What is a United States Natural Born Citizen? Cruz and Obama don't make the cut

[Brianroy]

As Conservatives who unapologetically wish the very best for Israel,  and wish to bless Israel as HASHEM
commands in the Holy Scriptures of the Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets,  we must also uphold and
keep the Law of Custom in the Land where we are where it does not trangress HASHEM's word and where
the lives of the souls at stake will be more greatly harmed if we fall out of the Law of Custom, than if we keep it.

The Constitution of the United States calls itself the "Supreme Law of the Land" in Article 6.  THAT is the arch-law
of Custom here in the United States.  Barack Hussein Obama is a definitive violation of that Custom, in which a
NATURAL BORN Citizen, not merely a Citizen, but a NATURAL BORN Citizen only can legally aspire to be President
of the United States.    The equivalent is something to the effect of having the right to call oneself the seed of
Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob...it is a paternal heritage of natural born identity that other citizens outside the
bloodline simply cannot claim.   While maternal children may be considered Jewish and applicable in the religious realm,
in contrast, the Law of Custom here in the United States when the Constitution was written under later meddling that began
with the Act of May 24, 1934, was that it is the paternal bloodline that places the emphasis in the political realm.

And even with the meddling of gradual maternal equalization to an unconstitutional, but in effect,  post-1986 superiority
of the maternal over the paternal, foreign birth in between 1934 and the 1980's under the maternal, effectively depends
on an equivalence of Naturalization in U.S. Law.   JTF has made the mistake of not doing the research of what
constitutes a Constitutionally acceptable candidate, one who if challenged, won't be able to be tossed out of the
race by legal technicality, and waste months and years of honest and well-meaning effort of those advancing his
illegal candidacy, even if he does fire on all the right pistons for political stand-points otherwise.


James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Volume I; New York: O. Halsted, 1826. Page 255

“The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen …of the United States….
As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States…the qualification of birth cuts
off all inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war…”



In 1833, in Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473

“ It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for 14 years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen [to speak of those to who fought the Revolutionary War] to become President is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.

{Note: In order to exclude foreign influence, one has to have SOLE allegiance and SOLE citizenship as a citizen of the United States.  Obama still is an Indonesian Citizen, and Cruz past the age of 35 to this year was STILL a Canadian Citizen.  – Brianroy]

It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits and painful to their sensibilities.
 
But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.”



And then we have the great Chester Arthur dilemma, in which Senator Bayard specified to Attorney A.P. Hinman that in order for Chester Arthur to qualify for the Presidency, they not only relied on a testimony that he was U.S. born, but that by the child's 21st birthday, his father was a United States Citizen also.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-States
 
Constitutional Amendment ARTICLE XII., SUB-DIVISION 3.
" But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of
President, shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the
United States."
New York, January 7th, 1881.
 
Hon. THOS. F. BAYARD, U. S. Senator.
DEAR SIR:- What is the construction of Article II., ~ I,
Clause 5, of the Constitution of the United States-that
.. No person, except a natural-born citizen, etc., shall be
eligible, etc." * * *
Yours respectfully,
A. P. HINMAN.
--------------
Senate of the United States.
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
A. P. HINMAN, Esq., New York.
DEAR SIR
:-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
the term" natural-born citizen," as used in the Constitution
and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native ofthe U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child
attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
such minor.
Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD


Not even under these most liberal circumstances does Cruz or Obama qualify.  Obama's father never naturalized,
and Cruz's father naturalized in 2005, if I am not mistaken, far after Cruz past the age of 21.

[Brianroy]

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision of Weedin v.Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927) @ pages 661 - 666
 http://supreme.justia.com/us/274/657/case.html
 
uses as well as implies –

(re: McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)   http://supreme.justia.com/us/17/316/case.html

    - implied Constitutional language or intent is justifiable interpretation.)

 -- that the FATHER (Paternal lineage) as that which confers a "NATURAL born citizen" status,
 instead of a simple "born citizen" status as through a jus soli birth with maternal citizenship.

In the Oral Arguments of Nguyen v. INS  533 U.S. 53 (2001), Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg affirmed that the Constitutional Law regarding Citizenship and intent of the Constitution, which by the way trumps lesser amended Congressional interpretations and U.S. Code not having that weight, is that Natural Born Citizenship follows the Father from at least 1789 - 1934.

Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.

That's the way it used to be in the bad old days.

I take it from your argument if Congress wanted to go back to that, it would not offend anything in the U.S. Constitution to do so.

The transcript and tape is available at:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument

In effect, that is where we are today regarding Ted Cruz.  For some 145 years, natural born citizenship in the United States  exclusively followed the Father.  Cruz's father was Cuban until 2005.
Ted Cruz himself held a Canadian birthright citizenship to at minimum, this past summer, and for all we know has not yet formally renounced (although he said that he would eventually do so).    That is clear and unmistakeable foreign influence upon the office of the Presidency, if he should aspire to that office.  He would make a great governor of Texas, but he should never aspire to the Presidency or Vice-Presidency by any means.

