Can’t be. Cruz’s comment has handed the nomination to Trump. I have read it here endlessly as of late.
The Resurgent source article already posted by Isara.
New York Republicans know far too well the values of those who rule them.
Cruz made sure his cultists were there to vote. Well see what happens when reality hits Cruz and his fans and the voting really starts. He can win millions of straw votes. Big deal. I don’t think your candidate from 2012, Romney won a single straw vote at all. So there you go, you decide to support Romney and follow up with Cruz........Yieks.
DT got booed at the debate and today. Said he wrapped up his speech shortly after being booed.
It is a marvelous contrast DT unhinged, calm Cruz.
lol!
"The Met Club has enjoyed a long tradition of winning elections and is the only Republican club in Manhattanthat owns its own clubhouse. We are a varied and enthusiastic group with the common goal of supporting New York City Republican candidates and ideals.
But, but, but Cruz told us there are no conservatives in Manhattan.
Anyone who shares our basic goals and beliefs is welcome to become a member of the Metropolitan Republican Club. Located on Manhattan's Upper East Side, our clubhouse was built in 1930 and has been a meeting place and campaign headquarters for virtually every Manhattan Republican elected to office since that time.
Is Cruz selling out the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire by embracing New York Values? I thought New York values were evil (accept for Goldman Sachs values of course). It's hard to kept up with the very flexible on the issues Ted Cruz.
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, speaking by Mr. Justice (afterwards Chief Justice) Sewall, early held that the determination of the question whether a man was a citizen or an alien was "to be governed altogether by the principles of the common law," and that it was established, with few exceptions, that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term "citizenship."
Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the "general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives," says:
Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the allegiance of the government
The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.
Trump can’t even win a straw poll in his own backyard.