM to tell me who is most electable first.
There is no way the rats wouldn’t filibuster nominations like that... oh wait, didn’t they just remove the teeth from the filibuster? I can’t wait to hear Harry do a 180 (though by this point, he’ll likely be on his deathbed).
Well, it’s either Jeb Bush or Krispy Kreme. Because they’re so conservative, and they’ll appeal to Democrats, you see.
/sarc
I dunno. By SCOTUS remaining silent on hundreds of lower court rulings,
i could go for that too
You called?
Yes, I've got deep concerns about Ted's constitutional eligibility to hold the office, despite the fact that he's the finest American I've seen rise to the Senate in too many years to count.
In my heart, I know that he's exactly the kind of American the Framers intended to hold that office. They wrote Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 the way they did, as a protection against those with divided loyalties holding the office.
But it was only ever intended as a preventative measure. There's no way to look into anyone's heart and know for a fact how loyal they'll be to the people and to the Constitution.
If they were here today, I think they'd examine Ted Cruz and judge him to be cut from the right sort of cloth to be our CIC.
I wouldn't say he's 'qualified' (constitutionally speaking), but after Obama, I'd say he'd probably be allowed.
That won't stop the left from making a stink over his place of birth, though. Watch them go into full blown birther mode if he becomes our nominee.
Can't fault your logic, GG. Can't fault it at all.
Arthurus, ignorance of the law is no defense. Ridicule is an obvious Alinsky tactic, now being used by people to suppress the law, along with the truth. Congress does not have the authority to interpret the Constitution. If we have already sufficiently depreciated the Constitution that it is whatever the media decides it should be, then let's make Prince Alwaleed bin-Talal president. He went to school here (in Menlo Park California), and funded Obama’s education, exercises control of editorial policy for News Corp’s WSJ and FOX news, and was a major beneficiary of TARP through his enormous investments in Citibank, AIG, Twitter, .... That should be enough to render him eligible, and that way he can work with his brother in the Muslim Brotherhood, John Brennan, converted to Wahhabi Islam while CIA Station Chief in Riyadh, now our CIA director, and with Muslim brotherhood members and supporters positioned throughout our government, like CPAC Executives Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, Grover who hasn't admitted to having joined his Muslim wife, and Khan whose father is a founder of ISNA, Muslim Brotherhood and sworn to Jihad to impose Sharia replacing our Constitution, and to work for the resurgent Caliphate.
There are no definitions in the Constitution but there are dozens of Supreme Court Cases, including the often misrepresented Wong Kim Ark, Wong Kim having the same citizenship status as Obama, and as Obama himself attested, a naturalized citizen. Wong Kim was born in San Francisco to “domiciled” parents, parents whose established home was San Francisco.
Obama was born a British Subject. There can be no argument. He told us so, and that is the law. His father was a British subject. Cruz’ father was a Canadian citizen when Ted was born. Rubio’s father was a Cuban citizen. Jindal’s parents were Indian when he was born. Why do you think the Republican “mainstream” is floating naturalized citizens? They want to silence the backlash when the historical truth is finally absorbed by enough citizens with the patience to read a bit and realize they have been conned by Republicans, complicit with Democrats who had too good an opportunity with the photogenic leftist teleprompter reader.
From the April 2008 hearing on Senate Resolution 511, to pretend that McCain was a natural born citizen:
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”
The Resolution to cloud the issue of McCain's ineligibility the Democrats first tried to pass a law, Senate Bill 2678, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’ Clearly McCain was born to citizen parents, and SB 2678 inaccurately claimed to amend the precedent established in Minor v. Happersett, to make McCain a Natural Born Citizen. Why was this important? Because the bill, sponsored by Obama and his campaign co-chair Senator Clare McCaskill, would have silenced the lawyers in the Senate who, had they an attractive candidate, should have challenged Obama’s eligibility, just as Democrats promised to challenge Charles Evans Hughes’ eligibility, form justice of the Supreme Court running against Woodrow Wilson.
This is the law, nothing to do with birth certificates, as decided by Chief Justice Morrison Waite:
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.
The apparently tortured mention of “aliens or foreigners” has to do with the objective of the case. Before the 14th Amendment the Constitution didn't define who were citizens, just natural born citizens, because of differences between states in their naturalization laws. Black people were made citizens in some states and residents in others. American Indians, “not taxed” were not made citizens, though certainly born on our soil.
For anyone who claims that that the 14th Amendment, the “naturalization amendment”, changed all that, here are the words of the principal author of the 14th Amendment, Congressman and judge John Bingham:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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….
Ted Cruz has chosen to play the game being managed by power brokers from both parties. He knows the truth and avoids it. He cannot be trusted to preserve and protect the Constitution. If you don't think Hillary will challenge his eligibility were he to be the candidate, you don't understand hardball politics. Trust our framers and custodians of the law. No court besides the Supreme Court can reject the interpretations, including the positive law - because the definition was essential to the decision regarding Virginia Minor's case - enshrined in Minor v. Happersett.
Most citizens are natural born citizens. Ask yourself why our “leaders” parade only naturalized citizens as saviors of the Republican party. We have Susanne Martinez, Michelle Bachman, Alan West, John Thune, ... The obscurity of the intent of framers, of original interpretation, of Supreme Court cases mangled to prevent searches on Minor v. Happersett by operatives of The Center for American Progress with help from Google, Tim Stanley, the CEO of Justia.com and Karl Malamud, CIO for Soros’ Center for American Progress, corrupted on line versions of twenty six supreme court cases containing citations to Minor v. Happersett during the Summer of 2008, only returning to the correct versions after they were discovered in 2010.
A look at the corruption in the IRS shows why our supposed pundits have remained silent. The few who stuck their necks out, Congressman Nathan Deal, who had his tax records perused when he wrote a letter asking for confirmation of Obama’s eligibility, and was charged with ethics violation. Lou Dobbs honestly asked questions and was quickly removed from CNN. Mark Levin won't sacrifice his family's security by even discussing our history. Hillsdale College assiduously avoids John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, Minor v. Happersett, Dr. David Ramsay, our first congressional historian and president during the Continental Congress, Wong Kim Ark's decision, written by the justice, Horace Gray, appointed by our only other ineligible resident of the White House, Chester Arthur.
If Sarah Palin starts a third party, count me in. I would rather be governed by honest leftists, as Obama has never claimed to be a natural born citizen and openly described his disdain for the Constitution. Then we citizens, if we assume voting still has any relevance, can make choices. Cruz, Rubio and Jindal have all evaded the discussion, and the Obama appointees have refused to recuse themselves when cases are assessed for suitability for hearing by the full court. In our lifetimes the Supreme Court will not clarify the definition. But the record is clear that this government is illegitimate, and Cruz’ willingness to lie makes him less trustworthy than Obama’s comrades.
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.