Sen. Ted Cruz Triumphs in 2016 Presidential Straw Poll: Wins Early GOP Vote Over Walker, Paul

Washington TImes ^ | 5 minutes ago | By Matthew Patane

[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.

[Kansas58]

No matter what the Founding Fathers had in mind, we KNOW that what they put to paper, in the form of the Constitution, does NOT require what the Birthers claim.
It is entirely possible that SOMEONE among the Founders might have sympathy with the Birther theory, but NONE of them ever reduced those feelings to writing.
And, as Justice Scalia says, the Founders did NOT “speak in code”. They wrote in such a way that they would be understood, even by those with little formal education.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at Birth and nothing else.

[Kansas58]

Wrong! The difference is only that a person who does not have birthright Citizenship is NOT eligible.

“The Framers in Article II distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”. The first Congress, many members of which were Framers, in the Naturalization Act of 1790 distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”.

[Jeff Winston]

I have made no false accusations, JW.

Of course you have, GBA.

You falsely accused me of lying, and of "selective editing."

The fact is, I've done as much as anyone to put the entire discussion into accurate context, and FAR more than birthers, who only selectively quote the things they think they can use to make their case, and throw away a wealth of material from the most credible sources.

If you don't think "false accuser" fits your character or who you want to be, then you need to take a step back and reassess, because it is an accurate description of your behavior.

...along with what I was taught in school and the logic of how the related concepts apply to real life, so anyone can see them, if they want to.

You have a theory. It's a nice sounding theory. In theory, it makes sense.

But it simply doesn't match our history and our law.

You don't do history by theory. You or I or some liberal can come up with any theory we like. Doesn't it sound good to say the Founding Fathers didn't want anyone in America to go hungry?

You do history, including the history of law, by looking at what actually happened, and what people said and did.

You don't start with some theory, and then try to cram the historical record into that. You start with the historical record. And the historical record will TELL you the correct theory, or the correct framework of ideas.

You and your clan like to say that anyone born here is an American NBC.

Your clan also likes to say that a child born anywhere in the world is also a American NBC as long as one of that child's bio-parents is American. Either parent, doesn't matter which.

I am only telling you what the FOUNDING GENERATION and ALL of our early legal experts ACTUALLY SAID.

The best legal minds of early America were crystal clear.

If you're born in America, it doesn't matter whether your parents are US citizens or aliens. You are a natural born citizen.

And if you're born a US citizen overseas because your parents were US citizens, it doesn't matter that you were born overseas. You are a natural born citizen, and you are eligible to be elected President.

That's what the best legal minds of the early United States, who knew our Founding Generation, many of whom knew major Founders personally, and who were in the absolute best position to KNOW what the Founders and Framers intended, have to say about the issue.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what the FFs had in mind. All inclusive, we take anybody, rather than an exclusive position limited to the highest quality citizenship, for the single most powerful office in charge of the Armed Forces.

No. We obviously DON'T take "anybody."

We take anybody WHO WAS BORN A UNITED STATES CITIZEN. Who did not have to acquire his or her US citizenship after birth, through a separate naturalization process.

And this is a restriction that many other countries don't have. You don't have to be a natural born citizen, for example, to become President or Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria, India, or Russia.

And these are major countries.

[little jeremiah]

I think it would be wise to stop beating that horse.

What’s important is Constitutional principles and the rule of law. Even if our guy who’s great is not eligible, that’s the truth.

Bending the rules for “our guy” means they’ll BREAK the rules (and they have!) for their fiends.

What’s sauce for the goose is or should be sauce for the gander.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"If only I knew how to play a guitar..."

I can do "Iron Man," "Smoke on the Water" and Jesse's Girl." Do those count? Sorry to hear about your axe getting ripped off. Sounds like a real gem.

[GBA]

Works for me! Thanks about the LP. It was a late 70s wine red Deluxe, not as nice as the black beauty LP Customs the people I was (sorta) playing with at the time had, but I liked and took it everywhere, overseas, you name it.

Sucks to lose a friend like that, but life has been full of such disappointments. Bad early choices, sins of the fathers, etc. meant some bad karma, I guess.

