The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: libertybele on May 05, 2021, 07:09:54 pm
-
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.... happy77
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://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0lqvmJWUAEOaUK?format=jpg&name=small)
https://www.businessinsider.com/ted-cruz-tweets-photo-of-himself-with-president-trump-mar-a-lago-2021-5
-
The "Dynamic Duo" ??
-
Cruz in 2024? Works for me.
-
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.
-
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.... happy77
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
While I just can't bring myself to to point where I trust Cruz,he and Trump were never political enemies. Opponents,you bet. Enemies,nope.
And there can be no real doubt about Cruz being one of the sharpest cookies in American politics. IF I felt like I could truly trust him,I would be suggesting him as a VP running mate for Trump in 2024,even though I don't think his ego would allow it unless the left manages to import enough illegal alien voters into his district to put his re-election at risk.
I do think Cruz would make one HELL of a good and effective Attorney General,although I doubt he would take the position.
-
I do think Cruz would make one HELL of a good and effective Attorney General,although I doubt he would take the position.
Excellent call @sneakypete, and Justice is sorely in need of a thorough house-cleaning.
-
Excellent call @sneakypete, and Justice is sorely in need of a thorough house-cleaning.
@HoustonSam
I honestly think he is man enough for that job,too.
Maybe even the PERFECT man for that job,given the way he has been treated by the left and their media lapdogs.
-
It's not only NT types who want to make an issue of Cruz's birthplace; just read this thread.
Yes, there's something wrong with people who want to reject one of the best possible candidates because he's a natural born US citizen, because of magic dirt.
-
Nothing at all as his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth.
His mother was.
The law says he's a natural born citizen.
End of story.
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
You object to Cruz because of the dirt the hospital was built on.
That's pretty shallow.
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:
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.
I'm not especially interested in what "authorities" such as the completely political court has to say on such matters. The reality is that Cruz is a US citizen and meets, by law, all requirements to serve in the office of president when and if elected. And if elected he would serve with more honor and greater distinction than any Rodent who held the office since Jefferson.
-
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!
Yeah, more people than ever voted for any other president in US history.
-
@HoustonSam
I honestly think he is man enough for that job,too.
Maybe even the PERFECT man for that job,given the way he has been treated by the left and their media lapdogs.
Agreed. After he serves his two terms as president that would be an excellent place for him to go, before he gets to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and, eventually, Pope.
-
His mother was.
The law says he's a natural born citizen.
End of story.
You object to Cruz because of the dirt the hospital was built on.
That's pretty shallow.
I'm not especially interested in what "authorities" such as the completely political court has to say on such matters. The reality is that Cruz is a US citizen and meets, by law, all requirements to serve in the office of president when and if elected. And if elected he would serve with more honor and greater distinction than any Rodent who held the office since Jefferson.
No! I object to Cruz because he is not constitutionally qualified for the office of president. And I did the exact same for Obama, Marco Rubio, and Kamal Harris. I will continue to do so anyone in the same situation for as long as I live because I still revere our Constitution even if no one else on earth does.
-
Cruz would make an excellent AG. IMHO though at the rate things are going, the DEMS will find a way to oust him from his seat and I don't see that happening.
-
Even Trump himself ... did not assert this kind of asinine nonsense.
Yes, candidate Trump did bring up Cruz's ineligibility to be President. @HoustonSam .
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.
You'd best not be using this as your defense. If no naturalization papers were filed, then Cruz is not yet a legal citizen.
His mother needed to comply with the laws on the books for her son to become a naturalized citizen. This is why I mentioned Ted's Canadian passport --- when mom realized he didn't have a US Passport (I believe in high school) and wasn't yet eligible for one--- this was the Cruz family "oh. f*ck" moment.
Ted Cruz is not a US citizen by virtue of birth (as am I, born on US soil to two American citizens at the time of my birth). He is a US citizen by virtue of naturalization law passed by Congress. So if he's a legal citizen, mom filed the requisite naturalization paperwork.
He renounced Canadian citizenship when he learned that he had it.
He renounced his Canadian citizenship because dual citizenship doesn't poll well for politicos looking in the direction of the Oval Office.
So now Canada = Iran. Are you drunk?
No, not when I posted the statement or now. My actual quote: "Substitute "Canada" with "Iran"" was to make a point. My apologies is this was unclear. If "Iran" troubles you, substitute "Canada" with "Yemen" or "Iraq".
The point is as globalism puts a strangle hold on the United States. is this really the time to shred one of the most important and genius protections the Founders gave to American citizens? Is being born on US soil to two American citizens at the time of birth really, really too much to ask of our CIC?