Again, The Constitution clearly requires that "No Person except a Natural Born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5


The Original Constitutional Intent of a Natural Born Citizen at the time and era it was written is defined in this: that a child is born to a US CITIZEN Father at the Time of Birth, on US Soil or exclusive US Sovereignty, (this includes those born upon a US Flagship on direct water passage in International Waters IF it is so done between soil of the United States to soil of the United States); and that the child has NO OTHER CITIZENSHIP(S) OR ALLEGIANCE(S) FROM BIRTH TO AGE 21.


The Founders utilized John Locke for this definition:
“This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.”
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59

The idea is that the son NATURALLY follows the condition, the nationality and residence of his FATHER, and then at age 21, assumes an equal role in his father's Society.  Obama's father was Kenyan. Cruz's father was Cuban.  Where it regards the U.S. Presidency, neither LEGALLY make the cut...neither of them.   And it is only by cunning and trickery, and massive conspiratorial corruption, was Obama able to have an entire major party machine drown out and roll over his opponents, who had Hillary Clinton, or McCain and Palin or Romney and Ryan challenged in Court, having legal standing, would have easily disqualified Obama from running for or serving the office he now illegally holds.

I cover quite a bit regarding this in regard to Obama at the JTF Forum posting at http://jtf.org/forum/index.php/topic,65872.0.html

Under Original Intent and interpretation of the 14th Amendment, both Obama AND Cruz fail to qualify even as a 14th Amendment Citizen without a US Citizen Father and by having foreign dual or multi-national citizenship at birth.  This is important, as the 14th Amendment Citizen Standing is a basic requirement upon the Natural Born Citizen standing (except for children of United States Ambassadors serving out their office). 

The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866

The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38

Senator Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) authored a "subject to the jurisdiction" clause into the 14th Amendment. Upon his introduction, the ff. are his remarks.

Part 4 (column 2), page 2890

Mr. Howard: The first amendment is to section one, declaring "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside...This is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred:

Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893

Mr. Trumbull: The provision is, "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"... What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.

...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

...It is only those persons who completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."

Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895

Mr. Howard: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word "jurisdiction" as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States...that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

46 years earlier to this debate, Congress held the same sentiment.

Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, in December 1820 stated:
"When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."


And even in between those times, a reliable legal reference of the day clearly states:
"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
http://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Vattel+%2B%22natural+born+citizen%22&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%20%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false

So now is the legal dilemma.  How can we support a man with dual nationalities at birth, and not just birth, but past the age of 21, and call them United States Natural Born Citizens?  We legally can't.  We have to subvert or wink away at the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, and promote lawlessness and corruption.  To do so, it seems to me, is something that falls back to the passage between the prophet Samuel and King Saul, dealing with what stubbornness and rebellion are against the Instruction given us.   As people wanting to please HASHEM, we must have fair and even balances.  There are times when drastic times call for drastic measures, but that should used very sparingly and eyed to a restoration rather than creating some alien thing. 

We must remember that:

“[T]HE INESTIMABLE HERITAGE OF CITIZENSHIP IS NOT TO BE CONCEDED TO THOSE WHO SEEK
TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF IT UNDER PRESSURE OF A PARTICULAR EXIGENCY....”
CHIN BAK KAN V. UNITED STATES, 186 U.S. 193 (1902) @ 200

We do not need a Presidential candidate or President so badly, that we have to go outside the pool of two citizen parents at their birth on US Soil for a President, regardless of the candidate's ethnicity. The DNC yielded to a known unqualified candidate as a means of desperation, as if the pressure of exigency to get their Party the Presidency in 2008, and discarded the sacred trust of what G-D and the People of the United States gave them.  Regarding me, not anybody else, but just me: I fear HASHEM enough to say that I do not wish to knowingly violate that sacred trust, even if it is under a perceived exigency.  What other peoples thoughts or motivations are in supporting Cruz, I cannot speak to, but only the outward appearance and their works and  fruits thereof.   I also admonish that we must find another candidate, a legal candidate, one who is a United States Natural Born Citizen who loves Israel and loves HASHEM, and who will not just say the right things, but DO them as well. 

[Chaim Ben Pesach]

בס''ד

Brianroy, your idiotic misinterpretation of the Constitution will not stop us from supporting the only candidate who gives us hope for saving America from self-destruction.

Any child of an American citizen is automatically a natural born citizen of the United States. You want us to believe that if an American citizen happens to give birth outside of the country, their baby is not an American. This is just beyond stupid.

BTW no serious person is questioning Ted Cruz's qualifications to be President. John McCain was also born outside of the United States - did anyone ever say that if elected, he would be unable to serve because of that? Even the worst leftist Cruz-haters are not raising this issue.

