Now is the Right Time for Ted Cruz

[Preacher]

The nation needs someone like Ted Cruz. We need a real conservative before our nation's sojourn into lawlessness and PC progressive fascism replaces rule of law. For whatever reason there are those on both the left and right who readily accept as fact the proposition that Cruz does not have a chance in hell of winning the general election. This may have been true in the past 2-3 election cycles. But it is not true now.

Ted's biggest hurdle is getting past Trump. Let's assume that he does get past Trump and gets the party nomination. Bernie is not going to get the Dem nomination. However, the more delegates his gets (and he is making significant gains now) the longer he drags this out, meaning Hillary is not going to come out of the primary season unscathed. First, it makes Mrs. Inevitable look silly to have to work to beat a crazy, old, elderly socialist who looks like the scientist from "Rick and Morty". The old coot ought to be in a retirement home waiting to die. Let's face it, Hillary looks like an asshole right now.

More importantly, Bernie has conned a lot of stupid fuckers. MANY of these stupid fuckers he has conned are young. Youngsters are bad about not voting, unlike older Americans. So once Bernie is gone, A LOT of Bernie's supporters are leaving the electorate. They are NOT all, or even mostly, going to stay involved for the sake of supporting Clinton. Likewise with Trump, if he fails to get the nomination then many of his supports are going to bail on the process. However, Trump supporters are older and, therefore, more prone to vote, AND they pretty much unanimously hate Hillary Clinton. They may dislike "Lyin' Ted" now, but come November he won't look so bad when the alternative is Hillary. Where will Bernie's supporters be in November? They will be stoned, in jail, and out of their voting districts in some fucked up, leftist university.

Add to this Hillary's many, many troubles, and you have got a great recipe for a historically low voter turn out among Dems in November. Hillary is establishment, she is a Wall Street whore, she is a confirmed pathological liar, she has zero principals as evidenced by how many times she alters her positions, she sells influence to foreign governments and corporations (uranium anyone?) then launders it through that bogus "Clinton Foundation" bullshit non-profit. Plus... PLUS, she may be facing criminal indictment. Currently there is a cadre of FBI agents trying to bring her down. At the very least she has the investigation hanging over her head. Of course, it is noted that if she survives this it will be used by her as a big victory - she fought the law and she won! The best case scenario for our republic is for this to remain hanging out there until after the election.

The foregoing all points to low voter turnout for Dems. But will Republicans also have low turnout? It will probably be lower than if a Trump is the nominee. Cruz has a personality that can rub people the wrong way. But who cares? I am voting for a man to lead and reinvigorate our constitutional republic. I am not so shallow as to refuse to support him just because I may not personally like him. Honestly, I love Trump. I imagine that back in the day he would get coked up out of his mind and **** tons of women! Of course, maybe Ted did too. Who knows. The point is that likeability is not important to me when it comes to selecting a President. It should not be important to you either. I am not electing a spouse or a buddy.

Hillary has a ton of electoral votes built in because of the number of morons in places like New York and California who will vote for even an ISIS fighter if he has a "D" beside his name. But she is just such a despicable piece of shit that the young mush brains are probably going to sit this one out. That coupled with the justified abject hatred of anything Clinton on the right and among Trumpies means that this is the year that someone like Cruz could be elected. Do I believe it really will happen? No, not necessarily; not yet. But it COULD happen.

Go ahead and vote for him. No one is stopping you. I will NEVER vote for Cruz. Don't need another cheating,Israel Firster,Free Trade,Fake christian jackass as president.

Did you get off at your Klan rally at St. Mtn.?

Its not until the 23rd. Really pathetic attempt at defending your candidate BTW.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

But I am not ignorant in the basics of law. Or... LOGIC. If you rule that someone is eligible to run, then you have also ruled they are eligible for what they're running for. It would be kind of self-defeating otherwise. You're not bearing bad news, you're just sounding like someone's little sister who has hurt feelings. If you would like to present a legal argument you need to cite some legal cases and examples. If you just want to stick your fingers in your ears and repeat the opposite of whatever I say, then you can go **** yourself... ain't nobody got time for that.

The Pennsylvania court merely found Cruz eligible to be on the ballot in Pennsylvania, nothing more. Being on a ballot doesn't constitute being eligible to hold office. Your LOGIC is ignorance, plain and simple. Do you really not read the ******* links provided that state exactly what I have stated? Your claim has been shown to be lacking of a basic understanding of law, in other words ignorance. The rest simply shows your ineptness.

Wrong. He was either naturalized through the Department of Immigration and Naturalization or he is a natural born citizen. And Mark Levin has more legal knowledge in his little toenail than you have in your whole brain.