I've not quoted your chastisement of me for not providing legal support because I see @Bigun has provided excellent background and appears to have reached you. And, he did a much better job than I would have. happy77
Maybe some day we can have a discussion about this brilliant clause in the Constitution without wrapping it around one man. At least I hope so.
-
I never intended when I posted this thread for Cruz's eligibility to be president to become the topic of the conversation.
I was enjoying the picture of Ted and Trump meeting and I highly doubt Ted is going to run; though the two of them obviously are going to be 'assisting' with whomever decides to run in 2024.
Personally, right now, I'd like to see DeSantis get the presidency, assign Ted as AG and Trump become governor of FL. (I've changed my mind on DeSantis as he continues to move in a conservative direction).
I don't want DeSantis' seat go to Christ. That's a very strong possibility, and I think Trump would bury him in an election.
I can't think of anyone stronger to run right now than DeSantis.
No, Ted is not eligible. The problem is who would take Ted seat? The GOP can't afford to lose a TX senate seat.
-
Yes, candidate Trump did bring up Cruz's ineligibility to be President. @HoustonSam .
You'd best not be using this as your defense. If no naturalization papers were filed, then Cruz is not yet a legal citizen.
His mother needed to comply with the laws on the books for her son to become a naturalized citizen. This is why I mentioned Ted's Canadian passport --- when mom realized he didn't have a US Passport (I believe in high school) and wasn't yet eligible for one--- this was the Cruz family "oh. f*ck" moment.
Ted Cruz is not a US citizen by virtue of birth (as am I, born on US soil to two American citizens at the time of my birth). He is a US citizen by virtue of naturalization law passed by Congress. So if he's a legal citizen, mom filed the requisite naturalization paperwork.
He renounced his Canadian citizenship because dual citizenship doesn't poll well for politicos looking in the direction of the Oval Office.
No, not when I posted the statement or now. My actual quote: "Substitute "Canada" with "Iran"" was to make a point. My apologies is this was unclear. If "Iran" troubles you, substitute "Canada" with "Yemen" or "Iraq".
The point is as globalism puts a strangle hold on the United States. is this really the time to shred one of the most important and genius protections the Founders gave to American citizens? Is being born on US soil to two American citizens at the time of birth really, really too much to ask of our CIC?
I've not quoted your chastisement of me for not providing legal support because I see @Bigun has provided excellent background and appears to have reached you. And, he did a much better job than I would have. happy77
Maybe some day we can have a discussion about this brilliant clause in the Constitution without wrapping it around one man. At least I hope so.
Trump suggested that Cruz would have "a cloud over his head" regarding natural birth citizenship questions. At no time did Trump make the fatuous undocumented assertions you've made about specific events, and Trump has no reluctance to press fatuous undocumented assertions. Again, all you have to do is cite those naturalization papers. You say they were filed, just cite them. And if you really want to argue that your failure to do so proves your point then you're just doubling down on sophistry and question-begging. If that makes you feel clever, then feel clever; I'm perfectly happy with readers reaching their own conclusions about our respective positions at this point.
@Bigun cites actual case law on the question rather than confusing hallucinations with evidence. But you will have seen my argument to him, and neither you nor he have rebutted it. To do so you can renounce Original Intent as a legal doctrine, or you can demonstrate that the Founders intentionally stepped outside the then-400-year-old understanding of Natural Birth Citizenship within which they had been educated. You've done neither. What you have done is make yourself look bad; snide, insulting remarks about Cruz and quickly-manufactured tautological premises prove only that you have no serious argument to make. That you continue this out of blind allegiance to Trump, and similarly-blind opposition to anyone who has ever disagreed with Trump, is incredible.
I'm reminded of a poker game I was in many years ago, betting against a guy who was so drunk he could not interpret the open cards and he raised into a hand he could not win. I could have taken his entire stake on that hand, but I decided the right thing to do was stop taking advantage of him, and I stopped raising.
So I call. Cite the naturalization papers or rebut my Original Intent argument.
@Right_in_Virginia
-
Trump suggested that Cruz would have "a cloud over his head" regarding natural birth citizenship questions. @
Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president
Washington Post, Jan 12, 2016
Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html
Every other part of your rant has been answered by others.
Ted Cruz is a citizen, but not natural born. As with anyone who emigrated to the United States, he owes his citizenship to an act of kindness courtesy of the US Congress.
