Ted Cruz’s Time Is Coming to Lead a Resurgent Right

[libertybele]

I don't agree with your prediction in bold above @libertybele ; I expect Cruz definitely to run again and I won't be surprised if Trump does as well in 2024.

As strong as I am in support of Cruz, I have to acknowledge he is missing some important intangibles in charisma and mannerism.  Even here among Conservatives he is not trusted by some.  I wish he could have the self-awareness and reflection to see this and set a different course for himself, as intellectual leader with continued opportunities in the Senate, Dept of Justice, and SCOTUS, but not POTUS.

And I think Trump should reach a similar conclusion.  He can be most effective in media, perhaps by building a platform where he and Conservatives can't be "cancelled", giving him a large megaphone.

If Trump and Cruz could work together as King-Makers, I think they could unify enough people on the right to build a powerful coalition.  But I'm afraid both egos are too large to accept being King-Maker rather than King.

I disagree.  As a matter of fact the two of them met recently at Mar a Lago. I thought it was a great picture and the press and others certainly reacted.   I  found all the  c ommotion they created laughable.
 

Just my opinion, but  I don't see either of them running , and certainly not against each other as that defeats the purpose of unity but I think they will be working behind the scenes;  Cruz helping with the ground game and Trump holding rallies.

[Hoodat]

The 'natural born citizen' issue is misdirected.  It is the States who select the President.  They are the ones who hold standing here.  For the individual, his fight is against his own State.

The fact that all 50 States allowed Baraq Obama's name on the ballot (and would do so for Ted Cruz), it places them all on the same side, legally.  And it is disingenuous for a private citizen to wait until after an election to submit a legal challenge.  The fight should have been waged - individual against State - before the State primary election.  But that didn't happen.

[Sled Dog]

Actually, they are.  I would like to see that changed, but it is what it is.

Ann Coulter is an ass, but she covers this quite well.

But if you want to believe the racist bigots of 1870 allowed into the Constitution of the United States language that granted to ANY spawn from ANY mother from ANY place in the world to become a citizen by virtue of Magic Dirt, even though anyone actually taking the twenty seconds needed to READ the amendment and see the words "under the jurisdiction thereof", well, you're absolutely right.  Yessir, nothing you say is ever wrong.  Not once have you ever made a mistake.

No, not ever.


So what you're saying is some wetback son of a mexican whore who broke the law getting into the United States and birthing on the Magic Dirt is a natural born citizen, even though the Constitution regarding the citizenship of that spawn has words that say otherwise, but that Ted Cruz, because he was born of a US mother and was declared a natural born citizen under the laws of the time, is not...

...because Magic Dirt rules.

[Sled Dog]

We disagree @Sled Dog .  The courts are where we go for rulings on such constitutional disputes.   

But there is no dispute and hence no need for a ruling.

Courts don't rule on matters that aren't in dispute.

Heck, courts won't rule on things that are in dispute, if it means Roberts would have to defend the Constitution and stop the Rodents from stealing an election.

I'm not a personal big fan of relying on what nine unelected people in black dresses have to say about a Constitution anyone with eyes can read, a document which was, in fact, intended to be read by anyone with eyes.

You need to explain why you're helping the RINOs sabotage a good conservative.

And Kamel's Butt Harris appreciates how you're helping her, too.

What are you talking about?  Who's serving your rodents and rinos?

People bringing up nonsense to assail one of the staunchest conservatives in the US Congress today.

Fascinating: You bring up butts but say you're not interested in them.   

I like butts.   Scuttlebutts are handy...not that you know what one is.   Fine firm female eighteen year old butts are the usually the best to look at, even up to age thirty they're usually works of art in motion.   Cigarette butts I have no use for.   Kamel's Butt is an insult to eyes and ears.    She obviously was taught how to laugh on her fathers chicken farm.

Write this down, because it's the crux of the issue:  For purposes of the Presidency of the United States, Citizen is not the same as Natural Born Citizen.

For the purposes of the meaning of words, the Congress writes the laws and they defined what the phrase Natural Born means, because that's their assigned task under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.

Deep, Sled Dog.  Meaningless, but deep.

Only Americans understand.    It's a test, actually.

This Navy veteran passed it long ago.

