I'm not so sure Thomas Jefferson would agree with that.
Cruz doesn't assume dominion over other's faith - but he does walk the walk for what he professes. I don't see that as a negative.
Posted on 02/13/2016 10:23:41 AM PST by NKP_Vet
“I wish we had a better candidate than Cruz, but he’s what we’ve got.”
I wish he was a Natural Born Citizen, but he’s not that either.
His status as a natural-born citizen appears to be uncertain. I do hope he is a natural-born citizen, because if he were ruled not to be, then there would be no true conservatives (constitutionalists) left in the race.
“His status as a natural-born citizen appears to be uncertain.”
Herein lies the rub. A Natural born Citizen’s status is never uncertain. There is no choice. It is what it is, without any gymnastics.
It’s a paradox, for sure. Shouting about his religion one minute, and then oozing sleaze and dishonesty the next. A complete disconnect.
Some are concerned with the judges Trump might pick, even though he named TWO good conservative picks in the debate.. Cruz lied about that this morning on ABC.
First Roberts, now this.
Ted Cruz is good pals and voted to confirm Obama’s favorite for Scotus, Srikanth Srinivasan to another court.
Cruz, who clerked with Srinivasan at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, quipped, “I am hopeful that our friendship will not be seen as a strike against you by some.”
To be more precise, what is uncertain is the definition of “natural born citizen”, since the Constitution doesn’t spell it out.
For each particular definition, Cruz’s status is certain and unambiguous. But people disagree on the definition.
Now I know that my comment has everything to do with both...
Reagan was only middling. He ran with Bush, remember.
He had a halo... and so does Cruz. Trouble is, halos can hide things that matter.
“since the Constitution doesn’t spell it out.”
Sure it does when it says something about a natural born citizen OR a citizen at the time of the signing. (paraphrasing) that means there is a difference between a natural born citizen and a mere citizen. It’s there if you have comprehension skills. Of course the reader can’t have an agenda. That’s where all the gymnastics take root.
To clarify... Reagan and Cruz encouraged the idea of American pride. Reagan’s halo area was rugged individualism, Cruz’s halo area is a touted constitutionalism. Both are revered icons in Americana. Both also miss even larger issues.
Trump is not playing to American pride so much as urging that we do things that will make America something to be proud of again. This means work before flattery. It doesn’t sell so well to a certain set.
I'm not so sure Thomas Jefferson would agree with that.
Cruz doesn't assume dominion over other's faith - but he does walk the walk for what he professes. I don't see that as a negative.
The case involving Bellei (circa 1970) pointed out that the citizenship of a person who is a citizen of the USA by virtue of a law of Congress in effect when he is born, can be lost by virtue of another law of Congress. This would imply that this is not NBC.
The founders didn’t want a president whose citizenship in the USA would be in doubt from any angle. While it is exceedingly unlikely now that Cruz could lose citizenship, maybe a law that says if you failed to comply with some other law affirming citizenship (like has been bandied about for him in 1974 — AND which happened for Bellei in a different manner) your citizenship is in jeopardy, could bring him back under a cloud.
We have to ask, for whom does the Bellei toll? To make a pun.
Cruz may be a conflicted redneck here. His move of most integrity might be to throw support to another candidate, and the most logical one would be Trump.
>>His religious positions are, at best, problematic for a political leader.
>I’m not so sure Thomas Jefferson would agree with that.
That is a strange analogy... Cruz’s religious views seem virtually antithetical to Jefferson’s.
But Cruz has a commitment to political freedom along Jeffersonian lines, so that’s what I’m going on.
They needed to add the alternative about being a citizen at the time of signing, since no adult at the time was a natural-born citizen of the United States (the US not having existed when they were born).
Of course there is a difference between a natural-born citizen and a mere citizen (who could have become a citizen by naturalization, some time after birth). No one is claiming otherwise.
The point is that the Constitution does not specify whether “natural-born citizen” means (1) “citizen at the time of birth”, (2) “citizen due to being born geographically in the United States”, or (3) “citizen due to being born geographically in the United States to a mother who was in this country legally”, or (4) some other variant of this. One can imagine many possible variants, of course.
I had always understood it to mean (1) — in which case Cruz is a natural-born citizen. But conceivably a court will rule for one of the other definitions, in which case he’s not.
>> Cruz’s religious views seem virtually antithetical to Jefferson’s.
Jefferson went off the rails because he couldn’t get his head around the concept of the trinity - not because he didn’t believe in an Almighty God.
The Trinity isn’t so hard to comprehend in the context of today’s modern cosmology - with the relative benefits rendered by the insights of Einstein and Co.
God the Father: God beyond temporal space and time.
God the Son: God in human, temporal, form.
God the Spirit: God mediating between the temporal and non-temporal.
Jefferson also blew it on his “CODE FOR MORALITY” - which De Tocqueville later recognized as the “TYRANNY OF THE [populist] MAJORITY” unfolded in the French Revolution.
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.