Now is the Right Time for Ted Cruz

[BluesLegend]

Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders, none of them belong in the Oval Office. Kasich is the only one left who would actually get things accomplished and he has slightly over a zero chance of getting the nomination at this point.

Kasich is an illegal alien collaborator hence put a fork in him he won't get within a mile of the oval office.

You're not deporting 12 million people and there isn't going to be a wall built.

3,000 American citizens are killed by illegals each year, more than were killed on 9-11 trust me the wall will be built and deportations will begin.

If that were true it would have already happened. The Democratic Party won't go along with it and neither will many elected Republicans in Congress. Trump would be like Sanders in that many things he wants to do won't get approved by Congress. Cruz will never pursue building a wall.

Oh its true, dude it was front page news yesterday do you read the news?

 

[Militants]

3000 is nothing with Venezuela how have 20,000-30,000 every year killing people.

 

[ZackB]

Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders, none of them belong in the Oval Office. Kasich is the only one left who would actually get things accomplished and he has slightly over a zero chance of getting the nomination at this point.

Yeah, Kasich will get things accomplished - in the Beltway Establishment manner.

Kasich has demonstrated repeatedly he is anything but establishment. He was one of the primary architects of the closest thing we've had to a balanced budget when he was in the House back in the 90s. The problem with you ideologues is that you think anybody who is willing to work with the other side in order to actually get something done is establishment. It's either your way or the highway with you people and that's why you keep losing.

While it's true that he entered Congress along with Newt Gingrich and was part of the Contract with America, he has changed. We need to swing the pendulum back to the right, which we are not going to be able to do with someone who is willing to sit down with shit bags like Pelosi and Reid.

 

[Votto]

Has the OP understood that Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate and the words "natural born" are not arbitrary qualifiers for POTUS? This issue is going to come up.

It beats being born in Kenya.

 

[ZackB]

3000 is nothing with Venezuela how have 20,000-30,000 every year killing people.

True. I have a friend from Venezuela who escaped the country several years ago during an attempted coup against Chavez. He walked out of a bar in Caracas a little after midnight to find soldiers running around on the streets firing machine guns at each other. They were not letting anyone in or out of the country. He was smuggled out by friends. In addition to the periodic coup attempts, the cops are corrupt. And God help you if you leave Caracas and go into the country. There is no rule of law, and murderous bandits lie in wait on the rural roads.

The problem with many Americans is that they have never been outside of the country and they assume that the way it is in America is the way it is everywhere. In Venezuela, for example, most people are concerned about feeding their kids. They don't give a shit about women's choice, equal pay, and "safe zones" on college campus. These are luxuries that do not exist in most places in the world. Those BLM fuckers all look well fed to me, and live in the lap of luxury compared to most people in the world.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Eligible to run and eligible to hold the office you're running for are the same thing. To be eligible to run but not eligible to hold the office you're running for would be an automatic disenfranchisement of voters. That cannot stand.

I don't have a hard time comprehending anything, this is a state ballot issue and is rightly brought to a state court. I never said this completely settles the issue forever, I said it has now become a case law precedent. It can certainly be appealed and it can be heard by a lower federal court or even the Supreme Court. The state court ruling will not be overturned.

This same exact issue has been raised numerous times over the years and.... again... has NEVER resulted in the court revoking a candidacy. That isn't likely to change suddenly with Ted Cruz. Sorry! It's just not going to happen... now you can fantasize... you can foam at the mouth... it doesn't matter with regard to this.

Being eligible to run on the states ballot in Pennsylvania is NOT the same thing as being eligible to hold the office of President. SMFH It is not a disenfranchisement to voters.

Obviously you do have a hard time comprehending things, you seem to think being eligible to be on the ballot in Pennsylvania equates to being eligible to hold the office of the President, the reality of it is quite different. It is not a case law precedent in any since or manner.

This issue has arisen over the years, Mitt Romney's father as an example, born in Mexico to US Citizen parents, was eligible to run for office, yet was never determined to be eligible to hold office because he lost, same with the other few that failed, Goldwater, etc.. Not even McCain was verified to be eligible to hold office, it was only a resolution from the Senate that was issued proclaiming him to be, which holds no legal weight.

