With few GOP allies left, Ted Cruz takes refuge at Mar-a-Lago with his former enemy Trump

[libertybele]

Ted was never exactly popular with the GOPe.  This doesn't really came as any surprise and I'm glad to see the two of them come together.  Ted is incredibly smart and a constitutional conservative and Trump is incredibly forward; I think the two of them together will be an unbeatable force.  IMHO just looking at the picture, they're definitely plotting....

With few GOP allies left, Ted Cruz takes refuge at Mar-a-Lago with his former enemy Trump

Politics makes for strange bedfellows — and dinner companions.

On Tuesday night, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas posted a photo of himself enjoying dinner with former President Donald Trump at Trump's Mar-a-Lago property.

"Had a great dinner tonight with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago," Cruz wrote. "He's in great spirits! We spent the evening talking about working together to re-take the House & Senate in 2022."...........



https://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-tweets-photo-of-himself-with-president-trump-mar-a-lago-2021-5

[libertybele]

The "Dynamic Duo" ??

[Sled Dog]

Cruz in 2024?   Works for me.

[libertybele]

Cruz in 2024?   Works for me.

His eligibility is an issue.  However,  I think both Trump and Cruz working in concert to create a major upheaval in the DEM party is quite possible.  It's not just a matter of one of them or both of them running. The DEMS/liberals formed a coup against Trump; a similar situation needs to happen to the DEMS. Ballot integrity is going to be one of the biggest challenges and with the DEMS in control along with idiots within the GOPe like Romney it's going to be quite an undertaking and a miracle will certainly help. 

[HoustonSam]

Ted was never exactly popular with the GOPe.  This doesn't really came as any surprise and I'm glad to see the two of them come together.  Ted is incredibly smart and a constitutional conservative and Trump is incredibly forward; I think the two of them together will be an unbeatable force.  IMHO just looking at the picture, they're definitely plotting....

They were considered allies until Trump got butt hurt when Cruz won the 2016 Iowa caucus.  Unfortunately Trump only cooperates with people when it works to his personal benefit; if someone can cite an example of Trump taking a back seat personally in order to benefit the country or the R party then I'll acknowledge I'm wrong.

The two of them can be a very strong team so long as there is no outcome that might call for Trump personally to lose anything, and the mid-term elections are such an opportunity.  If they both decide to pursue the R nomination again in 2024 we'll be back to "Lyin' Ted" as soon as any state breaks to Cruz's advantage.

[Right_in_Virginia]

The two of them can be a very strong team so long as there is no outcome that might call for Trump personally to lose anything, and the mid-term elections are such an opportunity.  If they both decide to pursue the R nomination again in 2024 we'll be back to "Lyin' Ted" as soon as any state breaks to Cruz's advantage.

Why is Ted Cruz still in play among constitutional conservatives for the presidency?    Is it really asking too much for the Republican Party to insist their candidates for the Presidency be born in the country and not have to rely on an act of Congress to be recognized a citizen --- just as the Constitution requires @HoustonSam ?

[libertybele]

They were considered allies until Trump got butt hurt when Cruz won the 2016 Iowa caucus.  Unfortunately Trump only cooperates with people when it works to his personal benefit; if someone can cite an example of Trump taking a back seat personally in order to benefit the country or the R party then I'll acknowledge I'm wrong.

The two of them can be a very strong team so long as there is no outcome that might call for Trump personally to lose anything, and the mid-term elections are such an opportunity.  If they both decide to pursue the R nomination again in 2024 we'll be back to "Lyin' Ted" as soon as any state breaks to Cruz's advantage.

It's really time for everyone to get past that.  It has taken me awhile but Cruz isn't eligible.  Much like our current VP.

Both of them are dynamic in their own way, and if any two can put their efforts together to defeat the crap that's going on, it's them.

[HoustonSam]

Why is Ted Cruz still in play among constitutional conservatives for the presidency?    Is it really asking too much for the Republican Party to insist their candidates for the Presidency be born in the country and not have to rely on an act of Congress to be recognized a citizen --- just as the Constitution requires @HoustonSam ?

