Posted on 01/29/2016 7:38:20 AM PST by Kaslin
I keep hearing from supporters of other GOP candidates that Ted Cruz can't win the general election because he is too conservative and too preachy. These same people criticize him for not being authentically conservative and also support others who are preachy.
I have long lamented the conventional wisdom, swallowed whole by many nominally conservative Republicans, that a true-blue consistent conservative can't win a general presidential election because he can't attract moderates, centrists, independents, Perotistas, Trumpsters, disaffected Democrats and certainly not women or minorities.
Why is that the accepted thinking, when Ronald Reagan won in two landslides and the moderate GOP presidential candidates from George H.W. Bush to John McCain to Mitt Romney lost? George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism barely won in 2000.
Would someone please have the guts to tell me in what ways Ted Cruz is too conservative? What does that even mean?
Is your objection that he is socially conservative as well as an economic and foreign policy conservative? Hallelujah! So was Ronald Reagan. Remember his three-legged stool?
We hear from Trump supporters that Ted Cruz is not likable or electable and that he's an opportunistic follower of Donald Trump on the immigration issue. Thus they'll support the more likable, electable, real-deal immigration hawk.
But polls say otherwise. They indicate that both Cruz and Rubio could beat Hillary Clinton but that Trump would have more difficulty, probably because of his astronomical unfavorability ratings. The charge that Cruz is in the Trump slipstream on immigration is bunk as well. Cruz was fighting in the trenches on immigration before Trump brought his megaphone to the issue -- a megaphone we nevertheless appreciate -- and Cruz remains a more reliable bet on the borders and amnesty.
I repeat the question: How is Ted Cruz too conservative? Don't you really mean that Cruz is too committed to his principles, that he will actually fight against the establishment and thus he is a thorn in their side?
The establishment claims to be just as conservative as we are yet they have an unmistakable, visceral contempt for Ted Cruz, who is one person who has actually refused to "grow" after being elected. This should thrill true conservatives endlessly.
Can you imagine what Cruz could get done if he were elected with a mandate to implement conservative ideas -- the only antidote to the destructive path Obama has set us on? We've seen what we get with conservative lite, and it doesn't work.
We need an unprecedented reversal to get us out of this mess, but we mustn't -- forgive me the cliche -- throw the baby out with the bathwater. We must elect someone who not only will radically reverse our course but also has demonstrated his commitment to conservative principles, understands the United States Constitution and intends to honor its prescription for limited government.
I don't support Ted Cruz because he is by far the most learned constitutional scholar of all the candidates, though I am grateful for that bonus. It can't be solely a matter of head knowledge, but one also of the heart. Ted Cruz, in his heart, soul and mind, and with every fiber of his being, loves the Constitution and the system of ordered liberty it establishes.
Cruz intends to reverse the ravages of the Obama wrecking ball not through extra-constitutional means, but precisely within the constraints of the Constitution. That's because as a constitutional conservative he understands that the end -- even the noble goal of reversing Obama's destruction -- does not justify any means. We can't blow up the Constitution in the name of saving it. We can't issue lawless executive orders, pass overreaching legislation and implement unconstitutional regulations in furtherance of our agenda. We have to take special care to reverse Obamism through lawful means, lest we just kick the can down the road until the next lawless progressive comes to power to hammer the final nail into this republic's coffin.
There is nothing extreme about Ted Cruz except for his commitment to the American idea, to free enterprise, to ordered liberty, to limited government, to national solvency, to America's national security and sovereignty and to policies designed to unleash robust economic growth to benefit all sectors of society.
There is nothing extreme about Ted Cruz, because there is nothing extreme about Reagan conservatism other than a sincere commitment to reignite America's uniqueness and greatness.
As we've watched this GOP contest unfold, we've seen in Cruz a man under fire from all quarters who has maintained his cool, his dignity, his resolve, his faith, his integrity, his presidential demeanor and his unwavering dedication to restoring America -- the America that we know and love, the shining city on a hill that has been the most benevolent, decent and prosperous nation in history.
Finally, it's important for me to emphasize that I don't idolize Ted Cruz or support him as part of a cult of personality. I support him because I believe he is the best hope for America for the many reasons I've underscored and more.
Everything is going great.
Trump, Cruz or lose.
.
Leadership is precisely where Cruz excels.
In private practice he led the most successful legal team of the last century.
In government he led in protecting our freedom on the most critical decisions the SCOTUS has ever addressed.
On the other hand Trump swindled thousands of elderly retired investors of every thing they had.
.
.
Rubio is a liar, plain and simple.
He broke every campaign pledge he had made once he was in office. He is a “Gang of Eight” sellout.
.
In private practice he led the most successful legal team of the last century.
===============
Lawyer stuff is not leadership. Also, all his life Cruz has worked for the govt. Even when he was in private practice it was related to govt work.
I am kind of sick and tired of limited govt conservatives working all their lives in govt while claiming govt jobs are bad things.
Has Cruz ever made payroll? Hired and fired people? And the nanny and babysitter don't count.
Nowhere does it say in the constitution that someone has to be born in the United States to be considered a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency. Also nowhere does it say in the constitution that both parents have to be citizen. What it says is a citizen, which can be either the father or the mother.
And as he never had to go through a naturalization progress proves that he is a natural born citizen. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a naturalized citizen who was not eligible for the presidency, even though there were freepers who wanted him to run for the office.
The original meaning of "natural born Citizen" also comports with what we know of the Framers' purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting: [W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to "cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections." The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay's own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.
While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother. Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a "natural born Citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a "natural born Citizen" even under the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Great, Cruz can argue that to a judge and get an affirmative ruling on his eligibility.
Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.
It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.
President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."
The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen
The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed
Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law
Nope. We actually do more harm by reading into the Constitution things that are not there, then treat those things as if they had the same authority as the Constitution. There is no legally authoritative definition of NBC. The closest we get is the 1790 naturalization act. The dicta cited endlessly here from various cases does not have the authority of a precedent holding. Until there is a constitutional amendment locking in the Vattellian definition, both jus soli and jus sanguinis are viable routes to NBC status, and may well be validated as such by the political process, thus remaining a nonjusticible political question until the constitution is properly amended. Bottom line, Cruz can run, and we the people are the ones who get to decide, not the courts.
Peace,
SR
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."
The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses
Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen
The United States Supreme Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by definining the "class" of "natural-born citizens" as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. And they did this by specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment and by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.
Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen
Hint: A holding is binding on future courts. Statements of law necessary to reach the result are also part of the court’s holding. Other court statements about the law, while important but not necessary to reach the decision, are called dicta. Dictum is never essential to the outcome of that particular case.
That debate will kill Cruz. Consensus is that he lost.
Trump is going to win Iowa now and Rubio might get second. If that happens, Cruz will do a slow burn and fade away.
Just an opinion of someone which I, unlike you respect, even though I do not share it.
That's alright. It is a matter of interpretation together with an understanding of the context in which the language was used. Courts are quite familiar with how to interpret language in contracts that may be unclear.
The problem the nation faces is finding a court that will not be influenced by political considerations. I have argued elsewhere that I would rather have an apolitical U.S. History professor's opinion than that of the present USSC (who is one vote from castrating the 2dA).
Why not then consider the opinion of the United States very first historian.
"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.
A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789
Not sure what that sentence means.
That is at the center of the issue and was exactly their fear as it applied to the new Commander-in-Chief!
What language did the founders use to assure uncompromised loyalty of the nation's new commander-in-chief?
The perspective from Jay and Washington and the ENTIRE group of our founders - who, by the way had just fought an enormously bloody and costly revolution which was made even more difficult by "Americans" who were loyal to England - is apparent from both what is in the record and the fact the term NBC was included without debate:
The commander-in-chief's loyalty to the nation shall not be compromised by: a) birth outside of the U.S. in a nation that may later attempt to influence that loyalty, nor; b) birth to a non-citizen parent who may later be in a position to influence that loyalty.
The USSC has acknowledged that the highest form of NBC is two American parents and birth within the country. Any who argue the founders did not intend such qualifications with regard to the CIChave the burden of demonstrating the founders intended something else. There is no evidence the founders intended anything but NBC in its highest form.
Nor is this view of NBC anything new. For decades the U.S. educational system taught it was two parent citizens and birth in the U.S. The view no doubt originated with the writings of legal and legislative experts weel presented in the record.
as if the Republic Depends on It, Trumpinator wrote:
He (Cruz) is not a leader - not yet anyway. You can be correct on an issue but not be a leader. A leader inspires. It’s a quality that can’t be defined nor quantified.
I share David Limbaugh s reasoning and empahsis on returning to the constitution and its values. The way I view Trump is DT has no core principles or values. He has no character. Who will trash everyone who disagrees with Trump not on principles but because he was challanged.
There are dozens of examples Rush Limbaugh could have used where Trump demonstrated during this campaign that he does not think or approach problems in conservative terms let alone understand them and is unable to bring them up.. But views challanges in a very personal way that could reveal any core convictions he could have but clearly does not.
His prima donna style announcement to skip the debate because he’s the star of the show amd will not perform with second rate actors lets hope will not set well with Iowans or Americans generally.
Because the purposes of a debate is to advance discussions on the future of this country. Not some entertainment comedy venue. While politically it was a great move because His meanderings on positions remain to be uncovered and his candidacy remains he should be removed from consideration.
Policy wise Trumps revealing exchange with campaign disrupter and un official spokesman for the Mexican government Jorge Ramos (Univision), who has dual citizenship. That exchange should have but did not, show any conviction on his pronouncements about Mexico and its relationship with US.
Here Trump could have demanded to know from him If Ramos believes Mexico has legitimate claim to American states ,as well as bring up Mexican treatment of illegals. Then ask why should the US permit land ownership when legal American retirees cannot own land in their own name or vote there.Then boot his buttocks out of his forum.
Instead what does he do ? Kisses up to him and lets him go .The way the Mexicans are treating Americans reciprocity should be the issue and would dump the quote hispanic unquote krap being passed on as a generic hispanic issue. When actually it is problems created by the Mexican government which have gone unchallanged.
Then there is the issue where some UK politicians along with Islamists wanted to prevent Donald Trump from even visiting Britan . Here he would have been saluted if he did this. Used the Brits expression to those phoneys; To Piss off, and WISE UP, pointing out the problems they are having there and chiding them for refusing to face reality.
Instead what did he do ? Threatens economic retailiation on a project golf course he has in Scotland.
What really sealed it for me was when Businessman deal maker Trump who also owns Goldman Sachs stock
http://www.freerepublic.com/focua/f-news/3386879/posts
While promoting a misrepresentarion of an opponents loan from a source he has investments in.
Here he sides with the GOPES, to get their endorsements and even advocates expanded mandated Ethanol. Because he thinks dumping this government mandated junk inro your gas tank will help him carry IOWA . Which also begs the question of Just how heavily invested is he in Ethanol ?
Apparently those prefering a candidate who marches away from key conservative principles that supports and wants more government mandates and subsides especially for a product like enthanol which is a boon doggle means nothing to them.
Well it does to me....and it should to them.
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.