Quote from: Dubinsky on March 24, 2015, 03:05:31 AM
The opposition will find or create dirt even on candidates that are supposedly vetted such as Walker.  They will paint him as being against everything that he is actually for.  It's called dirty politics and the Democrats play that game the best.  When you find the "perfect" candidate, let us know.

The question about Ted Cruz's ligitimacy to be elected POTUS is going to have to be subjected to a national debate, just as the Kenyan born (former) candidate ought to have been.  Unlike Obama, Ted Cruz is not trying to hide from who and what he is.  This makes him even more appealing (to me and all of us).

Don't get me wrong!  I think Ted Cruz would make an excellant POTUS and is hands down, my first choice.  However, I can not be one of those who was for what it says in the COnstitution, before I was against  it! 

The issue of whether Ted Cruz meets the definition of "a natural born citizen" is going to have to be dealt with.  We ignore our COnstitution at our own peril.  This is what creates RINOS; Republicans look the other way on what our guys do (or attempt to do) that may be unconstitutional just because that's what the other side does!  Either we stand for something or we stand for nothing!  The COnstitution has been utterly disregarded by members of both parties for way too long.  Isn't this a basic principle of the TEA movement?

I feel that I can support Ted Cruz as my first choice, but I recognize that this one issue could be his fatal flaw.  I (we) need to have other choices wating in the wings, so if this (or another one) implodes, we still can take our country back!

Here's just one of the many (not made up) stories that is going to make 'our guy's' birth and qualifications a major issue to deal with.  Are you preparred to say that anyone can come here from anywhere on earth and become an American citizen and then become our President.  Our Founders had the good sense to know that is not a good idea for the f
uture of our country!  It's not about Cruz (or even Obama), it's about some future foreign usurper thaking over 'the American thrown'!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/03/23/394713013/is-ted-cruz-allowed-to-run-since-he-was-born-in-canada

If Cruz  can handle it and get past it, I'm all in  for him.  If it creates a firestorm of contravercy, it may become the distraction that prevents us from taking the Whitehouse.  The stakes are too high, to allow this to happen.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz versus Washington, Incorporated.  Sounds like a cage match.

Hillary will supply a constant source of material.  Cruz is making the most of it, skewering
the Arkansas Wonder Woman at every opportunity.

I was listening to Hillary on C-SPAN. Her big point was that the most important issue facing
Americans today is "social mobility." She quotes a couple of studies by Harvard sociology.
She is appealing to people who "feel trapped" where they are.  Then she proceeds, sociologist
that she is, to compare two cities "of comparable affluence,"  Atlanta and Seattle. That's when
I clicked the remote, but I'm just sayin'. Go Ted!

Quote from: wally on March 24, 2015, 08:50:58 AM
The question about Ted Cruz's ligitimacy to be elected POTUS is going to have to be subjected to a national debate, just as the Kenyan born (former) candidate ought to have been.  Unlike Obama, Ted Cruz is not trying to hide from who and what he is.  This makes him even more appealing (to me and all of us).

Don't get me wrong!  I think Ted Cruz would make an excellant POTUS and is hands down, my first choice.  However, I can not be one of those who was for what it says in the COnstitution, before I was against  it! 

The issue of whether Ted Cruz meets the definition of "a natural born citizen" is going to have to be dealt with.  We ignore our COnstitution at our own peril.  This is what creates RINOS; Republicans look the other way on what our guys do (or attempt to do) that may be unconstitutional just because that's what the other side does!  Either we stand for something or we stand for nothing!  The COnstitution has been utterly disregarded by members of both parties for way too long.  Isn't this a basic principle of the TEA movement?

I feel that I can support Ted Cruz as my first choice, but I recognize that this one issue could be his fatal flaw.  I (we) need to have other choices wating in the wings, so if this (or another one) implodes, we still can take our country back!

