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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

Well, Obviously John Marshall must have been referring to some OTHER class of citizenship. What class would that be Jeff? What sort of citizenship was it to which John Marshall was referring Jeff? Tell us Jeff. Inquiring minds want to know!

.

Oh, and here's your words again.

Jeff quoting John Marshall:

"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."

Well, Deceit is clearly evident alright.

[Nero Germanicus]

I post the key findings from Obama eligibility related court rulings, verbatim with links to the entire decision so that anyone who might be interested in a particular Trier of Fact’s rationale can read it in full context.

It is not me who has filed more than 200 lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility. It’s not me who has filed more than 90 appeals in state and federal courts and it’s not me who has submitted 25 petitions for Writs of Certiorari and applications for stays, injunctions and extraordinary writs at the Supreme Court of the United States. It is eligibility challengers who have almost exclusively utilized the courts as the place to conduct this fight.
I post how those courts have ruled, others can decide what those rulings mean.
Intelligent people are capable of learning from each defeat how to correct deficiencies in filings and how to present issues in ways that might receive a more favorable hearing.

[DiogenesLamp]

I post the key findings from Obama eligibility related court rulings, verbatim with links to the entire decision so that anyone who might be interested in a particular Trier of Fact’s rationale can read it in full context.

It is a common fallacy throughout the legal system that "Process" = "Truth." In reality, the "Process" yields so much blatantly wrong decisions that anyone with any intellectual honesty would regard it as a DEFECTIVE process.

You post the deliberations of courts without addressing the salient issue. Are the assumed facts correct? At best, they can be said to be in dispute, but at worst, the assumed facts are wrong. The courts are another manifestation of a garbage machine. Garbage in, yields Garbage out, not truth.

You simply don't care. You are what I regard as a "Process Nazi." Results be d@mned, so long as "process" is followed.

Once again, the three of you have basically the same argument. "We are right because Legal "Authorities" agree with us.

Jeff: "All Legal authorities agree with us. "
Nero Germanicus: "All Legal authorities agree with us."
Kansas Parrot: "All Legal authorities agree with us.'

Yeah, that's some argument you've got there. Among people who know something about logic, it is referred to as a "fallacy."

[Nero Germanicus]

I would agree with you if there were one or two aberrant rulings that were outliers. But there have been hundreds in practically every state in the union and from judges and justices who are conservative, moderate and liberal.

Did any Tea Party endorsed conservative member of Congress object to the certification of Obama’s electoral votes on the grounds that he is constitutionally ineligible? Nope.

[Jeff Winston]

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

We've been over this before, too.

My reply is NOT "You do it too." My reply is: You are obviously guilty of the thing you accuse me of, and I am obviously not guilty of it.

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

And Bayard's book was?

That section of his book sure as hell was.

And anyone can see that that is the case.

Here. Here's that section. Only an idiot or a less-than-honest person with a real axe to grind would ever even attempt to claim that that section of Bayard's exposition of our Constitution was about anything other than Presidential eligibility.

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

Marshall's quoting of Vattel in The Venus is not irrelevant because it was in a court case. It's irrelevant because it doesn't talk about natural born citizenship or Presidential eligibility. AT ALL.

The quote was not produced for the purpose of talking about natural born citizenship.

The quote was not produced for the purpose of making any point whatsoever about Presidential eligibility.

Marshall's quote of Vattel is an ACCURATE translation, which doesn't use the phrase "natural born citizens."

That phrase was NEVER used in a translation of Vattel until after the Constitution was written.

There is NO HISTORICAL REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to link that passage to the Framers' use of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution.

And the case you refer to made NO REFERENCE AT ALL to either natural born citizenship, or to Presidential eligibility.

All of that is the very DEFINITION of "irrelevant."

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

No, you're the deluded crank.

As shown by your own quote, Marshall wasn't quoting Vattel for the purpose of defining citizenship. He wasn't placing any particular mark of approval on Vattel's ideas about domestic citizenship.

He was trying to see what Vattel, as a writer on INTERNATIONAL LAW (the Law of Nations) had to say about how much we respect the property of one of our own citizens residing permanently in another country as being the property of one of our citizens, and how much we regard that person as being a participant in that other society with which we were at war.

That's it.

There's no relevance to the definition of citizenship here. That's not what Marshall was ever talking about.

And again, even if Marshall WERE defining domestic citizenship (which he isn't), THE WORDS "NATURAL BORN" NEVER EVEN APPEAR.

So there is no "definition" of "natural born citizenship" here at all.

And you don't have to be a genius to see that. You only have to be able to rad.

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.

That's fine by me. Because the more you go on about this, the stupider you look.

[DiogenesLamp]

I would agree with you if there were one or two aberrant rulings that were outliers. But there have been hundreds in practically every state in the union and from judges and justices who are conservative, moderate and liberal.

Which all rely on an excessively broad, but long assumed interpretation of a 1898 court decision that didn't even have as much of a majority as Plessy v Ferguson, and about which, mistakes have been found.