[Sled Dog]

Sorry! Wrong again!

https://www.scribd.com/document/36527058/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment

 

[Bigun]

The 'natural born citizen' issue is misdirected.  It is the States who select the President.  They are the ones who hold standing here.  For the individual, his fight is against his own State.

The fact that all 50 States allowed Baraq Obama's name on the ballot (and would do so for Ted Cruz), it places them all on the same side, legally.  And it is disingenuous for a private citizen to wait until after an election to submit a legal challenge.  The fight should have been waged - individual against State - before the State primary election.  But that didn't happen.

I am 100% sure that the following language is a part of the Constitution for the United States of America. @Hoodat

Article II, Section I

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

[libertybele]

..."The Democratic Party is now tottering perilously between the Far Too Old and the Far Too Young—the Scylla of Pelosi counter-posed to the Charybdis of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and her young super-Left fledgling hawks.

Cruz is a mature, formidable, and potent emerging force on the nationalist Right. Like Reagan before him, he offers potent hope that the new forces awakened by his predecessors will triumph yet."

[HoustonSam]

Sorry! Wrong again!

https://www.scribd.com/document/36527058/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment

Thanks for the link @Bigun, I look forward to reading it and learning more.

Here is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment : 

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

If you'll just highlight for me the part that says the parents must be US citizens then I'll gladly admit I'm wrong.


If I understand your overall position correctly, you are arguing that a natural-born citizen is one born to citizen parents and within the country, or more generally within the country's jurisdiction -  I'm assuming you would include as natural-born citizens the children born to US diplomats or military personnel overseas.  Must the parents also be natural-born citizens, or can they be naturalized?

When we flip that around it would mean that no one born in the US of non-citizen parents is a natural born citizen; there would be no reason to call out specifically the children of foreign diplomats as exempt from the 14th Amendment because those foreign diplomats would be no different from foreign tourists for this purpose.  But as of now foreign tourists in the US *are* under US jurisdiction, while foreign diplomats are not, so subject to the jurisdiction thereof retains important meaning.

I'm not arguing that yours is a bad definition, in fact I like it.  I'm just arguing that it's not *the* definition.  It might be a better definition than what we have.

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

Well, speaking as a "mindless pro-Trump bot", I have no vendetta against Cruz.  I have concerns about his ability to connect with enough Americans to win a national election .  .  .

.  .  .  while I have concerns about a national Party that has betrayed Conservative ideals at every opportunity.  Bolstering any politician does not offset government funding of Planned Parenthood, socialized medicine, forced wealth redistribution, or deficit spending at any level.

.  .  . and I have concerns about upending one of the most brilliant protections our Founders included in defining eligibility for President of the United States.

I would take someone born in Bangladesh who was a true Conservative over 99.9% of the American-born GOP trash pretending to be.  The American Dream is not manufactured here.  It is imported from abroad.

This protection has already taken two direct hits --- but the third for Cruz would end it.

Try being honest, RIV.  Your contempt of Cruz has nothing to do with him being born in Canada.  It has everything to do with the false memes you mindlessly bought into during the 2016 campaign.  Is your contempt equally as strong against 1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater since he wasn't born in the US either?  And do you give Baraq Obama a pass since he was?

This gift to the globalists is just too damn big for my comfort or support.

Ah, the great 'Globalist' boogeyman.  So what makes Ted Cruz a globalist?  Is this where you again repeat the lie about Cruz supporting TPP?

Why are some so tethered to this one candidate?

Did you actually keep a straight face when typing that?

Are there not others with conservative track records that go beyond speeches and don't come with Ted Cruz's baggage?

By 'baggage', you mean a bag full of lies, right?  btw, have you ever noticed Trump's baggage?

Or is winning still considered to be a goal for the other guys?

Without Conservativism, we all lose.

[DefiantMassRINO]

What are Ted Cruz's proposals that would convince us he's ready to lead us forward?

Has he crafted something similar to the 1990s Contract with America so we don't have to buy his books to know what he's about?

[Bigun]

Thanks for the link @Bigun, I look forward to reading it and learning more.

Here is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment : 

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

If you'll just highlight for me the part that says the parents must be US citizens then I'll gladly admit I'm wrong.


If I understand your overall position correctly, you are arguing that a natural-born citizen is one born to citizen parents and within the country, or more generally within the country's jurisdiction -  I'm assuming you would include as natural-born citizens the children born to US diplomats or military personnel overseas.  Must the parents also be natural-born citizens, or can they be naturalized?