He was naturalized (derivative citizenship) via the 1952 INA which had he not lived in the US for 5 years prior to age 14 he would not have become a US Citizen. Mark Levin has pictures of Cruz that he jacks off to, I'm betting you have Levin and Cruz side by side that you jack off to. watafuknmoron

Did you ingest lead paint as a child or something? Because you seem to not comprehend context. When I made this comment it was in context of our discussion about candidate eligibility. You did not give an instance regarding candidate eligibility and the example you gave was also not a disenfranchisement of voters. The SCOTUS ruled that the Supreme Court of Florida didn't have the authority to suspend certification of the election.

Still denying what you stated. SMFH

And it was appealed to the SCOTUS and rejected because of the Political Question Doctrine.

The 9th Circuit rejected Taitz on lack of standing, it never went to SCOTUS. The 9th Circuit then said only Congress can impeach a president, and any citizen petition for a common-law writ to initiate an inquiry into the legitimacy of the president would have to be brought through the federal court in Washington, D.C., the 9th Circuit panel noted.

Nonsense. Eligible to run IS eligible to serve. Period.

Sorry, No it isn't.

The Constitution and federal law establish a system for determining who’s eligible to be President. The system involves state legislatures, electors, and ultimately Congress.


Article II, Section 1 and theTwelfth Amendment lay out the Electoral College system. The Twentieth Amendment gives Congress the job of handling the disqualification of a President elect. Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code provides Congress a specific procedure for calling for and handling objections that may arise after the President of the Senate announces the winner of the electoral vote count.

Looks like the 20th Amendment says Congress can declare Cruz in-eligible if he were to win. We all know how much Congress hates Cruz.

 

[FA_Q2]

But I am not ignorant in the basics of law. Or... LOGIC. If you rule that someone is eligible to run, then you have also ruled they are eligible for what they're running for. It would be kind of self-defeating otherwise. You're not bearing bad news, you're just sounding like someone's little sister who has hurt feelings. If you would like to present a legal argument you need to cite some legal cases and examples. If you just want to stick your fingers in your ears and repeat the opposite of whatever I say, then you can go **** yourself... ain't nobody got time for that.

The Pennsylvania court merely found Cruz eligible to be on the ballot in Pennsylvania, nothing more. Being on a ballot doesn't constitute being eligible to hold office. Your LOGIC is ignorance, plain and simple. Do you really not read the ******* links provided that state exactly what I have stated? Your claim has been shown to be lacking of a basic understanding of law, in other words ignorance. The rest simply shows your ineptness.

Wrong. He was either naturalized through the Department of Immigration and Naturalization or he is a natural born citizen. And Mark Levin has more legal knowledge in his little toenail than you have in your whole brain.

He was naturalized (derivative citizenship) via the 1952 INA which had he not lived in the US for 5 years prior to age 14 he would not have become a US Citizen. Mark Levin has pictures of Cruz that he jacks off to, I'm betting you have Levin and Cruz side by side that you jack off to. watafuknmoron

Did you ingest lead paint as a child or something? Because you seem to not comprehend context. When I made this comment it was in context of our discussion about candidate eligibility. You did not give an instance regarding candidate eligibility and the example you gave was also not a disenfranchisement of voters. The SCOTUS ruled that the Supreme Court of Florida didn't have the authority to suspend certification of the election.

Still denying what you stated. SMFH

And it was appealed to the SCOTUS and rejected because of the Political Question Doctrine.

The 9th Circuit rejected Taitz on lack of standing, it never went to SCOTUS. The 9th Circuit then said only Congress can impeach a president, and any citizen petition for a common-law writ to initiate an inquiry into the legitimacy of the president would have to be brought through the federal court in Washington, D.C., the 9th Circuit panel noted.

Nonsense. Eligible to run IS eligible to serve. Period.

Sorry, No it isn't.

The Constitution and federal law establish a system for determining who’s eligible to be President. The system involves state legislatures, electors, and ultimately Congress.


Article II, Section 1 and theTwelfth Amendment lay out the Electoral College system. The Twentieth Amendment gives Congress the job of handling the disqualification of a President elect. Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code provides Congress a specific procedure for calling for and handling objections that may arise after the President of the Senate announces the winner of the electoral vote count.

Looks like the 20th Amendment says Congress can declare Cruz in-eligible if he were to win. We all know how much Congress hates Cruz.

And there is still absolutely zero chance they would declare him ineligible.

 

[Boss]

The Pennsylvania court merely found Cruz eligible to be on the ballot in Pennsylvania, nothing more. Being on a ballot doesn't constitute being eligible to hold office.

Well.. Yes, it does, little sis. We can keep this going for as long as you like. You're not presenting any evidence to support your claim, you're simply repeating the same asinine denial of logic. Eligible to be on the ballot IS eligible to hold the office you're on the ballot for. If you're not eligible to hold the office you're not eligible to be on the ballot for the office. I can't comprehend how someone could be as stupid as you. This is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard here, and I have been around a while and heard some really stupid arguments.