I restate the point. The fundamental facts are in dispute, but all the courts begin deliberation on the assumption that their long standing biases are correct. They simply never look at the issue from it's origins, but merely rely on the claims of that aforementioned 1898 "precedent".

Once again, "process" without regard for accuracy.

Did any Tea Party endorsed conservative member of Congress object to the certification of Obama’s electoral votes on the grounds that he is constitutionally ineligible? Nope.

Non Sequitur. In fact, it is reversal of the Argumentum ad Numerum fallacy. That no one objects does not make something true.

[Jeff Winston]

You only have to be able to rad.

Sorry, typo there.

You only have to be able to read.

[Jeff Winston]

Non Sequitur. In fact, it is reversal of the Argumentum ad Numerum fallacy. That no one objects does not make something true.

Sure as hell doesn't make it false, either.

I say the sun rises in the east. Nobody objects to the claim.

Your point is that the fact that no one objects doesn't make it true.

Well, that's true. But the fact that no one objects sure as hell doesn't make the statement false.

For that, you need some EVIDENCE to show that the statement is false.

And this is exactly what you lack. Any real and credible evidence to prove the bullshit birther claim.

You say the Founding Fathers defined "natural born citizen" as "born on US soil of two citizen parents."

You've produced absolutely no credible evidence that's the case.

And when others produce credible evidence that that's NOT the case - and a LOT OF IT - you whine that the opinions of lawyers and court and close associates of the Founding Fathers, and of the Framers themselves, don't matter.

You're full of shit. And it's obvious to anyone who has half a brain who has been following the issue.

[GBA]

It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be a “natural born citizen. It is only requisite he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country.

The author is referring to the exception to the NBC requirement regarding those who were living here when the country was founded.

Initially, until the children who were born of citizens had reached 35 yo, there were no Natural Born Citizens, by definition. How could there be? This passage explains that exception.

It essentially restates the idea that being born in country to citizens is what makes you a NBC, just like the exception does. Otherwise, why would it be necessary?

[DiogenesLamp]

In order to be "born a citizen" in a foreign country, one must claim citizenship through one's parents, and Specifically the father. Bayard states that place of birth is irrelevant to the issue, because foreign birth is a defacto EXCLUSION of native birth. The only legal principle which recognizes citizenship through birth in a foreign land is Jus Sanguinus, yet for some reason, you continue to cite BAYARD as an "authority" on your side. But you are dishonest, and a fool, and we should expect nothing better of you.

.

.

Marshall's quoting of Vattel in The Venus is not irrelevant because it was in a court case. It's irrelevant because it doesn't talk about natural born citizenship or Presidential eligibility.

John Marshall:

"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."

Sure Jeff, Sure.

.

.

Jeff:He wasn't placing any particular mark of approval on Vattel's ideas about domestic citizenship.

John Marshall:

"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:As shown by your own quote, Marshall wasn't quoting Vattel for the purpose of defining citizenship.

.

.

Once again, the best thing I can do to convince people you are a fool is to just let you keep talking.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sure as hell doesn't make it false, either.

It proves it neither true nor false, it is irrelevant, and that is why it is a FALLACY. The truth is not determined by consensus or lack thereof.

Jeff: Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah... .

.

And this is exactly what you lack. Any real and credible evidence to prove the bullshit birther claim.

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

Jeff quoting John Marshall:

"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."

Like you would know the truth if it crawled up your @$$.

[Ray76]

We've been over this several times already. Bayard's claim is contrary to law.

The only time Bayard's claim that "It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country." was true was the period between the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795.

If Bayard's claim were true the First Congress would have no need to include this in the 1790 Act.

Surely the Father of the Constitution James Madison, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Nicholas Gilman, William Samuel Johnson, Richard Bassett, George Read, William Few, John Langdon, William Paterson, Rufus King, Robert Morris, Pierce Butler, and President George Washington knew what they were doing when they passed the 1790 Act.

Maybe they had a big party and all got roaring drunk. In the House, AND in the Senate, and in the White House with President Washington. And maybe someone said, "Hey! I know what. Lissen t' thish. Lesh all pass some stupid-ash bill where we don't know wha' the 'ell we're talkin' 'bout."

How about this: President George Washington, and Father of the Constitution James Madison, and all together 40% of the men who signed the Constitution knew exactly what they were talking about when they passed that Act.

sound familiar? it should, you've had a few variations on this theme. here's one http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3038670/posts?page=159#159

[Nero Germanicus]

Your critiques of the judiciary as a whole and specific judicial rulings on this issue are interesting for blog debates but they bear no relevance to real world occurrences in moving the eligibility issue forward to resolution.

They are fun little intellectual/logic excercises but nothing more and nothing less. In the real world, court rulings stand until they reversed, period, end of story.

So whine away but judges rule however they rule and if they are not reversed (as Wong Kim Ark has not been in 114 years) the rulings become stare decisis.

[Ray76]

Red type, bold faced, increasing font sizes... all of which has the effect of raising your voice and pounding on the table. Then you cap off your frenzy with name calling and cussing.

Your wild eyed frothing is boorish.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your critiques of the judiciary as a whole and specific judicial rulings on this issue are interesting for blog debates but they bear no relevance to real world occurrences in moving the eligibility issue forward to resolution.