When we flip that around it would mean that no one born in the US of non-citizen parents is a natural born citizen; there would be no reason to call out specifically the children of foreign diplomats as exempt from the 14th Amendment because those foreign diplomats would be no different from foreign tourists for this purpose.  But as of now foreign tourists in the US *are* under US jurisdiction, while foreign diplomats are not, so subject to the jurisdiction thereof retains important meaning.

I'm not arguing that yours is a bad definition, in fact I like it.  I'm just arguing that it's not *the* definition.  It might be a better definition than what we have.

Read the material at the link I posted above @HoustonSam and you will soon discover that "subject to the  jurisdiction there of" means sole and complete. Not subject to any other jurisdiction.  It' perfectly clear.

[Hoodat]

I am 100% sure that the following language is a part of the Constitution for the United States of America. @Hoodat

Article II, Section I

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Again, it was YOUR State that violated this by placing an ineligible person on the ballot and then granting its electoral votes for that person.  Your State should have been challenged long before the election - not after.

[Sled Dog]

Thanks for the link @Bigun, I look forward to reading it and learning more.

Here is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment : 

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

If you'll just highlight for me the part that says the parents must be US citizens then I'll gladly admit I'm wrong.


If I understand your overall position correctly, you are arguing that a natural-born citizen is one born to citizen parents and within the country, or more generally within the country's jurisdiction -  I'm assuming you would include as natural-born citizens the children born to US diplomats or military personnel overseas.  Must the parents also be natural-born citizens, or can they be naturalized?

When we flip that around it would mean that no one born in the US of non-citizen parents is a natural born citizen; there would be no reason to call out specifically the children of foreign diplomats as exempt from the 14th Amendment because those foreign diplomats would be no different from foreign tourists for this purpose.  But as of now foreign tourists in the US *are* under US jurisdiction, while foreign diplomats are not, so subject to the jurisdiction thereof retains important meaning.

I'm not arguing that yours is a bad definition, in fact I like it.  I'm just arguing that it's not *the* definition.  It might be a better definition than what we have.

Illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".   

They're criminals.

They're citizens of another country and subject to the jurisdiction of their country.  The word does not mean "inside our circle of Magic Dirt".   Until they are properly naturalized, those people are subjects of their own country, not the US.       Sure, we can prosecute them when they break laws, but they're not treated as citizens under the law.   Because they're  not subject to our jurisdiction, they get to call the Mexican consulate when they're arrested and come under special scrutiny.

So.

Why are you so eager to give the Golden Treasure of US citizenship to the spawn of any criminal that can crawl across the border?    What have they done to deserve it?

[Bigun]

Again, it was YOUR State that violated this by placing an ineligible person on the ballot and then granting its electoral votes for that person.  Your State should have been challenged long before the election - not after.

And the sole purpose of SCOTUS is to enforce the constitution on all parties to the agreement.

[Hoodat]

..."The Democratic Party is now tottering perilously between the Far Too Old and the Far Too Young—the Scylla of Pelosi counter-posed to the Charybdis of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and her young super-Left fledgling hawks.

Cruz is a mature, formidable, and potent emerging force on the nationalist Right. Like Reagan before him, he offers potent hope that the new forces awakened by his predecessors will triumph yet."

Far and away, our biggest enemy right now is the GOP.  At least Ted Cruz understands that.

[Sled Dog]

What are Ted Cruz's proposals that would convince us he's ready to lead us forward?

Has he crafted something similar to the 1990s Contract with America so we don't have to buy his books to know what he's about?

Well, one of the best indicators we have that his real name is Neo is that the people who hate what America stands for are so eager to destroy him before he gets another chance to run.

Though he might really be The Two, not The One, depending on how he compares with DeSantis when the time for measuring the relative merits comes upon us.

Can you explain why people who aren't Americans hate Cruz so early and so strongly?    I mean, besides the fact that he beat the pants off Jeb! and Kay-Sick.  At least Cruz never had to beg anyone to give him the clap, like Jeb! did.

[libertybele]

Without Conservativism, we all lose.

True and unless ALL conservatives join together to defeat the liberal stranglehold on this country we will continue to see our Republic crumble.

Time to move forward, find a qualified true conservative and run him or her --- I just think with the help of Cruz and Trump together they would seat him or her in the oval office.