When the Constitution was ratified both jus soli (of the soil) and jus sanguinis (of the blood) had been recognized as natural born citizenship for hundreds of years in the English legal tradition.  The Constitution mentions neither so, failing to distinguish them, does *not* require that a candidate for the Presidency be born in the country.  Contentions I sometimes see on TBR to the contrary are pointless and obtuse, even if scholarly.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 reiterated jus sanguinis.  This act of Congress confirms that Cruz is a natural born citizen just as surely as an act of Congress - the President of the Senate rejecting electors - would have confirmed that Trump was President.

@Right_in_Virginia

[Victoria33]

Unfortunately, Cruz has turned into an overweight, needs a shave, yeller.  Because of this, I doubt he could be elected as the Republican presidential candidate.

[roamer_1]

Unfortunately, Cruz has turned into an overweight, needs a shave, yeller.  Because of this, I doubt he could be elected as the Republican presidential candidate.

Yep. Much of his substance has been frittered away. I might still be convinced to vote for him... But no where near with the exuberance that once was. He's on the bubble. Barely.

[roamer_1]

When the Constitution was ratified both jus soli (of the soil) and jus sanguinis (of the blood) had been recognized as natural born citizenship for hundreds of years in the English legal tradition.  The Constitution mentions neither so, failing to distinguish them, does *not* require that a candidate for the Presidency be born in the country.  Contentions I sometimes see on TBR to the contrary are pointless and obtuse, even if scholarly.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 reiterated jus sanguinis.  This act of Congress confirms that Cruz is a natural born citizen just as surely as an act of Congress - the President of the Senate rejecting electors - would have confirmed that Trump was President.

TRUE.

[libertybele]

Unfortunately, Cruz has turned into an overweight, needs a shave, yeller.  Because of this, I doubt he could be elected as the Republican presidential candidate.

IMHO Cruz's beard gives him a more accepted youthful appearance. As for being overweight, we've had several presidents that have been a little on the pudgy side; Taft, Clinton, and Trump and I don't see that as a big deal.

Cruz has become more relevant then before and certainly more assertive.  He also has the #1 podcast in the country.

However, I just don't see him running in 2024, but I do see him becoming very active in doing everything that he can to upset the left's stranglehold that they currently have.

Even at that the odds are not in the GOP's favor.

[Right_in_Virginia]

So you're perfectly fine with the President of the United States being a native of a foreign country, complete with that country's passport until high school when mom was forced to file the necessary forms to naturalize her baby boy to obtain a US Passport for him.  The grown baby boy did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014.

Substitute "Canada" with "Iran".

I'm a little surprised that a principled "conservative" such as yourself would throw away one of the most brilliant protections our Founders gave us --- and throw it away all for one man.

Good to know @HoustonSam  ---

That's all. 

[Bigun]

When the Constitution was ratified both jus soli (of the soil) and jus sanguinis (of the blood) had been recognized as natural born citizenship for hundreds of years in the English legal tradition.  The Constitution mentions neither so, failing to distinguish them, does *not* require that a candidate for the Presidency be born in the country.  Contentions I sometimes see on TBR to the contrary are pointless and obtuse, even if scholarly.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 reiterated jus sanguinis.  This act of Congress confirms that Cruz is a natural born citizen just as surely as an act of Congress - the President of the Senate rejecting electors - would have confirmed that Trump was President.

@Right_in_Virginia

If you are in need of any piece of legislation ever passed for your citizenship, you are NOT a natural-born citizen!  Period!

And furthermore, SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

(A)ll children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

[HoustonSam]

So you're perfectly fine with the President of the United States being a native of a foreign country, complete with that country's passport until high school when mom was forced to file the necessary forms to naturalize her baby boy to obtain a US Passport for him.  The grown baby boy did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014.

Even Trump himself, while insanely perpetuating *the day after he was nominated* the outrageous canard that Cruz's father was implicated in the Kennedy assassination, did not assert this kind of asinine nonsense.  No naturalization papers have ever been filed for Cruz, because none are needed; to prove me wrong all you have to do is cite them.  He renounced Canadian citizenship when he learned that he had it.

Substitute "Canada" with "Iran".