Anyway, I figured I had to buy one like my friends had while I still could. Now I wish I hadn't waited so long. Oh well, Gibson doesn't exactly give them away. Nicest playing guitar I've ever held, even with the satanic serial number. If one comes your way, buy it!

[DiogenesLamp]

This is an example of Jeff's Intellectual dishonesty. On the one hand, Jeff claims that an offhand comment by John Marshall regarding Bayard's book has GREAT SIGNIFICANCE.

Jeff writes about John Marshall referring to Bayard's book:
Chief Justice Marshall added,

"With this exception, I do not recollect a single statement in your book which is not, in my judgment, entirely just."

We can therefore add Chief Justice John Marshall to the long, long list of genuine Justices and other legal authorities who refute the birther BS that it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen.

.

.

But on the other hand, According to Jeff, the opinion of John Marshall DURING A TRIAL is irrelevant.

Jeff writes:
I accept that Marshall quoted Vattel quite a bit.

I accept that he quoted the passage you like - but it wasn't in a case on citizenship, it was a case on international law.

...

Therefore, his quote in that case has no bearing on the meaning of (sic) [Natural born citizen.]

The quote to which Jeff is referring is this quote.

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."

...

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."

So once more to recap, a comment about a book is of MAJOR IMPORTANCE, (Even though the book doesn't support Jeff's position) but a very explicit quote of Vattel DURING A TRIAL, is irrelevant.

Does that about cover it Jeff?

[DiogenesLamp]

You and other birthers have repeatedly falsely accused me of such things. Neither you nor anyone else has been able to document ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of any deception at all on my part.

For just the LATEST example, see previous message. DECEIT is your middle name. You ARE a LIAR.

[DiogenesLamp]

I see you writing stuff, but this is what you always seem to be saying.

"Dear Holy Court... we humbly pray for your divine guidance and beg you to enlighten us with your word, for we are unable and unworthy to know the truth without reading your holy wisdom."

"We have the conviction of our faith that you are always right, and that even when you indiscriminately change your mind, your word remains forever the eternal truth, amen."

"Have no mercy on those who do not worship you with the proper degree of servile groveling, for they are evil, and are unworthy of your sight. May they never have standing in your holy presence."

"May the heretics who doubt and defile your holy name burn in h3ll for rejecting your holy words by daring to think for themselves."

" May you rule over us evermore with your benevolent authoritarian decrees, and may we grow ever more faithful to your word."

"In the name of our god, the Holy Legal system, we pray, amen. "

Yeah, I think that just about sums up your position on any legal topic. Get a room, dude!

[Guenevere]

Not sure why you addressed this to me?

[Nero Germanicus]

I plead guilty as charged. I do indeed respect Article III of the Constitution, just like I respect the other six articles.

[noinfringers2]

I can see that a person would/could in the very strictest take the meaning of ‘in country to mean the actual soil of the country., However, I have the view that ‘in country’ means anywhere the USA has rights of possession. Even by this definition/meaning there is uncertainty about McCain’s eligibility with birth outside the Panama Canal Zone which of itself presents some very alarming use of government. As to Obama his case is more like a cheap fictional mystery story.

[Jeff Winston]

For just the LATEST example, see previous message. DECEIT is your middle name. You ARE a LIAR.

We've been over this many times. Honestly, countless times.

You can't quote a quote that was produced to make a point on international law about how to treat an acknowledged US citizen who is currently living in a country we are at war with, and claim that Marshall was defining "natural born citizen." He wasn't. That's crystal clear.

And by so doing, YOU are engaging in deceit. Not me.

And it's clear to anyone who reads the case and sees what it's about.

The case was not even really about citizenship, let alone "natural born" citizenship, or Presidential eligibility.

AT ALL.

The case does not mention "natural born citizen" or "natural born citizenship" even time. And the only time it mentions "The President," it's referring to the name of a captured ship.

The case has nothing at all to do with natural born citizenship or Presidential eligibility. You're a liar to say that it does. And you're a double liar to accuse me of "deceit."

Here's a link to the case. Anyone can read it for himself and see that what I'm saying is true.

Hell, anyone needs only to take the VERY QUOTE THAT YOU JUST PROVIDED in order to see that the deceit is all on YOUR part.

I repeat the exact quote you just gave:

"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."

