Ted Cruz may not be the constitutional conservative he claims to be

[Silhouette]

Here's some actual Ted Cruz vs the US Constitution

An increasing number of high-profile constitutional law professors, including one of Cruz's own professors from Harvard Law School, have in recent days argued publicly that Cruz's birth disqualifies him....Now a former teacher of Cruz's says he thinks the senator isn't eligible to run for president. Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard who taught both Cruz and President Barack Obama, wrote about the subject in an op-ed published Monday in The Boston Globe...."People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be," Tribe writes. "But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an 'originalist,' one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution's terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn't be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and '90s required that someone actually be born on U.S. soil to be a 'natural born' citizen. Even having two U.S. parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive." http://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-canadian-citizen-415430

Hmmm...now how would a liberal-majority USSC decide...at the 11th hour this year...given that an empty seat for life is at stake...?

That question is a REAL stumper! I'll bet they'll be really really impartial when they cast their decisions on that one! You can bet the house that if there is a micrometer of wiggle room to allow them to say "Cruz isn't eligible" should he have sealed the nomination by then, they will pounce on that like a cat in a canary cage.

 

[Skylar]

stop spewing your pseudo-legal gibberish Skylar!

Smiling.....still smarting from all the spankings I've given you on the law, Jen?

The difference between you and I is two fold. First, I'm right. And my arguments describe the law as it actually is. My record of predicting legal outcomes is excellent. Second, my arguments are legally consistent. And I have the caselaw to prove it.

Whereas you predictably cite your imagination as the law. And have a perfect record of failure on predicting legal outcomes. You've literally never been right.

 

[Skylar]

Here's some actual Ted Cruz vs the US Constitution

An increasing number of high-profile constitutional law professors, including one of Cruz's own professors from Harvard Law School, have in recent days argued publicly that Cruz's birth disqualifies him....Now a former teacher of Cruz's says he thinks the senator isn't eligible to run for president. Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard who taught both Cruz and President Barack Obama, wrote about the subject in an op-ed published Monday in The Boston Globe...."People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be," Tribe writes. "But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an 'originalist,' one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution's terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn't be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and '90s required that someone actually be born on U.S. soil to be a 'natural born' citizen. Even having two U.S. parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive." http://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-canadian-citizen-415430

Hmmm...now how would a liberal-majority USSC decide...at the 11th hour this year...given that an empty seat for life is at stake...?

They've given zero indication that they have the slightest interest in hearing any of the cases you're interested in. With every single case challenging Cruz's eligibility being dismissed or stalling in the court they were submitted in.

Remember, your desires have no relevance to actual legal outcomes. Its a lesson about the law that you've never learned. You keep assuming that the law must reflect what you *want* to happen rather than what the evidence suggests will happen.

And you're always wrong. Regarding the law, literally always. You've never once accurately predicted a legal outcome. Not once.

That question is a REAL stumper! I'll bet they'll be really really impartial when they cast their decisions on that one! You can bet the house that if there is a micrometer of wiggle room to allow them to say "Cruz isn't eligible" should he have sealed the nomination by then, they will pounce on that like a cat in a canary cage.

Or....they won't hear any such case.

You want a particular outcome so you assume it must be so. But as the court has demonstrated *every* time you've made a prediction.......you suck at anticipating what the courts will actually do.

 

[kaz]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States

Sixteenth Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS, but factually, you're wrong

 

[Skylar]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States

Sixteenth Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS, but factually, you're wrong

Yup. And John knows he's completely full of shit. The very case he cites contradicts him utterly, affirming that the 16th amendment removed the apportionment requirement for taxes on incomes:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

And John ignores it, refusing to acknowledge this passage even exists. You can always tell what a person knows about their own argument.....but what they fastidiously ignore.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

You could be banned for trolling...but I would ban you for sheer repetition. If someone had the stomach and the time to research your posts, they'd find that same line you just spouted repeated over and over and over and over and over, without a single substantive rebuttal. It's an ad hominem and yet the mods let you go on. The only thing I can conclude is that you know the mods personally or have contributed so much (Soros) money to this website that your mouth is allowed free reign.

Nope. Again, I'm just critiquing your sources. For example, you insist that anyone with a foreign birth certificate is forbidden by law to be president.

The law doesn't say this. You're not citing the law. You're citing yourself. And as such, I'm checking your sources. Your source (yourself) has a perfect record of failure in legal predictions. You are literally always wrong. You can't point to a single example of you ever getting a legal prediction right.