There is more going on than just eligibility. The eligibility issue is simply a sub category of the larger overall problem with the court system, which is itself a sub category of the larger overall problem with the Nation.

The path forward is facilitated by denouncing the court system as incompetent and biased, and by urging people to treat their opinions with the contempt which they deserve. Pushing respectability at a court system which is obviously sliding into insanity (Prop 8 ruling?) is detrimental to the well being of the nation.

They are fun little intellectual/logic excercises but nothing more and nothing less.

And you are here on Free Republic arguing with internet denizens to accomplish REAL progress of some sort? What might that be? It looks to me as though you are merely trying to bolster/create counter propaganda to oppose a very real issue of eligibility regarding this incompetent illegal President, and other such as may be interested in vying for the office.

In the real world, court rulings stand until they reversed, period, end of story.

I think there are a lot of stories which may soon be ending, and very likely to the detriment of Arrogant Judicial tyrants who may be receiving some long deserved comeuppance. I perceive a coming social storm, and I shall not be surprised if it sweeps away a lot of this institutional nonsense.

So whine away but judges rule however they rule and if they are not reversed (as Wong Kim Ark has not been in 114 years) the rulings become stare decisis.

Which is another way of saying "we don't need a reason, we have POWER." Perhaps now, but I perceive it will not always be the case, and payback is a b*tch.

Hopefully you Vichy will catch some justice as well.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ray76 writing to Jeff: Red type, bold faced, increasing font sizes... all of which has the effect of raising your voice and pounding on the table. Then you cap off your frenzy with name calling and cussing.

What is that legal rule? If the facts are on your side, pound the facts! If the facts are NOT on your side, pound the table! :)

[Jeff Winston]

The author is referring to the exception to the NBC requirement regarding those who were living here when the country was founded.

No, he isn't. The words are simple and straightforward.

He says explicitly that it is not necessary that a man should be born in the country to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The "grandfather clause" exception has nothing to do with NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

So he is clearly not referring to people who were covered by the grandfather clause.

Because such people, BY DEFINITION, WERE NOT natural born citizens.

Initially, until the children who were born of citizens had reached 35 yo, there were no Natural Born Citizens, by definition. How could there be?

We've been over this birther myth several times already as well, although you may have missed it. For an extensive discussion of this myth, see for example here, and here.

It essentially restates the idea that being born in country to citizens is what makes you a NBC, just like the exception does.

Read it again. It clearly says that you don't have to be born in the country to be a natural born citizen. You only have to be a citizen by birth.

Chief Justice John Marshall, legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and famed judge and legal expert Chancellor James Kent, as well as "other distinguished jurists," all agreed with this statement that it DOES NOT take birth on US soil plus citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

Being a CITIZEN BY BIRTH is enough.

[Jeff Winston]

In order to be "born a citizen" in a foreign country, one must claim citizenship through one's parents, and Specifically the father. Bayard states that place of birth is irrelevant to the issue, because foreign birth is a defacto EXCLUSION of native birth. The only legal principle which recognizes citizenship through birth in a foreign land is Jus Sanguinus, yet for some reason, you continue to cite BAYARD as an "authority" on your side. But you are dishonest, and a fool, and we should expect nothing better of you.

Okay. So you recognize Bayard as an authority. That's good. We're making progress.

So can we take it that you now acknowledge that the claim that it takes BOTH birth on US soil AND birth to citizen parents to be a natural born citizen is complete nonsense?

[GBA]

If what you say is true, there would be no need to include the wording as they did in the eligibility requirement.

The fact that the exception is there, written as it is, should be enough to show you your error, since it further supports the definition by being the exception to it, see?

It is, as the FFs might say, self evident. Your quoted material, though not clearly written for us now, is telling you this as well, while explaining some of the reasoning behind their intentions.

When you have several opposing opinions, answers can be found, not by a battle of opposing quotes as is your way, but from determining intent and purpose, and then letting the facts tell you the truth.

Letting your agenda dictate your truth first, then cherry picking your facts and ignoring inconvenient counter data, is the wrong approach and almost always results in error.

Global warming is yet another of many such examples from your team's playbook.

To find the truth, it's better to be a trouble shooter, an engineer or a forensic detective, rather than a quote hunter, and let facts and your reason tell you the story and show you what the truth is.

[DiogenesLamp]

Okay. So you recognize Bayard as an authority.

Not really. He wasn't a delegate, he wasn't a member of a ratifying legislature. I merely point out that his commentary does not help your argument at all, and it has never made sense to me why you think this little blurb is worthy of notice. If anything, it hurts your argument because Bayard is asserting that jus soli is immaterial to natural born citizen status.

So can we take it that you now acknowledge that the claim that it takes BOTH birth on US soil AND birth to citizen parents to be a natural born citizen is complete nonsense?

After all this time arguing with me, you still don't grasp my position? After all the times i've posted this excerpt, you are still clueless as to where I stand on this point?

Un-fricken-believable.

Once again, I direct you to my tagline. "Partus Sequitur Patrem."