So now Canada = Iran.  Are you drunk?

I'm a little surprised that a principled "conservative" such as yourself would throw away one of the most brilliant protections our Founders gave us --- and throw it away all for one man.

You haven't rebutted a single word I wrote - nothing about the legal definitions of citizenship, nothing about US Constitutional requirements, and certainly nothing about your own equivocation and inconsistency on the legal significance of Acts of Congress.  Instead you reiterate debunked lies that even Trump himself wouldn't peddle.  How remarkable that you would publicly destroy your own personal credibility as a rational, thinking person ------------ and throw it away all for one man.

@Right_in_Virginia

[Bigun]

Even Trump himself, while insanely perpetuating *the day after he was nominated* the outrageous canard that Cruz's father was implicated in the Kennedy assassination, did not assert this kind of asinine nonsense.  No naturalization papers have ever been filed for Cruz, because none are needed; to prove me wrong all you have to do is cite them.  He renounced Canadian citizenship when he learned that he had it.So now Canada = Iran.  Are you drunk?You haven't rebutted a single word I wrote - nothing about the legal definitions of citizenship, nothing about US Constitutional requirements, and certainly nothing about your own equivocation and inconsistency on the legal significance of Acts of Congress.  Instead you reiterate debunked lies that even Trump himself wouldn't peddle.  How remarkable that you would publicly destroy your own personal credibility as a rational, thinking person ------------ and throw it away all for one man.

@Right_in_Virginia

@HoustonSam

What you seem to be missing here is that mere citizenship is NOT the same as natural-born citizenship. And the Constitution itself make that distinction in a single sentence "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, ..."

[HoustonSam]

@HoustonSam
What you seem to be missing here is that mere citizenship is NOT the same as natural-born citizenship. And the Constitution itself make that distinction in a single sentence "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, ..."

When I said "scholarly" above @Bigun I was thinking of you.

So here is my argument :

I'm sure you'll agree with me on the major premise that the Constitution, and legislative acts, should be interpreted according to Original Intent.  The words mean what the writers understood the words to mean, and neither courts nor legislatures have the legitimate authority to change the original meaning; only an Amendment can change what is included in original intent.

The minor premise is what I alluded to above - both jus soli and jus sanguinis were understood by the writers of the US Constitution to be cases of natural born citizenship.  Now this is a question of fact, and I stand to be corrected on it.  But my understanding is that English law had considered both of these to be natural born citizenship since the mid-1300s, and the Founders would have been very well aware of that.

So I conclude that both those born on the soil, and those born of the blood, are natural born citizens.  In both cases citizenship comes *by birth, at birth*, because (as I understand) that is what the Founders intended, and it doesn't make any difference what any legislative act or judicial opinion said later.  That is the Original Intent, its legal force is constitutional and can be changed only by amendment, and there has been no such amendment.

The short references you provided to case law demonstrate your scholarship.  But in addition to the Original Intent argument I make above, that judges and justices are bound by original intent and cannot deviate from it, I also note that those cites reiterate the equation of jus soli with natural born, but do not negate the equation of jus sanguinis with natural born.  Perhaps those cites demonstrate that their authors recognized a more certain definition for jus soli, but as Constitutionalists do we not believe that judges and justices do not make the law?  If the Founders were within a four-hundred-year-old understanding of English law when they wrote the Constitution, then in the absence of an amendment, what difference does it make what a judge thought afterward?

[Sled Dog]

His eligibility is an issue.  However,  I think both Trump and Cruz working in concert to create a major upheaval in the DEM party is quite possible.  It's not just a matter of one of them or both of them running. The DEMS/liberals formed a coup against Trump; a similar situation needs to happen to the DEMS. Ballot integrity is going to be one of the biggest challenges and with the DEMS in control along with idiots within the GOPe like Romney it's going to be quite an undertaking and a miracle will certainly help.

No, it's not any sort of issue at all.

Sure, that parasitic pervert from Kenya was never a US citizen.  Under the laws in effect the time he was born in Kenya, his jungle-fever socialist momma wasn't old enough to confer her citizenship onto Daddy Obama's spawn. And he's shown us two different fake birth certificates to prove it.