Article II, Section 1 and theTwelfth Amendment lay out the Electoral College system. The Twentieth Amendment gives Congress the job of handling the disqualification of a President elect. Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code provides Congress a specific procedure for calling for and handling objections that may arise after the President of the Senate announces the winner of the electoral vote count.

Looks like the 20th Amendment says Congress can declare Cruz in-eligible if he were to win. We all know how much Congress hates Cruz.

Now you are citing the procedure for certification of the electoral vote. This has absolutely nothing to do with the eligibility of the president. I'm thinking this whole entire subject is completely over your head and you are way out of your depth. So we're going to have a primary and general election, everyone is going to vote, a president is going to be elected and THEN Congress is going to somehow rule he can't serve? Where the **** do you think we are, Zimbabwe? What's supposedly going to happen next? Is Congress going to install a dictator for the next 4 years? Obviously the VP can't serve, he was selected by the "unqualified" president. Can't give it to the Democrat, they didn't meet the electoral qualification. Who is the damn president in your fucked up little fantasy?

Look... If you will take a few hours and research some credible legal constitutional expert opinions on the subject, you will realize that what I have said is the truth.... stay clear of the conspiracy websites and pay attention to the scholars who know what the hell they're talking about. I've patiently tried to educate you on this and you're bound and determined to act like a blithering idiot.... so I don't know what else I can do. I guess we're going to have to wait and see what happens but I guarantee you, if Cruz gets elected president he will serve as president and nothing is going to prevent that from being a reality, short of (God forbid) his demise or incapacity.

 

[Boss]

The 9th Circuit rejected Taitz on lack of standing, it never went to SCOTUS.

I admit, I do not know the specifics of this particular case. But I never said it went to SCOTUS. The Supreme Court can reject cases for lack of standing the same as the 9th circuit. They can also refuse to hear a case for lack of standing OR because it conflicts with the Political Question Doctrine, which this case certainly did. So if it was appealed it wasn't heard by SCOTUS either way. Now maybe you just want to find some little trivial detail you can be right about and me wrong about.... if that's so, fine.... let's just put it on the table that's what you're after here.

 

[MowTin]

Ted Cruz has no chance in a general election. He's the most extreme conservative in congress. That may appeal to Republican primary voters but it won't work in the general election.

Cruz's dad is a gay hating pastor. Both Cruz and his dad attended a rally led by pastor Swanson who advocates the stoning of gays. How is that going to play in a general election? And on top of that Cruz has yet to sue the National Enquirer for their story about his 5 affairs. I think they say it's 8 women now. Drip, drip, drip. This is how it starts. Who knows when a woman come out in public with the full story?

Finally, Cruz lacks charisma. He reminds me of Richard Nixon. His roommate in college hated him, his coworkers in a law firm he worked hated him (they were conservatives), his Senate colleagues hate him. When the American people get to know him they will hate him too.

I predict the biggest electoral landslide since FDR.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yep,
It is the time for more
-Fucked up trade that cost our nation nearly a trillion bucks worth of trade debt per year!
-It is time for the guy that voted for the corker bill that allowed the iranian deal!
-It is time for the guy that said he wanted the illegalls to come out of the shallows and get legal residency.
-It is time for the guy that can't get 90% of the center within the general election!
-It is time for the guy that won't say he would never cheat on his wife!
-It is time for the guy that stood with blacklivesmatters violent protest in chicago!

Cruz is a piece of shit.

 

[Boss]

Funny... All I see are two liberal blowhards who wouldn't be caught dead voting for ANY Republican.... spewing hate and lies because they can't possibly run a campaign on substance with the two fuckgoofs their party is presenting.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Boss]

....Make that three!

 

[Liquid Reigns]

But I am not ignorant in the basics of law. Or... LOGIC. If you rule that someone is eligible to run, then you have also ruled they are eligible for what they're running for. It would be kind of self-defeating otherwise. You're not bearing bad news, you're just sounding like someone's little sister who has hurt feelings. If you would like to present a legal argument you need to cite some legal cases and examples. If you just want to stick your fingers in your ears and repeat the opposite of whatever I say, then you can go **** yourself... ain't nobody got time for that.

The Pennsylvania court merely found Cruz eligible to be on the ballot in Pennsylvania, nothing more. Being on a ballot doesn't constitute being eligible to hold office. Your LOGIC is ignorance, plain and simple. Do you really not read the ******* links provided that state exactly what I have stated? Your claim has been shown to be lacking of a basic understanding of law, in other words ignorance. The rest simply shows your ineptness.

Wrong. He was either naturalized through the Department of Immigration and Naturalization or he is a natural born citizen. And Mark Levin has more legal knowledge in his little toenail than you have in your whole brain.

