Posted on 06/10/2014 7:11:53 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Canada-born U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has made good on a promise to renounce his birth country’s citizenship—doing so amid speculation he could make a run at the White House in 2016.
Spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said Cruz’s action became official May 14 and that Texas’ junior senator received written confirmation at his home in Houston on Tuesday. She said the tea-party-backed Republican “is pleased to have the process finalized.”
“Being a U.S. Senator representing Texas, it makes sense he should be only an American citizen,” Frazier said in an email. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I like Jim, but he isn't the authority on the subject.
Citing his opinion as such is a logical fallacy: Name dropping and Appeal to inappropriate authority.
If you were to read the Constitution, you would find that it has an explicit qualifier for them:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
Citing Jim's opinion as conclusive is a logical fallacy: Name dropping and Appeal to inappropriate authority.
Jim is entitled to his opinion, just like you and I, and the poster you are replying to. But, it's not an appropriate argument to make your case.
I've seen long term posters get the zot over this issue.
Threatening someone with a ban is DEFINITELY not an argument to make your case. It's bullying.
Jim's opinion matters to the extent he controls who has access to his forum.
If you don't like it, take it up with him.
/johnny
Putin and Queen Elizabeth won’t be running for president. Even if they wanted the job and even if they somehow got on the ballot, they know that the voters/electors would deem them unqualified and reject them. My only point is that under our Constitutional system, we delegate to voters/electors (and not to judges) the job of measuring candidates and selecting presidents. In Iran, candidates are pre-screened and approved by a Council of Guardians. Not here.
You’re saddened.
Awwwww.
Unfortunately, it's not a dead horse, despite how much you want it to be.
You can be sure that the Democrats will use this issue against Ted. But, instead of Orly Taitz tilting at windmills, they will have an experienced legal team that will make a full-court press.
And they will know where to find judges sympathetic to their cause. Over the past few years, we've seen many cases where judges have ruled contrary to established precedent on the flimsiest of rationale. Do you think the case ended up in their court by accident?
I won't pretend to know how the higher courts would rule. But, I don't think it would even get that far: one unfavorable ruling would be trumpeted by the knee-pad media, and muddy the waters so much that Ted would either withdraw, or be eliminated in the primaries. Don't forget that the GOP establishment might not actively participate, but they would be cheerleading against Ted from the sidelines.
Democrats were ready to pounce on Barry Goldwater because he was born in Arizona while it was still a US territory. I'm sure you know enough about LBJ to know he would have relished that fight. Do you really think they would let this one slide, especially after all the attempts to portray their anointed Won with the same problem?
Jim's opinion matters to the extent he controls who has access to his forum.
If Jim chooses to use his power to squelch debate, he does everyone a disservice, including himself. That's his right, but it doesn't make his opinion "correct".
I think this debate is healthy, because it gives people on both sides to learn about the issues and develop good information that supports their position. And each side can learn what counters their position, and develop responses to it.
If Ted decides to run, then both sides will be better prepared to make their case in situations where you can't shut down debate by simply calling in an airstrike by Jim.
OOh, so expecting the wishes of the forum owner to be respected IN THEIR OWN FORUM is NAME DROPPING now?
LOL!
You coulda been an undead thread.
One can either comply as a good guest, or be asked to leave.
/johnny
I gather the answer to that is "yes." So are the children of foreigners who give birth in the US. The children are US citizens, and are born that way.
The barrier to unpopular individuals becoming president is political, not a function of constitutional disqualification.
If Ted decides to run for President, and the Democrats (or even the Republican establishment) pursue the issue in the courts, will it still be a verboten subject?
You know that when you vote "for a president" you are actually voting for a named elector, and not the presidential candidate? The ballot has integrity (the elector must be qualified) even if the presidential candidate is not qualified for the office. It's up to Congress to determine whether or not the candidate with the majority of electoral votes is qualified, under the constitution.
That said, at least one presidential candidate was denied having his name appear on the ballot, Eldridge Cleaver, due to his being too young.
/johnny
That's interesting. I did some digging and found it was back in 1968. Courts in New York and Hawaii ruled he wasn't eligible. The article says he still received 36,571 votes, but I don't know if they were write-in's or if he was on the ballot in at least one other state.
It's ironic, because Cleaver's party was named "Peace and Freedom". That same year in April, he led an ambush of Oakland police officers, and subsequently jumped bail and fled to Cuba.
A few years back, California refused to exclude someone from the ballot, even though they were clearly ineligible. I don't remember if it was due to age, or possibly even US citizenship. I think they said something to the effect of: "we aren't empowered to make that decision".
Heh. IIRC, Cleaver's name was excluded from the CA ballot on age ineligibility.
Two states (California and Utah) refused to list Cleaver on the ballot, although each state listed the Presidential Electors and candidates for Vice President (Terry in California and Gonzales in Utah).Here is another source ... www.peaceandfreedom.org - Presidential and Vice-presidential Candidates
That wiki article has a paragraph where Peace and Freedom was ALLOWED on the ballot, even though ineligible, because California doesn't follow its own rules.
I think the Orange KItty is the prettiest Viking Kitty graphic I’ve seen.
It’s simple, clean, and stunning.
Not to mention it looks lik the fire beneath the Viking Kitties paws is a fish.
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.