Why then would you or anyone else put the slightest weight in what you have to say on legal matters? Your pseudo-legal gibberish simply has nothing to do with our laws. Nor has the slightest relevance to the outcome of any case.

As demonstrated by virtually every 'eligibility' suit against Cruz being dismissed. With the 2 remaining having stalled utterly in the courts they were submitted in.

The law says Cruz's citizenship is derivative, passed down from his mother. It is only Statute, an Immigration and Naturalization Act (1952), as to why Cruz even has US Citizenship. The legal question is if he qualifies as "natural-born citizen" when without naturalization via an INA, he wouldn't even be considered a US Citizen.

Every eligibility suit against Cruz has been dismissed for failures, i.e. past date to prevent being on ballot, failure to serve Cruz, etc.

A case against his citizenship status must be brought by someone that has standing, to which there will be nobody but Cruz himself.

Congress can, via the 20th Amendment Section 3, deny Cruz as the President elect via not qualifying as a "natural-born citizen", which would really be the only chance to do so. Cruz could attempt to sue and the courts would probably decline to hear the case.

Another question is he has a Canadian Birth Certificate, his mother never registered his birth with the US Consul in Calgary, so was "Ted" even intended to be a US Citizen by his mother, was her interest to remain in Canada since his father became a Canadian Citizen?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Here's some actual Ted Cruz vs the US Constitution

An increasing number of high-profile constitutional law professors, including one of Cruz's own professors from Harvard Law School, have in recent days argued publicly that Cruz's birth disqualifies him....Now a former teacher of Cruz's says he thinks the senator isn't eligible to run for president. Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard who taught both Cruz and President Barack Obama, wrote about the subject in an op-ed published Monday in The Boston Globe...."People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be," Tribe writes. "But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an 'originalist,' one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution's terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn't be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and '90s required that someone actually be born on U.S. soil to be a 'natural born' citizen. Even having two U.S. parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive." http://www.newsweek.com/ted-cruz-canadian-citizen-415430

Hmmm...now how would a liberal-majority USSC decide...at the 11th hour this year...given that an empty seat for life is at stake...?

That question is a REAL stumper! I'll bet they'll be really really impartial when they cast their decisions on that one! You can bet the house that if there is a micrometer of wiggle room to allow them to say "Cruz isn't eligible" should he have sealed the nomination by then, they will pounce on that like a cat in a canary cage.

This is the portion of the article you should be looking at, which claims Cruz to not be an Originalist as he claims:
Now a former teacher of Cruz's says he thinks the senator isn't eligible to run for president. Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard who taught both Cruz and President Barack Obama, wrote about the subject in an op-ed published Monday in The Boston Globe.


"People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be," Tribe writes. "But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an 'originalist,' one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution's terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn't be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and '90s required that someone actually be born on U.S. soil to be a 'natural born' citizen. Even having two U.S. parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive."


Tribe later called Cruz a "fair-weather originalist" on CNN, saying the senator's philosophy is "antiquated...but it turns out Ted Cruz drops that when it doesn't serve his purpose."

 

[SwimExpert]

The legal question is if he qualifies as "natural-born" when without naturalization via an INA, he wouldn't even be considered a US Citizen.

It depends on how he was delivered. If he was pushed out the vag he would be a natural born citizen. If it was a C-section, then he's an artificially born citizen.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The legal question is if he qualifies as "natural-born" when without naturalization via an INA, he wouldn't even be considered a US Citizen.

It depends on how he was delivered. If he was pushed out the vag he would be a natural born citizen. If it was a C-section, then he's an artificially born citizen.

What about if he came from a test tube or if his mother was abducted by aliens?

 

[Skylar]

You could be banned for trolling...but I would ban you for sheer repetition. If someone had the stomach and the time to research your posts, they'd find that same line you just spouted repeated over and over and over and over and over, without a single substantive rebuttal. It's an ad hominem and yet the mods let you go on. The only thing I can conclude is that you know the mods personally or have contributed so much (Soros) money to this website that your mouth is allowed free reign.

Nope. Again, I'm just critiquing your sources. For example, you insist that anyone with a foreign birth certificate is forbidden by law to be president.

The law doesn't say this. You're not citing the law. You're citing yourself. And as such, I'm checking your sources. Your source (yourself) has a perfect record of failure in legal predictions. You are literally always wrong. You can't point to a single example of you ever getting a legal prediction right.