I don't understand why you're so damn angry with ME @HoustonSam Cruz could have taken this to court for a ruling five years ago or even yesterday. He's chosen not to. Use your Wi-Fi to reach out to the Senator and ask him why not. At the very least, shouldn't "Mr. Constitution" be expected to put that document above his own, singular ambition?
-
So I call. Cite the naturalization papers or rebut my Original Intent argument.
My niece, born to a Nam vet in Costa Rica. lived her life there until 22. Came here and sent for papers.
No naturalization. No oath. Just got a social security card and became immediately eligible.
Born to one American parent, on another soil. She's just as American as I am.
-
Trump suggested that Cruz would have "a cloud over his head" regarding natural birth citizenship questions. At no time did Trump make the fatuous undocumented assertions you've made about specific events, and Trump has no reluctance to press fatuous undocumented assertions. Again, all you have to do is cite those naturalization papers. You say they were filed, just cite them. And if you really want to argue that your failure to do so proves your point then you're just doubling down on sophistry and question-begging. If that makes you feel clever, then feel clever; I'm perfectly happy with readers reaching their own conclusions about our respective positions at this point.
@Bigun cites actual case law on the question rather than confusing hallucinations with evidence. But you will have seen my argument to him, and neither you nor he have rebutted it. To do so you can renounce Original Intent as a legal doctrine, or you can demonstrate that the Founders intentionally stepped outside the then-400-year-old understanding of Natural Birth Citizenship within which they had been educated. You've done neither. What you have done is make yourself look bad; snide, insulting remarks about Cruz and quickly-manufactured tautological premises prove only that you have no serious argument to make. That you continue this out of blind allegiance to Trump, and similarly-blind opposition to anyone who has ever disagreed with Trump, is incredible.
I'm reminded of a poker game I was in many years ago, betting against a guy who was so drunk he could not interpret the open cards and he raised into a hand he could not win. I could have taken his entire stake on that hand, but I decided the right thing to do was stop taking advantage of him, and I stopped raising.
So I call. Cite the naturalization papers or rebut my Original Intent argument.
@Right_in_Virginia
I guess you missed my post above where I did rebut your argument @HoustonSam
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,436075.msg2424646.html#msg2424646
The founders were well aware of the lines of assertion to the throne of England and the fact that there was to be NONE of that in the United States of America which presented them with the knotty problem they intended to solve with this:
...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;...
Article II Section one, United States Constitution
From this article that I linked to up thread and a VERY good primer on the subject: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/
What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?
Article II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution, requires the President to be a “natural born Citizen”.
The meaning of this term is not set forth in The Constitution or in The Federalist Papers; and I found no discussion of the meaning in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention or in Alexander Hamilton’s notes of the same.
What does this tell us? That they all knew what it meant. We don’t go around defining “pizza”, because every American over the age of four knows what a pizza is.
Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.
And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work. I’ll prove it.
How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:
During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:
“… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” (2nd para) [boldface added]
Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.”
Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.2 Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:
“From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]
In footnote 1 on the same page (xxx), Lapradelle writes:
“… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: “Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks.” This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States, for the library was located in Carpenters’ Hall, where the First Congress deliberated, and within a stone’s throw of the Colonial State House of Pennsylvania, where the Second Congress met, and likewise near where the Constitution was framed …” [emphasis added]
So! Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787. 3
Vattel on “natural born citizens”, “inhabitants”, and “naturalized citizens”:
From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.1 [READ this footnote!] We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens. Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:
§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.
§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are citizens. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.
Do you see? The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”. But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.
How Our Framers applied Vattel’s Concept of “natural born citizen” in Our Constitution:
The Federal Convention was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787. John Jay, who had been a member of the Continental Congress [where they “pounced” on Vattel], sent this letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:
“…Permit me to hint, whether 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 army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”4
According, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:
“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.” [boldface added]
In § 214, Vattel states that “fundamental law” may withhold from naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was “grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President...
-
I was correct, the leftists heads are spinning over the picture of Cruz and Trump together. Reminiscing about an attempted coup? When the left is wrong they blame the right and that's exactly what she's doing..... 888mouth
https://www.newsweek.com/aoc-mocks-ted-cruz-donald-trump-mar-lago-photo-reminiscing-about-attempted-coups-1589054
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/05/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-mar-a-lago/index.html
-
Every other part of your rant has been answered by others.
Ted Cruz is a citizen, but not natural born. As with anyone who emigrated to the United States, he owes his citizenship to an act of kindness courtesy of the US Congress.