He was naturalized (derivative citizenship) via the 1952 INA which had he not lived in the US for 5 years prior to age 14 he would not have become a US Citizen. Mark Levin has pictures of Cruz that he jacks off to, I'm betting you have Levin and Cruz side by side that you jack off to. watafuknmoron

Did you ingest lead paint as a child or something? Because you seem to not comprehend context. When I made this comment it was in context of our discussion about candidate eligibility. You did not give an instance regarding candidate eligibility and the example you gave was also not a disenfranchisement of voters. The SCOTUS ruled that the Supreme Court of Florida didn't have the authority to suspend certification of the election.

Still denying what you stated. SMFH

And it was appealed to the SCOTUS and rejected because of the Political Question Doctrine.

The 9th Circuit rejected Taitz on lack of standing, it never went to SCOTUS. The 9th Circuit then said only Congress can impeach a president, and any citizen petition for a common-law writ to initiate an inquiry into the legitimacy of the president would have to be brought through the federal court in Washington, D.C., the 9th Circuit panel noted.

Nonsense. Eligible to run IS eligible to serve. Period.

Sorry, No it isn't.

The Constitution and federal law establish a system for determining who’s eligible to be President. The system involves state legislatures, electors, and ultimately Congress.


Article II, Section 1 and theTwelfth Amendment lay out the Electoral College system. The Twentieth Amendment gives Congress the job of handling the disqualification of a President elect. Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code provides Congress a specific procedure for calling for and handling objections that may arise after the President of the Senate announces the winner of the electoral vote count.

Looks like the 20th Amendment says Congress can declare Cruz in-eligible if he were to win. We all know how much Congress hates Cruz.

And there is still absolutely zero chance they would declare him ineligible.

He also has zero chance of winning the nomination.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Well.. Yes, it does, little sis. We can keep this going for as long as you like. You're not presenting any evidence to support your claim, you're simply repeating the same asinine denial of logic. Eligible to be on the ballot IS eligible to hold the office you're on the ballot for. If you're not eligible to hold the office you're not eligible to be on the ballot for the office. I can't comprehend how someone could be as stupid as you. This is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard here, and I have been around a while and heard some really stupid arguments.

Again, it doesn't, being eligible to be on the ballot of a state because they state doesn't have the authority to decide if he is "natural-born" or not doesn't mean he is also eligible to hold the office. You have given nothing more than a logical fallacy. I have presented evidence, I gave you the link to the ******* court case and quoted it. SMFH

Now you are citing the procedure for certification of the electoral vote. This has absolutely nothing to do with the eligibility of the president. I'm thinking this whole entire subject is completely over your head and you are way out of your depth. So we're going to have a primary and general election, everyone is going to vote, a president is going to be elected and THEN Congress is going to somehow rule he can't serve? Where the **** do you think we are, Zimbabwe? What's supposedly going to happen next? Is Congress going to install a dictator for the next 4 years? Obviously the VP can't serve, he was selected by the "unqualified" president. Can't give it to the Democrat, they didn't meet the electoral qualification. Who is the damn president in your fucked up little fantasy?

Well, NO. Congress, if Cruz is elected, can say he is ineligible and deny him based on him not being a "natural-born" citizen.The subject is over my head? Yet you are the one that keeps creating strawmwn to knockdown. Again, I'll point out your ignorance of knowing basic law. :yawn:

Look... If you will take a few hours and research some credible legal constitutional expert opinions on the subject, you will realize that what I have said is the truth.... stay clear of the conspiracy websites and pay attention to the scholars who know what the hell they're talking about. I've patiently tried to educate you on this and you're bound and determined to act like a blithering idiot.... so I don't know what else I can do. I guess we're going to have to wait and see what happens but I guarantee you, if Cruz gets elected president he will serve as president and nothing is going to prevent that from being a reality, short of (God forbid) his demise or incapacity.

WOW, so now none of the links I provided are from credible sources? So the WKA case from Cornell isn't credible? The links to the US Govt aren't credible? Are you a complete ******* idiot?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The 9th Circuit rejected Taitz on lack of standing, it never went to SCOTUS.

I admit, I do not know the specifics of this particular case. But I never said it went to SCOTUS. The Supreme Court can reject cases for lack of standing the same as the 9th circuit. They can also refuse to hear a case for lack of standing OR because it conflicts with the Political Question Doctrine, which this case certainly did. So if it was appealed it wasn't heard by SCOTUS either way. Now maybe you just want to find some little trivial detail you can be right about and me wrong about.... if that's so, fine.... let's just put it on the table that's what you're after here.