At no point have I stated to revoke Cruz's ability to run and be a candidate, he has that right as a citizen, but if he is elected as the nominee (unlikely), and then provided he goes on to win the nomination (virtually unlikely), it is then that his eligibility will come into play and will be challenged. Hopefully it goes in front of the SCOTUS and is determined once and for all. At this point in time his eligibility to hold office is questionable, as I stated initially.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The People want the wall built. Congress agreed to build it but then backed down on their promise. The elites on the left turned it into some fucked up civil rights issue and the elites on the right turned it into a business decision with the line about "jobs Americans won't do." But by and large, the PEOPLE want the wall built. It's going to be built eventually... we may have to bring in the National Guard and remove kamikaze samurais such as yourself, but it's going to get built. So go do your little pre-death meditation and ritual and prepare for your martyrdom and we'll see you at the border.

It was the Obama administration that told DHS to prioritize the fence at the bottom, to which there wasn't enough funds to continue building it. Congress has nothing to do with it not being finished.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Has the OP understood that Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate and the words "natural born" are not arbitrary qualifiers for POTUS? This issue is going to come up.

Cruz's mother was American, he's natural born just like Obama was even if he was born in Kenya.

The funny thing about the birther thing that Obama was the original birther, claiming he was born in Kenya because he's a pompous liberal ass. But in the end, American parent = American anyway, sorry

Cruz is only considered a citizen via the Immigration and Naturalization Act that was passed in 1952. Without this Congressional Naturalization he wouldn't even be a citizen. His citizenship is derived via an INA, he is not a "natural-born citizen".

 

[Militants]

Cuba are second ??

 

[dani67]

**** cruz
trump shit is better than cruz
even hillary pee

 

[Avatar4321]

Cruz has no chance at breaking the threshold. His best hope is a brokered convention, but if that happens neither Trump nor Cruz will be the nominee.

No, if that happens (and it will) Cruz will be the nominee.

Cruz/Kasich 2016

Why Kasich? Rubio has more delegates

 

[Avatar4321]

I believe it very well CAN happen. It's not that difficult to get there. Cruz is well within striking distance of Trump in the delegate count and we still have some big states left to decide. A Cruz win in California and Wisconsin would put him essentially tied with Trump and there are a ton of uncommitted delegates out there who are certainly not going to be inclined to vote for Trump. Don't let the MSM and political talking heads sway you... it's VERY possible for Cruz to win the nomination. And... with a strong VP pick like Kasich or even Fiorina, he has an excellent chance of defeating Hillary Clinton in the general.

In spite of all the nastiness being hurled at Cruz, he continues to gain momentum in the final stretch. You are literally seeing what happens when the wheels start coming off the Trump Bus... the attacks become more personal and ugly... That's a sign that Cruz is winning.

Cruz is most certainly NOT within striking distance of Trump in delegate count! I believe he has to win something like 90%+ of the vote to beat Trump.

Well, no... he really doesn't.

Cruz currently trails Trump by 273 delegates. Just California and Wisconsin represent 237 delegates and are winner-take-all states. There are 19 states remaining and 10 are winner-take-all. Rubio and Kasich control over 300 delegates as well. Most of those will likely end up in the Cruz column.

Trump needs 501. Cruz needs 774. Cruz has no chance at breaking the threshold. His best hope is a brokered convention, but if that happens neither Trump nor Cruz will be the nominee.

False. That is your assumption but I don't see anything it is based on. If Cruz makes it past Trump but does not get to the threshold then he will easily be the nominee. The electors are not going to vote some random person out of nowhere or reject the majority vote for a candidate that cannot win more than one single state.

Kasich has a better chance in a brokered convention than Cruz.

He has zero chance

 

[TheOldSchool]

Cruz is most certainly NOT within striking distance of Trump in delegate count! I believe he has to win something like 90%+ of the vote to beat Trump.

Well, no... he really doesn't.

Cruz currently trails Trump by 273 delegates. Just California and Wisconsin represent 237 delegates and are winner-take-all states. There are 19 states remaining and 10 are winner-take-all. Rubio and Kasich control over 300 delegates as well. Most of those will likely end up in the Cruz column.

Trump needs 501. Cruz needs 774. Cruz has no chance at breaking the threshold. His best hope is a brokered convention, but if that happens neither Trump nor Cruz will be the nominee.

False. That is your assumption but I don't see anything it is based on. If Cruz makes it past Trump but does not get to the threshold then he will easily be the nominee. The electors are not going to vote some random person out of nowhere or reject the majority vote for a candidate that cannot win more than one single state.

Kasich has a better chance in a brokered convention than Cruz.

He has zero chance

Yes Cruz and Kasich have zero chance.

 

[kaz]

Has the OP understood that Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate and the words "natural born" are not arbitrary qualifiers for POTUS? This issue is going to come up.

Cruz's mother was American, he's natural born just like Obama was even if he was born in Kenya.