Why then would you or anyone else put the slightest weight in what you have to say on legal matters? Your pseudo-legal gibberish simply has nothing to do with our laws. Nor has the slightest relevance to the outcome of any case.

As demonstrated by virtually every 'eligibility' suit against Cruz being dismissed. With the 2 remaining having stalled utterly in the courts they were submitted in.

The law says Cruz's citizenship is derivative, passed down from his mother. It is only Statute, an Immigration and Naturalization Act (1952), as to why Cruz even has US Citizenship. The legal question is if he qualifies as "natural-born" when without naturalization via an INA, he wouldn't even be considered a US Citizen.

It depends on the prevalent legal interpretation. By an originalist intepretation (which Cruz ironically favors), Cruz would most definitely not be natural born. The 1790 Naturalization Act extended natural born status to those born outside the US. Making it ludicrously clear that at the time of the constitution's ratification, these children weren't considered natural born.

This would also be consistent with Supreme Court's use of English Common law to glean the meaning of 'natural born', attributing such status to place of birth exclusively. With James Madison himself backing up such an interpretation.

The State Department itself recognizes that the children who received their citizenship through their parents exclusively did not derive their citizenship from the constitution. But instead, statute. So by a strictly constitutionalist argument, Cruz is thoroughly fucked.

However....

Cruz was a citizen at birth. And US law at the time of Cruz's birth has only two types of citizenship: citizen at birth and naturalized. Given that the 1790 naturalization act extended natural born citizenship, its equally clear that natural born status is something that the founders believed was within the authority of congress to determine by statute.

And the leap from 'citizen at birth' to 'natural born' is a narrow one.

All of which is irrelevant. As the courts have no interest in hearing these cases.

Every eligibility suit against Cruz has been dismissed for failures, i.e. past date to prevent being on ballot, failure to serve Cruz, etc.

The courts have found any excuse to kick this can down the road. They have no interest in ruling on the matter. With the Supreme Court expressing zero interest in the issue either.

Meaning that the most likely outcome by far....is nothing.

Congress can, via the 20th Amendment Section 3, deny Cruz as the President elect via not qualifying as a "natural-born citizen", which would really be the only chance to do so. Cruz could attempt to sue and the courts would probably decline to hear the case.

They won't.

When predicting legal outcomes there are two factors that come into play: caselaw and interest by the legal body in question on taking action. The caselaw on the matter would depend on which interpretation you were using, favoring Cruz not being a natural born citizen. The legal bodies in question have demonstrated zero interest in these issues. No court has ruled on Cruz's eligibility. Congress has expressed no intent to reject Cruz.

Meaning that the most likely outcome is again.....nothing.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

It depends on the prevalent legal interpretation. By an originalist intepretation (which Cruz ironically favors), Cruz would most definitely not be natural born. The 1790 Naturalization Act extended natural born status to those born outside the US. Making it ludicrously clear that at the time of the constitution's ratification, these children weren't considered natural born.

That "natural-born citizenship" statute required both parents to be US Citizens as well.

This would also be consistent with Supreme Court's use of English Common law to glean the meaning of 'natural born', attributing such status to place of birth exclusively. With James Madison himself backing up such an interpretation.

The State Department itself recognizes that the children who received their citizenship through their parents exclusively did not derive their citizenship from the constitution. But instead, statute. So by a strictly constitutionalist argument, Cruz is thoroughly fucked.

I agree

However....

Cruz was a citizen at birth. And US law at the time of Cruz's birth has only two types of citizenship: citizen at birth and naturalized. Given that the 1790 naturalization act extended natural born citizenship, its equally clear that natural born status is something that the founders believed was within the authority of congress to determine by statute.

At the time of Cruz's birth there were only two types of citizenship via the 14th Amendment, Birth in the US or Naturalization, a citizen at birth is a legal fallacy. Birth by statute outside the US is done via Congress through USC A1 S8 - To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, a naturalized citizen born outside the US attains their citizenship via jus sanguinis (derived citizenship).

And the leap from 'citizen at birth' to 'natural born' is a narrow one.

All of which is irrelevant. As the courts have no interest in hearing these cases.

It would need to go through the Federal Courts in DC by someone with standing, which the only person with standing, unfortunately, would be Cruz himself.