You don't now much about the case yet you claim it conflicts with the Political Question Doctrine? It couldn't be appealed because as the 9th Circuit stated:
only Congress can impeach a president, and any citizen petition for a common-law writ to initiate an inquiry into the legitimacy of the president would have to be brought through the federal court in Washington, D.C.
Do you not comprehend what this states? It means NO appeal, and NO SCOTUS Opinion since it wasn't brought through the correct courts. It also validates The Constitution and federal law establish a system for determining who’s eligible to be President. The system involves state legislatures, electors, and ultimately Congress.


Article II, Section 1 and theTwelfth Amendment lay out the Electoral College system. The Twentieth Amendment gives Congress the job of handling the disqualification of a President elect. Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code provides Congress a specific procedure for calling for and handling objections that may arise after the President of the Senate announces the winner of the electoral vote count.
Again your lack of comprehension and the ability to completely miss the subject matter is astonishing. I suggest a basic Constitutional Class to learn about the actual document and what lies within it.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Ted's Bush ties will have more of an impact than anything.

Ted Cruz And The Wall Street Connection

 

[mudwhistle]

Repeat after me......Trump isn't ready....Trump isn't ready....Trump isn't ready....Trump isn't ready.....Trump isn't ready...Trump isn't ready....Trump isn't ready..

Vote for Cruz

 

[Boss]

Well.. Yes, it does, little sis. We can keep this going for as long as you like. You're not presenting any evidence to support your claim, you're simply repeating the same asinine denial of logic. Eligible to be on the ballot IS eligible to hold the office you're on the ballot for. If you're not eligible to hold the office you're not eligible to be on the ballot for the office. I can't comprehend how someone could be as stupid as you. This is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard here, and I have been around a while and heard some really stupid arguments.

Again, it doesn't, being eligible to be on the ballot of a state because they state doesn't have the authority to decide if he is "natural-born" or not doesn't mean he is also eligible to hold the office. You have given nothing more than a logical fallacy. I have presented evidence, I gave you the link to the ******* court case and quoted it. SMFH

Now you are citing the procedure for certification of the electoral vote. This has absolutely nothing to do with the eligibility of the president. I'm thinking this whole entire subject is completely over your head and you are way out of your depth. So we're going to have a primary and general election, everyone is going to vote, a president is going to be elected and THEN Congress is going to somehow rule he can't serve? Where the **** do you think we are, Zimbabwe? What's supposedly going to happen next? Is Congress going to install a dictator for the next 4 years? Obviously the VP can't serve, he was selected by the "unqualified" president. Can't give it to the Democrat, they didn't meet the electoral qualification. Who is the damn president in your fucked up little fantasy?

Well, NO. Congress, if Cruz is elected, can say he is ineligible and deny him based on him not being a "natural-born" citizen.The subject is over my head? Yet you are the one that keeps creating strawmwn to knockdown. Again, I'll point out your ignorance of knowing basic law. :yawn:

Look... If you will take a few hours and research some credible legal constitutional expert opinions on the subject, you will realize that what I have said is the truth.... stay clear of the conspiracy websites and pay attention to the scholars who know what the hell they're talking about. I've patiently tried to educate you on this and you're bound and determined to act like a blithering idiot.... so I don't know what else I can do. I guess we're going to have to wait and see what happens but I guarantee you, if Cruz gets elected president he will serve as president and nothing is going to prevent that from being a reality, short of (God forbid) his demise or incapacity.

WOW, so now none of the links I provided are from credible sources? So the WKA case from Cornell isn't credible? The links to the US Govt aren't credible? Are you a complete ******* idiot?

Wong-Kim was not about presidential candidate eligibility. Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code that you keep presenting is about congressional certification of electors. When it talks about "objections" it is talking about objections to electors. It has NOTHING to do with the eligibility of the newly-elected president! NOTHING! Congress certainly CAN NOT rule that a president is ineligible after the election.

I mean... plain old common ******* goat sense should tell you that IF what you are claiming were true, virtually EVERY election would be followed by the opposition party raising objections in congress to the new president and that has never happened, we've never seen anything about that or like that on the news. There is no account of such a thing in the Congressional record. If you go to the link you posted, it clearly outlines the procedure for Congress to raise any objection to electors which may have been invalid. It's a 'checks and balances' thing to ensure the integrity of the electoral college vote. Nothing more.

Here are a couple of sources to support everything that I have stated:
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
S.Res.511 - 110th Congress (2007-2008): A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

In the first link, you will find two distinguished Georgetown Law Professors who are lecturers on Constitutional law stating unequivocally that Cruz is a "natural born" citizen and they explain this all in great detail. These aren't idiots who don't know what they're talking about. The second link it to the most recent Congressional activity on the subject of presidential eligibility and they basically say the same thing. There are also records from when George Romney and Barry Goldwater ran for president and the same issue came up. So repeatedly, this question has been answered and repeatedly, your interpretation has been found invalid. Yet... here you are like some kind of idiot, trying to make that case!