The funny thing about the birther thing that Obama was the original birther, claiming he was born in Kenya because he's a pompous liberal ass. But in the end, American parent = American anyway, sorry

Cruz is only considered a citizen via the Immigration and Naturalization Act that was passed in 1952. Without this Congressional Naturalization he wouldn't even be a citizen. His citizenship is derived via an INA, he is not a "natural-born citizen".

Obviously when they made the Constitution, they were thinking if they had one kid in the US and another when they were overseas, say in France, the US born one was AOK to be president and the stupid foreign kid, no way. Yeah. The Constitution doesn't say that. His mother was American, end of discussion.

Ditto with Obama if he were born in Kenya, though he does deserve to be mocked for being the first birther saying he was born in Kenya to be a snobby leftist author

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Obviously when they made the Constitution, they were thinking if they had one kid in the US and another when they were overseas, say in France, the US born one was AOK to be president and the stupid foreign kid, no way. Yeah. The Constitution doesn't say that. His mother was American, end of discussion.

His citizenship was derived, he is not a natural-born citizen. If it wasn't for an INA he wouldn't even be a US Citizen, whether his momma was one or not. During the 1790's the child had to have both parents as US Citizens to be born a citizen outside of the US, not only that but it was limited to white's only.

Again, it was the 1952 INA that granted Cruz citizenship at birth via derivative passing from the mother, otherwise it was all about the father, and Cruz's father wasn't a US Citizen, he was still a Cuban citizen.

By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In the exercise of this power, Congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed at the second session of the First Congress under the Constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, "dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization." Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress. Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3; January 29, 1795, c. 20; June 18, 1798, c. 54; 1 Stat. 103, 414, 566; April 14, 1802, c. 28; March 26, 1804, c. 47; 2 Stat. 153, 292; February 10, 1854, c. 71; 10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993.

In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows:

The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been [p673] resident in the United States.

1 Stat. 104. In 1795, this was reenacted in the same words, except in substituting for the words "beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States" the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States." 1 Stat. 415.

In 1802, all former acts were repealed, and the provisions concerning children of citizens were reenacted in this form:

The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the Government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents' being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.

Act of April 14, 1802, c. 28, § 4; 2 Stat. 155.

The provision of that act concerning "the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States," not being restricted to the children of persons already naturalized, might well be held to include children of persons thereafter to be naturalized. 2 Kent Com. 51, 52; West v. West, 8 Paige, 433; United States v. Kellar, 11 Bissell, 314; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135-177.

But the provision concerning foreign-born children, being expressly limited to the children of persons who then were or had been citizens, clearly did not include foreign-born children of any person who became a citizen since its enactment. 2 Kent.Com. 52, 53; Binney on Alienigenae 20, 25; 2 Amer.Law Reg. 203, 205. Mr. Binney's paper, as he states in his preface, was printed by him in the hope that Congress might supply this defect in our law.

In accordance with his suggestions, it was enacted by the [p674] statute of February 10, 1855, c. 71, that

persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.

10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. § 1993.

It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802, and that the act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

 

[Boss]

Eligible to run and eligible to hold the office you're running for are the same thing. To be eligible to run but not eligible to hold the office you're running for would be an automatic disenfranchisement of voters. That cannot stand.

I don't have a hard time comprehending anything, this is a state ballot issue and is rightly brought to a state court. I never said this completely settles the issue forever, I said it has now become a case law precedent. It can certainly be appealed and it can be heard by a lower federal court or even the Supreme Court. The state court ruling will not be overturned.

This same exact issue has been raised numerous times over the years and.... again... has NEVER resulted in the court revoking a candidacy. That isn't likely to change suddenly with Ted Cruz. Sorry! It's just not going to happen... now you can fantasize... you can foam at the mouth... it doesn't matter with regard to this.

Being eligible to run on the states ballot in Pennsylvania is NOT the same thing as being eligible to hold the office of President. SMFH It is not a disenfranchisement to voters.

Obviously you do have a hard time comprehending things, you seem to think being eligible to be on the ballot in Pennsylvania equates to being eligible to hold the office of the President, the reality of it is quite different. It is not a case law precedent in any since or manner.

This issue has arisen over the years, Mitt Romney's father as an example, born in Mexico to US Citizen parents, was eligible to run for office, yet was never determined to be eligible to hold office because he lost, same with the other few that failed, Goldwater, etc.. Not even McCain was verified to be eligible to hold office, it was only a resolution from the Senate that was issued proclaiming him to be, which holds no legal weight.