The courts have found any excuse to kick this can down the road. They have no interest in ruling on the matter. With the Supreme Court expressing zero interest in the issue either.

Meaning that the most likely outcome by far....is nothing.

I agree

They won't.

There is a chance they would, the likeliness is probably 1 in a million.

When predicting legal outcomes there are two factors that come into play: caselaw and interest by the legal body in question on taking action. The caselaw on the matter would depend on which interpretation you were using, favoring Cruz not being a natural born citizen. The legal bodies in question have demonstrated zero interest in these issues. No court has ruled on Cruz's eligibility. Congress has expressed no intent to reject Cruz.

Meaning that the most likely outcome is again.....nothing.

Congress hasn't expressed anything as of yet only because if he fails to become the President elect, there is no need, best case to look at is George Romney, who dropped out of the running prior to the nomination, yet even he had two US Citizen parents.

 

[Skylar]

It depends on the prevalent legal interpretation. By an originalist intepretation (which Cruz ironically favors), Cruz would most definitely not be natural born. The 1790 Naturalization Act extended natural born status to those born outside the US. Making it ludicrously clear that at the time of the constitution's ratification, these children weren't considered natural born.

That "natural-born citizenship" status required both parents to be US Citizens as well.

No it doesn't. Place of birth alone would be likely sufficient.

Look at Wong Kim Ark's discussion of natural born status under English Common Law along with Madison's comments on citizenship being tied to place of birth in the US.

Happersett indicates that those with two US parents born in the US are definitely natural born citizens. But it acknowledges that others may qualify as well. The 'requirement' that both parents be US citizens has yet to be determined by the courts. With both English Common law and Madison strongly indicating that it wouldn't be necessary.

At the time of Cruz's birth there were only two types of citizenship via the 14th Amendment Birth in the US or Naturalization, a citizen at birth is a legal fallacy. Birth by statute outside the US is done via Congress through USC A1 S8 - To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that Cruz's citizenship isn't established by congressional statute. I'm saying that as the 1790 naturalization act makes clear, congressional statute can extend natural born status.

And that in a non-originalist interpretation of 'natural born', the gap between 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' is narrow enough to skip across.

Congress hasn't expressed anything as of yet only because if he fails to become the President elect, there is no need, best case to look at is George Romney, who dropped out of the running prior to the nomination.

This congress is ludicrously partisan. If Cruz got the nomination the odds they would vote he was ineligible is that number that comes *just* after zero.

I draw my predictions on the most likely outcomes. And Cruz being found to be ineligible by the courts or congress is ridiculously unlikely.

 

[SwimExpert]

The legal question is if he qualifies as "natural-born" when without naturalization via an INA, he wouldn't even be considered a US Citizen.

It depends on how he was delivered. If he was pushed out the vag he would be a natural born citizen. If it was a C-section, then he's an artificially born citizen.

What about if he came from a test tube or if his mother was abducted by aliens?

Nothing in the constitution differentiates citizenship based on conception.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

No it doesn't. Place of birth alone would be likely sufficient.

"status" has been changed to read "statute".

Look at Wong Kim Ark's discussion of natural born status under English Common Law along with Madison's comments on citizenship being tied to place of birth in the US.

Happersett indicates that those with two US parents born in the US are definitely natural born citizens. But it acknowledges that others may qualify as well. The 'requirement' that both parents be US citizens has yet to be determined by the courts. With both English Common law and Madison strongly indicating that it wouldn't be necessary.

Only within the US. The discussion is those born outside the jurisdiction of the US.

You're missing my point. I'm not arguing that Cruz's citizenship isn't established by congressional statute. I'm saying that as the 1790 naturalization act makes clear, congressional statute can extend natural born status.

It did for a short period of time with specific requirements - both parents had to be US Citizens, 1790-1795, and then never again.

And that in a non-constitutionalist interpretation of 'natural born', the gap between 'citizen at birth' and 'natural born citizen' is narrow enough to skip across.

I agree

This congress is ludicrously partisan. If Cruz got the nomination the odds they would vote he was ineligible is that number that comes *just* after zero.

I agree, highly unlikely, yet there is a chance.

I draw my predictions on the most likely outcomes. And Cruz being found to be ineligible by the courts or congress is ridiculously unlikely.

It won't be done through the courts at all, Congress is pretty much the only place he can be denied at this point, provided he becomes the Presdient elect.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The legal question is if he qualifies as "natural-born" when without naturalization via an INA, he wouldn't even be considered a US Citizen.