Look... I know people read shit on the Internet from crackpots who think they know something the rest of us don't know, and undoubtedly, there are low-information morons like you who eat that sort of shit up. I get that! What you are espousing is crackpot idiocy at it's finest. You can believe it all you like, I can't stop you. Some people firmly believe we never landed on the moon! Some people are convinced Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK! I watched a TV show yesterday with people out in the woods in Maine searching for Bigfoot! But this is a matter of publicly-available common law that anyone can research.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Wong-Kim was not about presidential candidate eligibility. Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code that you keep presenting is about congressional certification of electors. When it talks about "objections" it is talking about objections to electors. It has NOTHING to do with the eligibility of the newly-elected president! NOTHING! Congress certainly CAN NOT rule that a president is ineligible after the election.

WOW, you must be a ******* genius, I never said WKA was a case about Presidential candidates eligibility. SMFH WKA is about Citizenship at birth and to whom receives it. Cruz's birth outside the jurisdiction of the US is a derived citizenship from his mother. Derived citizenship is nothing more then a naturalized confirmation from Congress.

I mean... plain old common ******* goat sense should tell you that IF what you are claiming were true, virtually EVERY election would be followed by the opposition party raising objections in congress to the new president and that has never happened, we've never seen anything about that or like that on the news. There is no account of such a thing in the Congressional record. If you go to the link you posted, it clearly outlines the procedure for Congress to raise any objection to electors which may have been invalid. It's a 'checks and balances' thing to ensure the integrity of the electoral college vote. Nothing more.

There have been prior objections, McCain being the last, the resolution holds no legal weight. The point of McCain is that he was born in a US Territory, i.e. US Jurisdiction via two US Citizen parents. Cruz was born outside the US, outside US Jurisdiction to only a mother whom was a US Citizen.

Here are a couple of sources to support everything that I have stated:
On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
S.Res.511 - 110th Congress (2007-2008): A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Funny how 2 Law Scholars limit the 1790 INA to meaning only that Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent. when the reality was that both parents had to be US Citizens for the child to be born a citizen. I find it interesting also that they compare John Jays children born while he was on diplomatic assignment to that of Cruz, whose mother was in Canada simply for work. Again 2 very distinct differences. Yep, there opinion, provided they ferret out the actual requirements.
As to McCains resolution, I already linked to it and stated it holds no legal weight.

In the first link, you will find two distinguished Georgetown Law Professors who are lecturers on Constitutional law stating unequivocally that Cruz is a "natural born" citizen and they explain this all in great detail. These aren't idiots who don't know what they're talking about. The second link it to the most recent Congressional activity on the subject of presidential eligibility and they basically say the same thing. There are also records from when George Romney and Barry Goldwater ran for president and the same issue came up. So repeatedly,

McCain, Goldwater, and Romney all had 2 parents who were married and were both US Citizens. Again, your Harvard link fails to recognize that the 1790 INA required both parent to be US Citizens in order for the child to be born a "natural-born" citizen. Your professors simply declare a citizen parent to be good enough per the 1790 INA and that changes in law are equal to said INA.

Here I can provide Constitutional Law Professors that claim Cruz is ineligible.
Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president

The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.

If it were already as you exclaim: this question has been answered and repeatedly, your interpretation has been found invalid. Yet... here you are like some kind of idiot, trying to make that case! Then why does this Constitutional Law Professor contradict your Law Professor claim? :yawn: I guess my Constitutional Law Professor must be an idiot according to you.

Look... I know people read shit on the Internet from crackpots who think they know something the rest of us don't know, and undoubtedly, there are low-information morons like you who eat that sort of shit up. I get that! What you are espousing is crackpot idiocy at it's finest. You can believe it all you like, I can't stop you. Some people firmly believe we never landed on the moon! Some people are convinced Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK! I watched a TV show yesterday with people out in the woods in Maine searching for Bigfoot! But this is a matter of publicly-available common law that anyone can research.

Or there are simply ******* idiots like you that think they know more than anybody else, but when you are shown to be ******* inept, you double down on your stupidity.

I like how my Constitutional Law Scholar actually quotes your link and then completely shows your 2 professors to be utter ******* idiots.

Let me be clear: I am not a so-called birther. I am a legal historian. President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference.

In this election cycle, numerous pundits have declared that Cruz is eligible to be president. They rely on a supposed consensus among legal experts. This notion appears to emanate largely from a recent comment in the Harvard Law Review Forum by former solicitors general Neal Katyal and Paul Clement. In trying to put the question of who is a natural-born citizen to rest, however, the authors misunderstand, misapply and ignore the relevant law.