I don't understand why you're so damn angry with ME @HoustonSam Cruz could have taken this to court for a ruling five years ago or even yesterday. He's chosen not to. Use your Wi-Fi to reach out to the Senator and ask him why not. At the very least, shouldn't "Mr. Constitution" be expected to put that document above his own, singular ambition?
I'm not angry at you @Right_in_Virginia, in fact I respect and admire your energy and loyalty. I just don't tolerate nonsense from people who are clearly capable of serious and effective thought. There are some here whom I consider incapable of it; I have them on ignore.
We've each had our say here, let's call it a day and recognize that we agree far more than we disagree.
-
I guess you missed my post above where I did rebut your argument @HoustonSam
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,436075.msg2424646.html#msg2424646
The founders were well aware of the lines of assertion to the throne of England and the fact that there was to be NONE of that in the United States of America which presented them with the knotty problem they intended to solve with this:
Article II Section one, United States Constitution
From this article that I linked to up thread and a VERY good primer on the subject: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/
Again @Bigun I tip my hat to your research and scholarship, but I do not join in your conclusion. The reason for the natural-born clause is clear, the question is about the meaning of "natural born."
You make a strong case that the Founders were influenced by Vattel, and that he defined "natural born" as jus soli exclusively. However dictionaries, commentaries, and other scholarly works are not themselves law; only law is law. I submit that the Founders' meaning of "natural born" much more likely came from the laws in which they had been educated. I have cited in this thread previously that English law had recognized jus sanguinis citizenship since the 1300s, and I now cite specifically the British Nationality Act of 1730 (http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1730.htm) from which I quote :
"May it please your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared and enacted, and be it declared and enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited Act, be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever. "
Born "out of Ligeance of the Crown of England" means born outside English territory. This clearly establishes what we now call jus sanguinis citizenship as natural born, and would have been the Founders' understanding of "natural born". While Vattel's definition might be narrower, limited to jus soli, I argue that the Founders would have used *prior statutory terms* rather than scholarly ones. As Originalists we are obligated to perpetuate the Founders' understanding absent an amendment.
-
My niece, born to a Nam vet in Costa Rica. lived her life there until 22. Came here and sent for papers.
No naturalization. No oath. Just got a social security card and became immediately eligible.
Born to one American parent, on another soil. She's just as American as I am.
Good information to know and acknowledgement of the process.
-
Again @Bigun I tip my hat to your research and scholarship, but I do not join in your conclusion. The reason for the natural-born clause is clear, the question is about the meaning of "natural born."
You make a strong case that the Founders were influenced by Vattel, and that he defined "natural born" as jus soli exclusively. However dictionaries, commentaries, and other scholarly works are not themselves law; only law is law. I submit that the Founders' meaning of "natural born" much more likely came from the laws in which they had been educated. I have cited in this thread previously that English law had recognized jus sanguinis citizenship since the 1300s, and I now cite specifically the British Nationality Act of 1730 (https://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1730.htm) from which I quote :
"May it please your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared and enacted, and be it declared and enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited Act, be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever. "
Born "out of Ligeance of the Crown of England" means born outside English territory. This clearly establishes what we now call jus sanguinis citizenship as natural born, and would have been the Founders' understanding of "natural born". While Vattel's definition might be narrower, limited to jus soli, I argue that the Founders would have used *prior statutory terms* rather than scholarly ones. As Originalists we are obligated to perpetuate the Founders' understanding absent an amendment.
Then we shall just have to agree to disagree @HoustonSam
It is clear to me that not all aspects of English law were incorporated into U.S. Law and what you continually cite is a part that clearly was not! The man who wrote Blackstone's Commentaries, St. George Tucker, agrees with me and that is good enough for me.
The plain fact is that Barack Hussein Obama did serve two full terms as president and Kamala Harris does so today not because either is constitutionally qualified but because no one has "standing" in our courts to challenge their qualifications. Just like Texas, many other states, and the President of the United States himself, lacked standing to enforce the Constitution against Pennsylvania recently. Our Republic is DEAD as post and you cannot know how it pains me to acknowledge that fact.
Good day!
-
Then we shall just have to agree to disagree @HoustonSam
Reasonable people can differ on things @Bigun. Regardless of the specifics of citizenship law, I largely share in your perspective about the Rule of Law generally in the country. It's a sad day when we can't rely on the institutions.
-
Agreed. After he serves his two terms as president that would be an excellent place for him to go, before he gets to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and, eventually, Pope.
@Sled Dog
Ahhh,a Papist!
And you are still allowed to vote in America?