It depends on how he was delivered. If he was pushed out the vag he would be a natural born citizen. If it was a C-section, then he's an artificially born citizen.

What about if he came from a test tube or if his mother was abducted by aliens?

Nothing in the constitution differentiates citizenship based on conception.

Case law and the 14th limits it to either born in the US or by Naturalization, Cruz wasn't born in the US.......gofigure

 

[Skylar]

No it doesn't. Place of birth alone would be likely sufficient.

"status" has been changed to read "statute".

I disagree. Wong Kim Ark discusses the English Common law concept of 'natural born subject'. Which for all practical purposes would be interchangable with natural born citizen. As its the 'natural born' status that is relevant.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Strongly calling into doubt the requirement that both parents must be US citizens to be natural born if you're born inside the US and under US jurisdiction.

Look at Wong Kim Ark's discussion of natural born status under English Common Law along with Madison's comments on citizenship being tied to place of birth in the US.

Happersett indicates that those with two US parents born in the US are definitely natural born citizens. But it acknowledges that others may qualify as well. The 'requirement' that both parents be US citizens has yet to be determined by the courts. With both English Common law and Madison strongly indicating that it wouldn't be necessary.

Only within the US. The discussion is those born outside the jurisdiction of the US.

Oh, the 1790 extension of natural born wasn't included in the 1795 naturalization act. So its explicit extension isn't express law today. The 1790 naturalization act merely demonstrates that the extension of natural born status by statute was within the authority of congress.

With that authority in mind, a non-originalist interpretation of 'natural born' could easily recognize 'citizen at birth' as 'natural born citizen'.

By an originalist interpertation, Cruz is fucked. By a non-originalist interpretation, he could easily be natural born. And I don't see the courts wanting to touch this issue either way.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I disagree. Wong Kim Ark discusses the English Common law concept of 'natural born subject'. Which for all practical purposes would be interchangable with natural born citizen. As its the 'natural born' status that is relevant.

Right. Provided the child is born within the jurisdiction of the US.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

Which refers specifically to those born in the realm of the king or his territories.

Strongly calling into doubt the requirement that both parents must be US citizens to be natural born if you're born inside the US and under US jurisdiction.

The discussion isn't about those born inside the US or within US Territories. Inside the US the parent or parents merely need to be domiciled here for the child to be a "natural-born citizen".

Look at Wong Kim Ark's discussion of natural born status under English Common Law along with Madison's comments on citizenship being tied to place of birth in the US.

The discussion is about Cruz born outside the jurisdiction of the US.

Happersett indicates that those with two US parents born in the US are definitely natural born citizens. But it acknowledges that others may qualify as well. The 'requirement' that both parents be US citizens has yet to be determined by the courts. With both English Common law and Madison strongly indicating that it wouldn't be necessary.

the 1790 INA required both parents to be US Citizens if the child was to be considered as a "natural-born citizen" when the child was born outside the jurisdiction of the US.

Oh, the 1790 extension of natural born wasn't included in the 1795 naturalization act. So its explicit extension isn't express law today. The 1790 naturalization act merely demonstrates that the extension of natural born status by statute was within the authority of congress.

And the phrase was revoked by the 1795 INA, never again to be used in an INA.

With that authority in mind, a non-originalist interpretation of 'natural born' could easily recognize 'citizen at birth' as 'natural born citizen'.

By an originalist interpertation, Cruz is fucked. By a non-originalist interpretation, he could easily be natural born. And I don't see the courts wanting to touch this issue either way.

Again, I agree.

 

[Skylar]

It seems we're on the same page regarding the likely outcome of this case and the implications of different constitutional interpretations. And we both predict that its very, very unlikely that Cruz will be found to be ineligible.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

It seems we're on the same page regarding the likely outcome of this case and the implications of different constitutional interpretations. And we both predict that its very, very unlikely that Cruz will be found to be ineligible.

Exactly, its also very unlikely he becomes the President elect.

 

[johnwk]

Surely a "constitutional conservative" knows that proposing a flat tax on incomes would not close down the IRS as Cruz claims, but more importantly, it perpetuates today's violation of our Constitution which requires any direct tax to be apportioned among the States

Sixteenth Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration"

I am a Fair Tax supporter and hate the IRS, but factually, you're wrong

Wrong about what? Quote my words which you allege are wrong.


JWK