So right there it says Marshall isn't quoting Vattel to define citizenship, or NATURAL BORN citizenship. He's quoting Vattel to see what the writers on INTERNATIONAL LAW have to say about HOW TO TREAT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO IS PERMANENTLY RESIDING IN ENGLAND.

And in fact, he admits that the quote isn't spot on for that subject, but it was the best quote from the writers of the law of nations he was able to come up with.

ON HIS SUBJECT, WHICH IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP.

So anybody who can read can see that you're full of sh*t, and anyone who can read can see that you're the only one here engaging in the deceit that you accuse others of engaging in.

Because claiming that a passage defines "natural born citizenship" when it clearly and obviously does not, IS deceit.

[Jeff Winston]

The case does not mention "natural born citizen" or "natural born citizenship" even time.

Sorry, that should've been:

The case does not mention "natural born citizen" or "natural born citizenship" even ONE time.

And it doesn't. You can't show me even one instance of those terms in that case, or any comment that has the slightest thing to do with Presidential eligibility.

Because it's not there.

[Drew68]

I want Cruz to run for many reasons, not the least of which is that I can't stand these idiot birthers who think they own the Constitution and the English language and the Law, all by themselves!

I wish FR had a "Like" button.

[Drew68]

Ted's status is the same as that of Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen President of the United States.

[Jeff Winston]

I wish FR had a "Like" button.

Here you go, sir.

[DiogenesLamp]

I plead guilty as charged. I do indeed respect Article III of the Constitution, just like I respect the other six articles.

No, you aren't getting to claim THAT dodge. You don't respect Article II, you WORSHIP the legal process. Every thing you say has one underlying message. You Agree with anything a court says no matter who stupid or ridiculous it is.

And now you are trying to deflect the point with that fig leaf of claiming "respect" for the constitution?

You don't give a rat's ass what it says, else you would be tearing apart the courts who have been so badly abusing it, rather than attempting to bolster them by endlessly citing whatever crap is vomited out of their mouths.

Once more I note that it is a STRANGE sort of Conservative who lauds courts rather than bashing them. Most of us regard them as petty tyrants that are only interested in forcing their personal ideology on the rest of us.

[DiogenesLamp]

I can see that a person would/could in the very strictest take the meaning of ‘in country to mean the actual soil of the country., However, I have the view that ‘in country’ means anywhere the USA has rights of possession. Even by this definition/meaning there is uncertainty about McCain’s eligibility with birth outside the Panama Canal Zone which of itself presents some very alarming use of government. As to Obama his case is more like a cheap fictional mystery story.

It seems to me that there is a strong argument that viewing the issue as metaphorically "in" the nation is exactly what the founders intended. Being within the community is arguably the salient characteristic of any citizenship issue.

It is only simple minds who are confused by this concept.

[DiogenesLamp]

We've been over this many times. Honestly, countless times.

We certainly have. Since you keep lying, we apparently have to cover it quite a lot.

And by so doing, YOU are engaging in deceit. Not me.

Of course Jeff's rebuttal is the child's argument "You Do it too!" (Tu Quoque.)

The case was not even really about citizenship, let alone "natural born" citizenship, or Presidential eligibility.

And Bayard's book was? Here he goes again... John Marshall commenting on a book? "Big F***ing Deal!" John Marshall at trial commenting on citizenship? "Irrelevant!"

.

I repeat the exact quote you just gave:

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."

So right there it says Marshall isn't quoting Vattel to define citizenship, or NATURAL BORN citizenship.

Marshall quoting Vattel's definition of citizenship is NOT quoting Vattel to define citizenship? You really are a deluded crank.

So anybody who can read can see that you're full of sh*t, and anyone who can read can see that you're the only one here engaging in the deceit that you accuse others of engaging in.

Do go on. I can't think of a better way to make you look like a fool than to get you to keep writing. I'm quoting you again. (And wondering at the same time, just WHO you think you are fooling?)

Because claiming that a passage defines "natural born citizenship" when it clearly and obviously does not, IS deceit.

Let's have a look at that again.

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.

Jeff:"Because claiming that a passage defines "natural born citizenship" when it clearly and obviously does not, IS deceit."

Sure Jeff. Sure. You have just given me a club with which to beat you over the head. You will be seeing your own words coming back to haunt you quite a lot.