First, although Katyal and Clement correctly declare that the Supreme Court has recognized that common law is useful to explain constitutional terms, they ignore that law. Instead, they rely on three radical 18th-century British statutes. While it is understandable for a layperson to make such a mistake, it is unforgivable for two lawyers of such experience to equate the common law with statutory law. The common law was unequivocal: Natural-born subjects had to be born in English territory. The then-new statutes were a revolutionary departure from that law.

Second, the authors appropriately ask the question whether the Constitution includes the common-law definition or the statutory approach. But they fail to examine any U.S. sources for the answer. Instead, Katyal and Clement refer to the brand-new British statutes as part of a “longstanding tradition” and conclude that the framers followed that law because they “would have been intimately familiar with these statutes.” But when one reviews all the relevant American writings of the early period, including congressional debates, well-respected treatises and Supreme Court precedent, it becomes clear that the common-law definition was accepted in the United States, not the newfangled British statutory approach.

Third, Katyal and Clement put much weight on the first U.S. naturalization statute, enacted in 1790. Because it contains the phrase “natural born,” they infer that such citizens must include children born abroad to American parents. The first Congress, however, had no such intent. The debates on the matter reveal that the congressmen were aware that such children were not citizens and had to be naturalized; hence, Congress enacted a statute to provide for them. Moreover, that statute did not say the children were natural born, only that they should “be considered as” such. Finally, as soon as Madison, then a member of Congress, was assigned to redraft the statute in 1795, he deleted the phrase “natural born,” and it has never reappeared in a naturalization statute.

When discussing the meaning of a constitutional term, it is important to go beyond secondary sources and look to the law itself. And on this issue, the law is clear: The framers of the Constitution required the president of the United States to be born in the United States.

LMFAO Yep, you sure picked knowledgeable Constitutional Law Professors. Care to try again?

How about Laurence Tribe who taught both Cruz and Obama Constitutional Law at Harvard?

“Despite Sen[ator] Cruz’s repeated statements that the legal/constitutional issues around whether he’s a natural-born citizen are clear and settled,” he told the Guardian by email, “the truth is that they’re murky and unsettled.”

and

In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under “the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court – an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption – Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.”

He added: “Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice for a genuine originalist. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.

“On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors – a ‘living constitutionalist’ who believes that the constitution’s meaning evolves with the needs of the time – Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition.”

Tribe said: “There is no single, settled answer. And our supreme court has never addressed the issue.”

Harvard scholar: Ted Cruz's citizenship, eligibility for president ‘unsettled’

Cruz's own Professor calls Cruz a ******* idiot. LMFAO It can't get any better than this folks! SMFH

 

[Boss]

WOW, you must be a ******* genius, I never said WKA was a case about Presidential candidates eligibility.

Then why in the **** do you keep bringing it up, moron? It doesn't have any bearing on this matter. It's a completely different matter regarding completely different circumstances.

There have been prior objections, McCain being the last, the resolution holds no legal weight.

Well certainly it does because, unlike Wong-Kim, it is actually ABOUT presidential eligibility.

Cruz was born outside the US, outside US Jurisdiction to only a mother whom was a US Citizen.

Which means he is a "natural born" citizen, end of discussion.

I find it interesting also that they compare John Jays children born while he was on diplomatic assignment to that of Cruz, whose mother was in Canada simply for work. Again 2 very distinct differences. Yep, there opinion, provided they ferret out the actual requirements.

There's no difference whether you are a diplomat or regular working person, we don't have different laws depending on who you are and what you do. Their point is that John Jay certainly wouldn't have been okay with a measure that restricted his own children from being president.

Yep, there opinion, provided...
I don't usually pull the grammar nazi card but this is the second time you have demonstrated what an illiterate boob you are. You've got about a 7th grade understanding of the English language and you're here arguing Constitutional law like you're some kind of expert.

Funny how 2 Law Scholars limit the 1790 INA to meaning only that Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent. when the reality was that both parents had to be US Citizens for the child to be born a citizen.

And the law which required BOTH parents was changed.

As to McCains resolution, I already linked to it and stated it holds no legal weight.

Guess what? You're no Antonin Scalia so it doesn't matter what you state! It DOES have legal weight because that is precisely what it's about. So are the cases against Romney and Goldwater. In every instance "natural born" was determined to NOT mean what you are claiming. Period.

I guess my Constitutional Law Professor must be an idiot according to you.

Just like your fucked in the head president! Lots of people think they are experts on the Constitution but you know who can run circles around your guy and my guys both? Ted Cruz! Now, I would think that if anyone in this country understood "natural born citizenship" it would be Ted Cruz. Do you think he's spending all this time, money and effort to do something he isn't qualified to do and he knows it?

How about Laurence Tribe who taught both Cruz and Obama Constitutional Law at Harvard?

