Posted on 09/30/2014 7:45:10 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Well keep it to yourself, it is already decided here and we have other aspects of the Cruz candidacy and the republican primary to discuss and analyze.
Aw, Jeez... (you know the rest).
Ted Cruz will not be nominated by the actually-existing Republican Party. That is a fact.
I like his speeches. But I would point out that the three sitting US Senators who have been elected to the Presidency (Harding, Kennedy, Obama) are not exactly an advertisement for the Senate as a qualification for high executive office. The recent US Senators who have LOST the Presidential election (McGovern, Mondale, Dole, Kerry, McCain) also suggest that the Senate is poor preparation for the Presidency.
If a first-term US Senator is the best we’ve got, well, OK. But at first glance, I don’t like it.
Are you seriously suggesting that electing someone who held an office whose main qualification is being a BS artist, for less than a full term, with no significant executive experience, WAS A GOOD IDEA?
Except for the thing about being Governor of the most populous and most complicated state for two full terms.
Not at all. I am simply pointing out that the two factors that seem to worry you about Cruz didn’t faze the last guy elected, for 2 terms.
No, I meant my example as stands.
Since you brought it up that way, in the example I offer, the baby Ted lives but is aborted from his family, instead of from his mother's womb as in your way of explaining it.
Baby mom then leaves baby Ted there and heads back home, instead of aborting him and leaving fetus Ted there and heading back home.
How do you understand young baby Ted's "natural born citizenship" then?
Is he Canadian by birth?
Cuban by paternal inheritance, similar to why people take their father's last name rather than mom's?
Or American by maternal inheritance?
I wonder what the founding fathers had in mind here for this individual, since the Presidential eligibility is the only position so defined.
What if, at some point before he jumped into the melting pot, his dad returned to his native country Cuba and decided his kid should be raised as a Cuban in his father's homeland?
Could he then go Elián González style and have young Ted returned to him in Cuba at gunpoint?
Be ready for those sorts of questions should you choose to explain his Canadian birth by whether or not baby mom aborted an American baby or a Canadian baby.
Otherwise, I think it might backfire on you.
I will send him money, guns and lawyers.
Ah, so it's been deemed to pass muster?
Kinda like Obamacare was deemed passed?
I'm sorry, but if the law means anything it must apply especially when it is inconvenient.
I don’t remember obamacare passing muster at freerepublic., Cruz has.
So, Obama is not fazed. OK.
What does that have to do with anything??? Do you not think that Obama SHOULD be "fazed", given his massive incompetence, lack of executive experience, and multiple failures?
Obamacare was deemed to have passed
in Congress; many people here were upset about it.
If you fail to see the similarity in the we deem
-arguments, that's your problem.
If you fail to see that freerepublic has already deemed Senator Cruz as qualified to run for president, then that is your problem.
If you are going to get high and mighty and invoke the rule of law, then you need to back it up with equally lofty sources such as law or court decisions.
Your inner conflicts and need for therapy regarding turmoil voting for the best candidate for POTUS really belong someplace other than on this board.
The law and decisions were made pretty clear over the last several years. I may not agree with how the courts landed on the issue, but I’m not going to hold to some mythical standard just because.
Cruz is eligible, If you don’t want to vote for him.... well, bye.
A bad idea embraced by thousands is still a bad idea.
— Chinese proverb.
I didn’t say anything about popular acceptance, I said freerepublic.
I didn't say I didn't want to vote for him, I said that I want to be sure he is eligible.
The law and decisions were made pretty clear over the last several years. I may not agree with how the courts landed on the issue, but I’m not going to hold to some mythical standard just because.
No, they weren't; courts punting all cases regarding the question out because of lack of standing
offers no resolution, even if you accept the courts as non-corrupt (which evidence like NSA and ObamaCare rulings distinctly point against) — There are a few USSC cases that have some relevance, but I've not examined them closely.
If you are going to get high and mighty and invoke the rule of law, then you need to back it up with equally lofty sources such as law or court decisions.
How about The Naturalization Act of 1790, which says:
The pluralization of "parent" indicates two parents, not one; though there is the problem that this is a normal act of congress, not a constitutional amendment and cannot therefore [re]define the terms in the Constitution.children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.
It's still an appeal to popularity, you are merely restricting the population you are considering.
Yes, I have narrowed it down to a single individual on freerepublic, Jim Robinson, he considers it already resolved.
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.