Here's just one of the many (not made up) stories that is going to make 'our guy's' birth and qualifications a major issue to deal with.  Are you preparred to say that anyone can come here from anywhere on earth and become an American citizen and then become our President.  Our Founders had the good sense to know that is not a good idea for the f
uture of our country!  It's not about Cruz (or even Obama), it's about some future foreign usurper thaking over 'the American thrown'!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/03/23/394713013/is-ted-cruz-allowed-to-run-since-he-was-born-in-canada

If Cruz  can handle it and get past it, I'm all in  for him.  If it creates a firestorm of contravercy, it may become the distraction that prevents us from taking the Whitehouse.  The stakes are too high, to allow this to happen.

Lets work backwards. Show where "Natural Born" was defined in the Constitution.

Quote from: Solar on March 24, 2015, 10:27:55 AM
Lets work backwards. Show where "Natural Born" was defined in the Constitution.

It's not the definition of "natural" or "born", it is the fact that all of the Founders didn't want some future immigrant form England coming over and together with the fifth column former Tories, undoing all they had done.  You may recall the War of 1812 was an attampt to regain what they had lost in 1776.  It wasn't until 1789 that the COntinental Congress  gave way to the establishment of the Constitutional Republic, we have today.  A little more than twenty years later, the British crown tried to take it all back (burning the Capital and occupying Washington DC).  It's pretty clear that the Founders only wanted our future Presidents being Americans who had been born as Americans.  Could you imagine what the outcome could have been in 1812, if the POTUS had been a British (spy) naturalized citizen.  The Founders, wisely, exempted only themselves from this requirement. 


One could argue that "times have changed" and this provision is outdated, but then one begins to climb the slippery slope towards Obama's way of thinking; that the Constitution is a flawed, outdated and fluid document, with provisons that can be ignored by simple rationalization and contectual thinking. 

It is a problem for Cruz and the only way it is not is if the American people declare that it is not!  There are many things that I would not oppose ammending in our COnstitution, but the COnstitution itself provides for how this is to be done.  It's very difficult and intended to be so.  Discretion may be the better part of valor in this instance.

Having say that, I like Ted Cruz and I'll eagarly await greater minds than my own making the case for why this part of the COnstitution does not apply in Ted Cruz's case (as it therevfore ought not to applied in Barry Obama's...)
Both Mommies were Americans married to foreigners who gave birth to babies in foreign counties...what's different about the underlying constituional issue?

The time to have argued Obama's citizenship has past.  The powers that be, wouldn't allow it.  Do you suppose the issue of Cruz's citizenship is going to be ignored, like they did Obama's.  Even the RINO's will join with the Marxists in taking this to court>

We can't afford to back the wrong candidate and just when we're about to pull the trigger have it blow up in our face!

Because of Ted Cruz's citizenship his candidacy may be a rather Hot Load!

Quote from: wally on March 24, 2015, 11:57:59 AM
It's not the definition of "natural" or "born", it is the fact that all of the Founders didn't want some future immigrant form England coming over and together with the fifth column former Tories, undoing all they had done.  You may recall the War of 1812 was an attampt to regain what they had lost in 1776.  It wasn't until 1789 that the COntinental Congress  gave way to the establishment of the Constitutional Republic, we have today.  A little more than twenty years later, the British crown tried to take it all back (burning the Capital and occupying Washington DC).  It's pretty clear that the Founders only wanted our future Presidents being Americans who had been born as Americans.  Could you imagine what the outcome could have been in 1812, if the POTUS had been a British (spy) naturalized citizen.  The Founders, wisely, exempted only themselves from this requirement. 


One could argue that "times have changed" and this provision is outdated, but then one begins to climb the slippery slope towards Obama's way of thinking; that the Constitution is a flawed, outdated and fluid document, with provisons that can be ignored by simple rationalization and contectual thinking. 

It is a problem for Cruz and the only way it is not is if the American people declare that it is not!  There are many things that I would not oppose ammending in our COnstitution, but the COnstitution itself provides for how this is to be done.  It's very difficult and intended to be so.  Discretion may be the better part of valor in this instance.

Having say that, I like Ted Cruz and I'll eagarly await greater minds than my own making the case for why this part of the COnstitution does not apply in Ted Cruz's case (as it therevfore ought not to applied in Barry Obama's...)
Both Mommies were Americans married to foreigners who gave birth to babies in foreign counties...what's different about the underlying constituional issue?