He just said it's "murky and unsettled" not that Cruz isn't qualified. But that's what you seem to think he said for some odd reason. It is "murky" because there is nowhere in the Constitution where it says what a "natural born" citizen is. We have to go to founding intent. The courts have done that numerous times and they always rule the same. Now Tribe can claim it's "unsettled" and technically, since it specifically about Cruz, he is right... but really, it HAS been settled, numerous times.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Wong-Kim was not about presidential candidate eligibility. Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code that you keep presenting is about congressional certification of electors. When it talks about "objections" it is talking about objections to electors. It has NOTHING to do with the eligibility of the newly-elected president! NOTHING! Congress certainly CAN NOT rule that a president is ineligible after the election.

Does this phrase really puzzle you?The Twentieth Amendment gives Congress the job of handling the disqualification of a President elect. Title 3, Section 15 of the U.S. Code provides Congress a specific procedure for calling for and handling objections that may arise after the President of the Senate announces the winner of the electoral vote count.

Do you really not know what the 20th Amendment states? Here I'll post the 20th Amendment, specifically Section 3 of it.

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Then why in the **** do you keep bringing it up, moron? It doesn't have any bearing on this matter. It's a completely different matter regarding completely different circumstances.

Because WKA explains what being born outside the jurisdiction of the US is which is why I posted the relevant section of the WKA case discussing those born beyond sea and out of the jurisdiction of the US. SMFH

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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Even the 14th Amendment states there are but two ways to become a citizen of the US, be born in the United States or be Naturalized in the United States. Cruz was automatically Naturalized (derivative citizenship via jus sanguinis) once he lived within the United States for a period of 5 years before the age of 14.

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

Well certainly it does because, unlike Wong-Kim, it is actually ABOUT presidential eligibility.

To be eligible one must be a "natural-born citizen"

Which means he is a "natural born" citizen, end of discussion.

And yet it is neither the end of the discussion nor does it mean he is a "natural-born" citizen. You claim to be an Originalist, yet you don't even understand what that means. LMFAO Cruz's own Constitutional Law Professor calls Cruz a fuckin' idiot because under an Originalists view he is not a "natural-born" citizen, he is only a "natural-born" citizen under the views of those that call the USC a living document, basically Progressives.

There's no difference whether you are a diplomat or regular working person, we don't have different laws depending on who you are and what you do. Their point is that John Jay certainly wouldn't have been okay with a measure that restricted his own children from being president.

We most certainly do have different laws for diplomats and civilians, I suggest you read the case, the Schooner Exchange, from 1812. SMFH

Yep, there opinion, provided...

I don't usually pull the grammar nazi card but this is the second time you have demonstrated what an illiterate boob you are. You've got about a 7th grade understanding of the English language and you're here arguing Constitutional law like you're some kind of expert.

WOW, two whole grammar mistakes in how many comments? Do I need to go through yours and point them out? Wait, here 's another one - watafuknmoron

And the law which required BOTH parents was changed.

That's right it was, yet it doesn't change the fact that those children are Naturalized at birth and are not "natural-born" citizens. They receive their citizenship via jus sanguinis (derived) and are thus naturalized via Immigration and Naturalization Acts.

Guess what? You're no Antonin Scalia so it doesn't matter what you state! It DOES have legal weight because that is precisely what it's about. So are the cases against Romney and Goldwater. In every instance "natural born" was determined to NOT mean what you are claiming. Period.

All you are doing is showing ignorance. Romney departed the race before any matter could be resolved. In each and every instance both parents were US Citizens. Goldwater, like McCain was born in an incorporated US Territory.

Just like your fucked in the head president! Lots of people think they are experts on the Constitution but you know who can run circles around your guy and my guys both? Ted Cruz! Now, I would think that if anyone in this country understood "natural born citizenship" it would be Ted Cruz. Do you think he's spending all this time, money and effort to do something he isn't qualified to do and he knows it?

My President wasn't elected, sorry, born, bread, and registered Republican.

Ted Cruz is a MORON, and doesn't comprehend the first thing about being an Originalist, which you don't seem to grasp either.

He just said it's "murky and unsettled" not that Cruz isn't qualified. But that's what you seem to think he said for some odd reason. It is "murky" because there is nowhere in the Constitution where it says what a "natural born" citizen is. We have to go to founding intent. The courts have done that numerous times and they always rule the same. Now Tribe can claim it's "unsettled" and technically, since it specifically about Cruz, he is right... but really, it HAS been settled, numerous times.

It's not settled in Cruz's case because it is different than any other case of the past. Did you really miss this part?

In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under “the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court – an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption – Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.”

He added: “Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice for a genuine originalist. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.

“On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors – a ‘living constitutionalist’ who believes that the constitution’s meaning evolves with the needs of the time – Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition.”

Tribe said: “There is no single, settled answer. And our supreme court has never addressed the issue.”

SMFH

Don't be so butt hurt.