At no point have I stated to revoke Cruz's ability to run and be a candidate, he has that right as a citizen, but if he is elected as the nominee (unlikely), and then provided he goes on to win the nomination (virtually unlikely), it is then that his eligibility will come into play and will be challenged. Hopefully it goes in front of the SCOTUS and is determined once and for all. At this point in time his eligibility to hold office is questionable, as I stated initially.

Basically, all you are doing is repeating the opposite of whatever I said. Yes it is--No it isn't--Yes it is--No it isn't! I don't know what you hope to accomplish with that any more than I knew what my baby sister hoped to accomplish back when we were kids. I took the time to explain to you why it's the same thing, eligible to run/ hold office. It's because it would be a disenfranchisement otherwise. You do know what that word means, right?

As a general rule, courts are not going to disenfranchise the voters. That's what they do in banana republics. You mention that you are "hopeful" it goes to the SCOTUS... well, it won't be heard by SCOTUS. You see-- This is a political question... quite possibly, the ultimate political question. And the SCOTUS has a long-standing rule called the "Political Question Doctrine" where they explain that questions best settled through political process are not their concern... again, because courts aren't in the habit of disenfranchising the voter.

Now, you can think Cruz is not qualified just like a lot of people think Obama is not qualified. Doesn't change anything. Not gonna make a difference. But, you are free to believe that he isn't eligible... and maybe you're right, maybe he isn't... it's not ever going to matter. Courts are rarely ever going to overturn the votes of the citizens. It has never happened before in a presidential election. It's not going to happen now.

 

[Boss]

His citizenship was derived, he is not a natural-born citizen.

Please present the date Ted Cruz was naturalized?

 

[Boss]

Cruz has no chance at breaking the threshold. His best hope is a brokered convention, but if that happens neither Trump nor Cruz will be the nominee.

No, if that happens (and it will) Cruz will be the nominee.

Cruz/Kasich 2016

Why Kasich? Rubio has more delegates

Because the primaries are not over yet and Rubio is out of the race. By the time they get to the convention, Kasich will have more than Rubio and Rubio's delegates will be released on the second ballot.

 

[Avatar4321]

Cruz has no chance at breaking the threshold. His best hope is a brokered convention, but if that happens neither Trump nor Cruz will be the nominee.

No, if that happens (and it will) Cruz will be the nominee.

Cruz/Kasich 2016

Why Kasich? Rubio has more delegates

Because the primaries are not over yet and Rubio is out of the race. By the time they get to the convention, Kasich will have more than Rubio and Rubio's delegates will be released on the second ballot.

I'm not convinced he will get any more.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Basically, all you are doing is repeating the opposite of whatever I said. Yes it is--No it isn't--Yes it is--No it isn't! I don't know what you hope to accomplish with that any more than I knew what my baby sister hoped to accomplish back when we were kids. I took the time to explain to you why it's the same thing, eligible to run/ hold office. It's because it would be a disenfranchisement otherwise. You do know what that word means, right?

Being eligible to run on a specific states ballot does not by any means mean he is eligible for office. SMFH

As a general rule, courts are not going to disenfranchise the voters. That's what they do in banana republics. You mention that you are "hopeful" it goes to the SCOTUS... well, it won't be heard by SCOTUS. You see-- This is a political question... quite possibly, the ultimate political question. And the SCOTUS has a long-standing rule called the "Political Question Doctrine" where they explain that questions best settled through political process are not their concern... again, because courts aren't in the habit of disenfranchising the voter.

Except the voters aren't being disenfranchised. Birth citizenship is a justifiable question, hence the WKA case regarding child birth to domiciled and resident foreigners. The great thing about the WKA is it also discusses children born out of the jurisdiction of the US. Cruz was born with derived citizenship from his mother via the 1952 INA, he is a Naturalized Citizen, he is not a "natural-born citizen". Are you the foreign-born child of a parent who becomes a U.S. citizen?
I've posted this link prior, have you not understood it?

Now, you can think Cruz is not qualified just like a lot of people think Obama is not qualified. Doesn't change anything. Not gonna make a difference. But, you are free to believe that he isn't eligible... and maybe you're right, maybe he isn't... it's not ever going to matter. Courts are rarely ever going to overturn the votes of the citizens. It has never happened before in a presidential election. It's not going to happen now.

It's never happened before in a Presidential election? And here I though Bush V Gore the courts did, silly me. Shame on Gore fore receiving more of the citizens vote. Now, as to a child born out of the jurisdiction of the US being born a citizen, there has never been one that has won the office, therefor there has never been a need to have it go to the courts. As to Obama, he was born in the US to a Citizen Mother and a legal non-immigrant Father. RMFE