Ted Cruz is a natural born US citizen, conferred by his momma under the laws in effect at the time.

It's only an "issue" because Rodents and RINO NT fools absolutely detest real Americans.

What needs to happen to the Rodents industrial quantities of tar and tons of vulture feathers.   

[Sled Dog]

IMHO Cruz's beard gives him a more accepted youthful appearance. As for being overweight, we've had several presidents that have been a little on the pudgy side; Taft, Clinton, and Trump and I don't see that as a big deal.

Cruz has become more relevant then before and certainly more assertive.  He also has the #1 podcast in the country.

However, I just don't see him running in 2024, but I do see him becoming very active in doing everything that he can to upset the left's stranglehold that they currently have.

Even at that the odds are not in the GOP's favor.

Cruz' beard gives him something Kamel's Butt can never show evidence of.   Testicles and testosterone.  Very important in a leader, and it's no wonder no Democrat running for president can grow a beard.

[Sled Dog]

@HoustonSam

What you seem to be missing here is that mere citizenship is NOT the same as natural-born citizenship. And the Constitution itself make that distinction in a single sentence "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, ..."

The definition of "natural born" citizenship is not given in the Constitution.   If the Cruz Momma had spawned Little Rafael in Houston, and then, that very afternoon, moved him to Canada, with nothing else in his life changing, what happens to your argument?

That Kenyan homosexual was raised as a muslim and as an Indonesian until he was something like eight years old.   None of his childhood adult contacts until he was something like 52, ever acted like Americans act.   That's why Hillary's claim that he's an illegal alien stuck and persisted.  It's a true statement.

Ted Cruz has never acted as anything but a loyal American, because he is one, except for his support for hidden taxes shown in 2016.   But maybe he's learned.    He's certainly the most constitutionally informed candidate we've ever had for president.   Compare that to the fatal ignorance of that Kenyan Marxist, who, while pretending to be a Hahvahd law perfesser, completely pretended utter ignorance of Marbury v. Madison.

What's your REAL complaint against Cruz since your Natural Born Citizen argument is as bogus as the coming trillion-dollar Obama's they're getting ready to print for limited circulation. 

Personally, I don't imbue dirt with magical properties, not even the special dirt found only inside the US geographical borders.   Dirt is dirt.   

Should we judge people by the color of the dirt they were born on, or the content of their character?   

Is the content of someone's character defined by magic dirt?

[Bigun]

When I said "scholarly" above @Bigun I was thinking of you.

So here is my argument :

I'm sure you'll agree with me on the major premise that the Constitution, and legislative acts, should be interpreted according to Original Intent.  The words mean what the writers understood the words to mean, and neither courts nor legislatures have the legitimate authority to change the original meaning; only an Amendment can change what is included in original intent.

The minor premise is what I alluded to above - both jus soli and jus sanguinis were understood by the writers of the US Constitution to be cases of natural born citizenship.  Now this is a question of fact, and I stand to be corrected on it.  But my understanding is that English law had considered both of these to be natural born citizenship since the mid-1300s, and the Founders would have been very well aware of that.

So I conclude that both those born on the soil, and those born of the blood, are natural born citizens.  In both cases citizenship comes *by birth, at birth*, because (as I understand) that is what the Founders intended, and it doesn't make any difference what any legislative act or judicial opinion said later.  That is the Original Intent, its legal force is constitutional and can be changed only by amendment, and there has been no such amendment.

The short references you provided to case law demonstrate your scholarship.  But in addition to the Original Intent argument I make above, that judges and justices are bound by original intent and cannot deviate from it, I also note that those cites reiterate the equation of jus soli with natural born, but do not negate the equation of jus sanguinis with natural born.  Perhaps those cites demonstrate that their authors recognized a more certain definition for jus soli, but as Constitutionalists do we not believe that judges and justices do not make the law?  If the Founders were within a four-hundred-year-old understanding of English law when they wrote the Constitution, then in the absence of an amendment, what difference does it make what a judge thought afterward?

And the founder's problem was in the fact that there was to be no line of succession in the United States as there is to this day in England and they had to prevent anyone with any possibility of having divided loyalties from rising to the Presidency.

