Posted on 07/28/2013 6:13:04 PM PDT by drewh
Sen. Ted Cruz hasn’t said whether he has presidential ambitions, but Sunday he won one of the first straw polls for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
The Texas Republican captured 45 percent of the 504 votes cast by attendees at the Western Conservative Summit, a day after drawing several standing ovations during his luncheon speech at the fourth annual conference.
“We shall see what sort of crystal ball summiteers have in awarding that decisive nod to Sen. Ted Cruz, who was so magnificent from this platform,” said John Andrews, founder of the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, which hosted the event.
Placing second was Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who delivered the keynote address Friday at the three-day summit, with 13 percent of the vote.
Tied for third were Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, and former Rep. Allen B. West, Florida Republican, with 9 percent each. Mr. West was the conference’s featured speaker Sunday, while Mr. Paul received the most votes among those on the ballot who didn’t attend the conference.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Only an idiot would not understand my point. The Congress of the United States DOES HAVE POWER TO DEFINE AND TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION, and of course, this is UNDER THE LAW, so legal authorities matter.
So which is it, are you in FAVOR of the Judicial Supremacy, or are you against it? Let us know when you make up your mind.”
I challenge you to find anything in print, today, which says what you claim. I challenge you to find anything in writing that says there are more than two forms of citizenship.
Because There are only two forms of citizenship:
Natural Born
Naturalized
He simply doesn't grasp the concept. He thinks "Correct" = "a bunch of people agreeing."
Because so and so says so, it makes you wrong! How about thinking?
I think his head is only good for pounding nails. Thinking is beyond it.
BTW, you're wrong on your assumption that all knowledgeable are dead.
There is no point to showing him any of the modern legal authorities which disagree. He's simply too addled to comprehend it.
THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A PARROTT OF VATTEL!
You stated that I was a “simpleton”?
hard time naming even ONE LIVING AUTHRITY on your side?
Variations on a theme, and Yes, you are a simpleton.
He's still going on and on and on in this vein. He's still too simple to grasp the concept of a logical fallacy.
Since you don't understand what is an ad populum fallacy, i'm pretty sure you also don't understand what is a non sequitur.
You simply don't realize that we are laughing at your ignorance and simple-mindedness. Jeff is just a deluded crank, but you are a childish fool. At least you are entertaining. Jeff isn't. He makes you work to refute his lies and misdirection.
Jeff and Kansas58 depicted below.
Actually, we'll quote one of the Greatest Chief Justices of the US Supreme Court who quotes an 18th century Swiss politician.
John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: The Venus - 12 U.S. 253 (1814)
"The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.""The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."
I guess getting people such as yourself to look at uncomfortable facts is like "trying to tell the FReedopers on a pot thread that smoking MJ causes brain damage."
Accepting authority all the time is a sign of deep mental illness. (And extreme stupidity.)
Do you agree with Roe v Wade? If not, then shut up about "legal authority."
Says the guy who worships "Legal Authority", and doesn't know it's a fallacy.
Tell us again about your little false gods.
Here is that cognitive dissonance again. On the one hand you push "legal authority" and on the other you trash it. Make up your mind you kook.
Now we're back to the lunatic rant again. I guess he never heard of George Will. Or Ann Coulter.
And who could blame them for that, really?
I do not blame them. In fact, I agree.
I do not regard Cruz as a "natural born citizen" under the 1787 intended meaning, but I don't see why we should have to follow the rules if the Democrats won't.
Congress via Pelosi declared 0 eligible. The courts did nothing. 0 got away with it setting a new precedent. The precedent will remain until the Courts rule otherwise. We may not like it, but that is how our government works.
As for my being a “birther,” I am a bit surprised to be called one as I have never commented on a “birther” thread. If it makes you feel better to cast aspersions on my character simply due to my stating what has been taught to me repeatedly in school, by all means go for it. It matters not to me.
Do you realize that you just said he is a citizen under the Authority of Congress to make the rules of Naturalization?
If Congress uses their powers of naturalization to make him a citizen, then he is defacto a "naturalized" citizen. Actually, this is exactly what the Supreme Court held in Rogers v Bellei.
Bellei was a naturalized citizen, and so is Cruz. They were naturalized before birth, en masse, and in accordance with a statute passed by Congress which has the authority to do so under the "naturalization" article you cited above.
Once again, the naturalization article says he's a "natural born citizen"? Are you familiar with the term "non sequitur"?
I don't have a statute that makes me a citizen. Neither does anyone else who is a "natural" citizen. We don't need a "naturalization" statute to make us citizens, we are citizens by the laws of nature.
On the one hand, I know you’re right.
On the other hand, I don’t think we can continue to play by more proper rules than the Democrats do.
Did you know that the statute which makes Cruz a citizen has an age requirement for the mother? If the mother is too young, US Citizenship does NOT transfer to her child. Did you know that?
Thank God Ted Cruz's mother was old enough, else he wouldn't be a "natural born citizen".
So tell me, what kind of citizen is someone who's mother is too young for the Congressional law to apply?
Another question. Why would the age of the mother affect the "natural" citizenship of the child?
Exactly what I said. He cites the "naturalization" part of the Constitution to support his claim that someone is "natural born." Cognitive dissonance is rampant on these threads.
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.