The time to have argued Obama's citizenship has past.  The powers that be, wouldn't allow it.  Do you suppose the issue of Cruz's citizenship is going to be ignored, like they did Obama's.  Even the RINO's will join with the Marxists in taking this to court>

We can't afford to back the wrong candidate and just when we're about to pull the trigger have it blow up in our face!

Because of Ted Cruz's citizenship his candidacy may be a rather Hot Load!

Now, if you're done beating around the bush, show me where Congress delineated "Natural Born".

Let me help you out, they didn't and for good reason, they didn't want to, they wanted to leave it up to the people to decide.

Quote from: Solar on March 24, 2015, 12:32:35 PM
Now, if you're done beating around the bush, show me where Congress delineated "Natural Born".

Let me help you out, they didn't and for good reason, they didn't want to, they wanted to leave it up to the people to decide.

Just as I said, the Founders exempted themselves, so they didn't have to wait a generation for a President, but clearly stated their intention....  I guess a lawyer could argue what the meaning of is..is...


Article II; Section 1

" 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. "


This is going to be a problem with Cruz as a candidate.  Maybe we should fight the good fight for him...but the stakes are so high (we may never have a meaningful election in this country if we don't win), the Socratic method requires that you know your opponant's position well enough that one can win his argument; then you overcome their arguments with reasoned debate. 

Just as we, reserched this issue about Barak Hussain's birth (but got nowhere with the media, COngress, the Courts or the RINOS), THEY are going to 'discover' this about Ted Cruz and make a real big stink over it at the most opportune time!  We better be damned sure it's not going to blow up!

If we arbitraily and capriciously ignore this part of the Law, how long do you suppose it may be before one of thes illegal aliens, who have no alliance to our country, might run be elieible to run for POTUS.  I'm sure groups like ACORN and the SEIU (and others) will have all the power they need to get one of theirs elected.

Quote from: Solar on March 24, 2015, 10:27:55 AM
Lets work backwards. Show where "Natural Born" was defined in the Constitution.

Did his mother not deliver him? If she did that is a natural birth. This subject should go into the distraction thread.

Quote from: wally on March 24, 2015, 12:42:53 PM
Just as I said, the Founders exempted themselves, so they didn't have to wait a generation for a President, but clearly stated their intention....  I guess a lawyer could argue what the meaning of is..is...


Article II; Section 1

" 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. "

And the courts have defined being born to an American citizen constitutes the child being American, regardless of place of birth.
Until Congress or SCOTUS defines "Natural Born" further, the current holds standing, which means Cruz is an American citizen.

His mother and father went to Canada, which recognizes dual citizenship.
America does not.  She never renounced American citizenship.
That was about getting Mr. Cruz legal.

Quote from: wally on March 24, 2015, 08:50:58 AM
The question about Ted Cruz's ligitimacy to be elected POTUS is going to have to be subjected to a national debate, just as the Kenyan born (former) candidate ought to have been.  Unlike Obama, Ted Cruz is not trying to hide from who and what he is.  This makes him even more appealing (to me and all of us).

Don't get me wrong!  I think Ted Cruz would make an excellant POTUS and is hands down, my first choice.  However, I can not be one of those who was for what it says in the COnstitution, before I was against  it! 

The issue of whether Ted Cruz meets the definition of "a natural born citizen" is going to have to be dealt with.  We ignore our COnstitution at our own peril.  This is what creates RINOS; Republicans look the other way on what our guys do (or attempt to do) that may be unconstitutional just because that's what the other side does!  Either we stand for something or we stand for nothing!  The COnstitution has been utterly disregarded by members of both parties for way too long.  Isn't this a basic principle of the TEA movement?

I feel that I can support Ted Cruz as my first choice, but I recognize that this one issue could be his fatal flaw.  I (we) need to have other choices wating in the wings, so if this (or another one) implodes, we still can take our country back!