Here's a link to some REALY good information on the subject @HoustonSam

https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

Thank you for the kind words.

[HoustonSam]

It's only an "issue" because Rodents and RINO NT fools absolutely detest real Americans.

It's not only NT types who want to make an issue of Cruz's birthplace; just read this thread.

[Bigun]

The definition of "natural born" citizenship is not given in the Constitution.   If the Cruz Momma had spawned Little Rafael in Houston, and then, that very afternoon, moved him to Canada, with nothing else in his life changing, what happens to your argument?

Nothing at all as his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth.

That Kenyan homosexual was raised as a muslim and as an Indonesian until he was something like eight years old.   None of his childhood adult contacts until he was something like 52, ever acted like Americans act.   That's why Hillary's claim that he's an illegal alien stuck and persisted.  It's a true statement.

Ted Cruz has never acted as anything but a loyal American, because he is one, except for his support for hidden taxes shown in 2016.   But maybe he's learned.    He's certainly the most constitutionally informed candidate we've ever had for president.   Compare that to the fatal ignorance of that Kenyan Marxist, who, while pretending to be a Hahvahd law perfesser, completely pretended utter ignorance of Marbury v. Madison.

What's your REAL complaint against Cruz since your Natural Born Citizen argument is as bogus as the coming trillion-dollar Obama's they're getting ready to print for limited circulation.

I have no complaint against Ted Cruz. In fact, I love the guy but that does not change the fact that he is not constitutionally qualified to become president.  But since no one has "standing" to challenge his, or anyone else's qualification in court I suppose that, in the end, you are right - it doesn't matter. @Sled Dog

 There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz's citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute.  If I get a chance sometime, I would like to spend the time to highlight the findings of this case that bear on the current discussion.  Here is one particular quote of note:

"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."

I assume that Mr. Cruz and his parents have met all of the obligations described above, that is why his US citizenship is not in question.  But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural-born citizenship.

I will use myself as an example.  I was born in the United States to two citizen parents.  My citizenship is granted (by nature) owing to the place of my birth (jus soli), and the undivided loyalties of my citizen parents (jus sanguinis), under the sole governance of the United States Constitution.  That is, my citizenship does not depend on the existence of any statutory actions taken by the US Congress (nor can it ever be constrained by such); hence I am a natural-born citizen.

[HoustonSam]

 There is a very instructive Supreme Court case, Rogers v. Bellei 401 U.S. 815 (1971), while not focused on the specifics of Ted Cruz's citizenship origins, contains a very good discussion on the specifics of citizenship via statute.  If I get a chance sometime, I would like to spend the time to highlight the findings of this case that bear on the current discussion.  Here is one particular quote of note:

"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."

I assume that Mr. Cruz and his parents have met all of the obligations described above, that is why his US citizenship is not in question.  But in reviewing the above, and the rest of Rogers v. Bellei, you can see the clear distinctions (and inherent legislatively imposed constraints) drawn (in other SC cases as well) between citizenship by statute, and natural-born citizenship.

Wow that's an interesting cite @Bigun, and again a credit to your scholarship and research.  As I understand Cruz's specifics, this opinion would seem to lend weight to your position; it seems to require that he would have had to swear an oath of allegiance within six months of his 21st birthday, administered by the Bureau of Naturalization.  I'm not aware that any such thing ever happened.

But I also question whether we, as Constitutionalists, can really tolerate a judicial opinion setting out specific requirements like this; it seems to me these requirements are a legislative matter, not a judicial one.  And I again assert my Original Intent argument - The Founders understood jus sanguinis to be a kind of natural born citizenship, so regardless of later acts of Congress or SCOTUS, it is.

[libertybele]

Regardless, I am very glad that the these two powerhouses have met and have discussed strategy for the upcoming  election.  The two most hated men by the leftist I'm sure are making heads spin right now.  One is very unpredictable and extremely aggressive and the other is off the charts brilliant.  I'm loving this picture and the look on their faces
I think is priceless.  Then there's still the fact that 75 million people still voted for Trump.  You gotta love it!