[Hoodat]

And the sole purpose of SCOTUS is to enforce the constitution on all parties to the agreement.

The parties (i.e. the States) are already in agreement.  And the failure of the citizenry to challenge each State beforehand shows that the People have granted their tacit agreement.

I empathize with what you are saying.  I really do.  But this battle should have been waged long before the November election.  Sadly, no one cared until it was too late.  We have to retake control at the State level instead of relying on our National Party to fight our battles.

[HoustonSam]

But if you want to believe the racist bigots of 1870 allowed into the Constitution of the United States language that granted to ANY spawn from ANY mother from ANY place in the world to become a citizen by virtue of Magic Dirt, even though anyone actually taking the twenty seconds needed to READ the amendment and see the words "under the jurisdiction thereof", well, you're absolutely right.  Yessir, nothing you say is ever wrong.  Not once have you ever made a mistake.

My offer to @Bigun posted above applies to you as well.  All you have to do @Sled Dog is show me in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment any reference to the parents and I'll admit I'm wrong and you're right.

And I notice you've conveniently ignored the implication of your own argument - that aliens on US soil are not subject to US jurisdiction.  So you have no problem with drunk driving illegal aliens killing people for example?  After all, according to you they're not under US jurisdiction so obviously they can't be prosecuted in the US.  Apparently you think our laws simply don't apply to them.

So what you're saying is some wetback son of a mexican whore who broke the law getting into the United States and birthing on the Magic Dirt is a natural born citizen, even though the Constitution regarding the citizenship of that spawn has words that say otherwise, but that Ted Cruz, because he was born of a US mother and was declared a natural born citizen under the laws of the time, is not...

...because Magic Dirt rules.

Again I have to question your reading comprehension.  Nothing I have written can remotely be interpreted to mean that Cruz is not a natural-born US citizen, in fact I've argued the exact opposite on this board, that he is, and you have joined me in those threads taking the same position.

[Right_in_Virginia]

But there is no dispute and hence no need for a ruling.

Courts don't rule on matters that aren't in dispute.

It will be if Cruz runs,  A perfect time to weaken our agenda.

I'm not a personal big fan of relying on what nine unelected people in black dresses have to say about a Constitution

So you're not a fan, duly noted.

You need to explain why you're helping the RINOs sabotage a good conservative.

You need to explain why you're helping a conservative sabotage the constitution.  You first.

And Kamel's Butt Harris appreciates how you're helping her, too.

Did you think this through    Or were you going for moronic?

Only Americans understand.    It's a test, actually.  This Navy veteran passed it long ago.

I'd like to see the test scores, if you don't mind.

[GrouchoTex]

To anyone who plans to vote in the 2024 election:

Simple yes or no, please: If Cruz were the Republican nominee, would you vote for him?

@AllThatJazzZ
Yes.
I have every time he has been on the ballot, for Senate and in the primary for Senate and POTUS.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Right_in_Virginia

If Ted Cruz were to win the Nomination in 2024, for whom would you vote?

[roamer_1]

Simple yes or no, please: If Cruz were the Republican nominee, would you vote for him?

A hard probably. It is still possible.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Just because non-conservatives hate him doesn't mean he'll be able to move forward any conservtiave programs or policies.  Cruz wouldn't be the first alleged "conservative" Republican from Texas, like Bush 43, to be a RINO.

Maybe people hate him simply because he's another Ivy League educated know-it-all know-nothing.

[Sled Dog]

The parties (i.e. the States) are already in agreement.  And the failure of the citizenry to challenge each State beforehand shows that the People have granted their tacit agreement.

I empathize with what you are saying.  I really do.  But this battle should have been waged long before the November election.  Sadly, no one cared until it was too late.  We have to retake control at the State level instead of relying on our National Party to fight our battles.

Really?

The people of the state of Pennsylvania were in agreement with how that legislature defined how the 2020 electors would be selected.    There was no battle to wage.   The Rodents usurped the authority presented to the State legislatures by means of judicial and executive fiat, coming between the people and their legislature to do so, thereby invalidating those electors sent to Washington from those states.   

The people's agreement is with what their legislatures commanded.    That was violated.

But people want to focus on inanities about Magic Dirt because the RINOs don't want to be bothered with challenging the Rodents' Big Lie.