Here's just one of the many (not made up) stories that is going to make 'our guy's' birth and qualifications a major issue to deal with.  Are you preparred to say that anyone can come here from anywhere on earth and become an American citizen and then become our President.  Our Founders had the good sense to know that is not a good idea for the f
uture of our country!  It's not about Cruz (or even Obama), it's about some future foreign usurper thaking over 'the American thrown'!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/03/23/394713013/is-ted-cruz-allowed-to-run-since-he-was-born-in-canada

If Cruz  can handle it and get past it, I'm all in  for him.  If it creates a firestorm of contravercy, it may become the distraction that prevents us from taking the Whitehouse.  The stakes are too high, to allow this to happen.

Huh?

He is eligible, per the Constitution.  What are you talking about?

Quote from: Solar on March 24, 2015, 10:27:55 AM
Lets work backwards. Show where "Natural Born" was defined in the Constitution.

Natural born, as it was understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution was clearly meant to mean, "born within the sovereign borders of the United States". This is why "natural born" status is given to children of Americans born at say an embassy, or military base or for example a territory of the United States. That said, where was Senator Cruz born at? In most states you can't be a Representative or a Senator if not a natural born citizen too. Unless that's also something the Federal Government has told the States they can't "regulate" too. Like it did with the States who tried to impose term limits. 

Quote from: daidalos on March 24, 2015, 07:04:30 PM
Natural born, as it was understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution was clearly meant to mean, "born within the sovereign borders of the United States". This is why "natural born" status is given to children of Americans born at say an embassy, or military base or for example a territory of the United States. That said, where was Senator Cruz born at? In most states you can't be a Representative or a Senator if not a natural born citizen too. Unless that's also something the Federal Government has told the States they can't "regulate" too. Like it did with the States who tried to impose term limits. 

Link?

Quote from: daidalos on March 24, 2015, 07:04:30 PM
Natural born, as it was understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution was clearly meant to mean, "born within the sovereign borders of the United States". This is why "natural born" status is given to children of Americans born at say an embassy, or military base or for example a territory of the United States. That said, where was Senator Cruz born at? In most states you can't be a Representative or a Senator if not a natural born citizen too. Unless that's also something the Federal Government has told the States they can't "regulate" too. Like it did with the States who tried to impose term limits. 

That's the beauty of law, simply implying, is not legal language, which is exactly why the Founders never established parameters for it's actual meaning, had they done so, you'd be able to find it, but you can't, therefore, a child born to an American anywhere in the world, is considered an American citizen..
They left it to future generations to deal with.

Quote from: Solar on March 24, 2015, 12:46:52 PM
And the courts have defined being born to an American citizen constitutes the child being American, regardless of place of birth.
Until Congress or SCOTUS defines "Natural Born" further, the current holds standing, which means Cruz is an American citizen.

Do you have a link to that? Even McCain natural born status was brought up but the court determent he was born on a military base and therefore American territory But I remember the arguments back then!
I'm with Wally, Cruz is a great conservative I could fully support but I'm afraid that this is going to become and is a major distraction! I also believe it is to soon to get fully attached to any candidate. Cruz has time to clean this up (if it can be ) and I fully welcome him and his conviction into this primary but we can't lose sight of the ball witch is supporting the best person to win in the general! It might be Cruz but if this turns into a drag on him I hope he has the integrity to step aside and help us remove ant chance of a democrat win and the same goes for anyone else running!

Quote from: redbeard on March 24, 2015, 07:31:31 PM
Do you have a link to that? Even McCain natural born status was brought up but the court determent he was born on a military base and therefore American territory But I remember the arguments back then!
I'm with Wally, Cruz is a great conservative I could fully support but I'm afraid that this is going to become and is a major distraction! I also believe it is to soon to get fully attached to any candidate. Cruz has time to clean this up (if it can be ) and I fully welcome him and his conviction into this primary but we can't lose sight of the ball witch is supporting the best person to win in the general! It might be Cruz but if this turns into a drag on him I hope he has the integrity to step aside and help us remove ant chance of a democrat win and the same goes for anyone else running!

https://americansabroad.org/files/3013/3478/0295/18-04-2012_1318_971.pdf