So if a handful of nuts don't want to support Ted Cruz because of a moronic inability to understand basic Constitutional law, so be it.

[Chaim Ben Pesach]

בס''ד

BTW, the Constitution is not the Bible. It is a man-made document that can be amended (changed). The Founding Fathers intentionally gave us the ability to amend the Constitution.

Aside from amendments, Congress can enact laws. That is also a power enshrined in the Constitution itself.

While we respect the Constitution as a great document that should be regarded as the supreme law of the land, it is still man-made.

One of the reasons we are cursed with Barack Hussein Obama in the White House is because stupid nutjobs focused entirely on his birth in Kenya and ignored the far more serious issue of his being an anti-white, anti-Semitic Muslim traitor. Average American voters could not care less about the Kenya issue. Obama did not lose a single vote because of that issue. But if working class voters in places like Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania had known of Obama's history of anti-white racism and his Muslim religious beliefs, that would have hurt him among those voters. Tragically, only JTF raised those issues in a meaningful way.

[Brianroy]

Chaim,
     If you will not heed the Constitutional Law on the subject, which needs only Article III standing to be successful, and wish to name call me a "nutjob", then you are sadly misinformed as to the Case Law and the Constitutional Law on this subject.  I did what I could to respectfully share a proper legal knowledge and warn you from a certain successful legal challenge by the 2016 Democrat nominee, who would be wise to do so in October AFTER the Republican challenger Cruz has been nominated and put forth, and then weeks later, simply walk away unchallenged in the next month's election because Cruz, the party nominee (if that be the case then) was disqualified under an emergency injunction and emergency hearing by the United States Supreme Court.   

In 2016, come election time in November, if we are still here as a Republic of the United States, we shall see if you were right or not to support a foreign born opportunist rather than someone legally qualified, who depends upon Naturalization Laws (not Natural Law, nor even the Law of Nations) to make him a citizen of the United States.   What does the Act of May 24, 1934 say must happen if the child is born outside the U.S.  and how was that significant?  What does the Immigration and Naturalization Law of 1952 say, and how does that apply to Ted Cruz's birth at the time (December 22, 1970)?  The Supreme Court judges him by the laws of the United States in effect at the time of his birth.  Don't believe me?  Then consult a licensed to practice Constitutional Attorney who has had multiple cases presented in the U.S. Supreme Court and he or she will tell you.    And when they tell you, even if you disagree with me and them afterwards, I would expect an apology for the needless name-calling when I have intelligently presented my position citing sources used by the Supreme Court and attorneys practicing law at or just below the Supreme Court level.

How is it that a presentation of the issue is complemented by JTF when dealing with Obama at length at JTF Forum   http://jtf.org/forum/index.php/topic,65872.0.html   but is now somehow not equally applicable to someone else of the opposite party under the same restrictions of the Constitution and the laws appertaining thereto?   If we disregard the Constitution for this group or that group, how can we maintain Constitutional integrity or return to it when precedents of corruption allow its permanent seating, its acceleration and perpetuation of even more lawless corruption by those utilizing power thereby derived from it?   

You state that the country, had it known, would not have voted for an anti-white, anti-Semitic Muslim traitor.  You are mistaken, sir, because the same mass hypnosis techniques learned and then used by Hitler upon Germans in the late 1920s and early to mid 1930s, Obama with the help of a willing group of co-conspirators, used and still uses at extended speeches and Press Conferences in excess of 10 - 20 minutes to this very day. 


Obama used hypnosis techniques in order to help win the 2008 election. At the first, I had believed that this was to commit a mass hypnosis targeted primarily upon voters. Instead, it became a means of a targeted mass hypnosis on news junkies and especially upon the Media. By psychologically re-engineering the Mainstream Media, they would softball questions to Obama, refuse to bring up his lack of “natural Born” US credentials (because his father was a Kenyan citizen, disqualifying Barack from nbc status); and the Mainstream Media would be engineered to attack anyone who questioned Obama at almost any level of skepticism as if they were crazy or dangerous. For you to challenge me on the Constitutional Law, may be a sign that you too have been partially re-engineered by the Media according to your own willingness to unconsciously submit.  I have between 30 - 50 Representatives in Congress who concur with my interpretation of the Constitution regarding this matter according to representative King of New York, but they are afraid to do so publicly. 

The first word one should time Obama on, is aaaannnndd or "and". It is a precise and timed extension that is meant to set off a suggestive "trigger" in those who have been pre-conditioned elsewhere or are more naturally compliant.  Usually the suggestion of compliance of what he wants people to be hypnotically suggested with, follows this trip word "aaaannnndd".   You will need to do a lot of reading to even catch up on the fact that no matter how smart and brief your ads are for JTF, you have to break the mass hypnosis barriers of a very many of those you are trying to reach.

Reading material:

AN EXAMINATION OF OBAMA’S USE OF HIDDEN HYPNOSIS TECHNIQUES IN HIS SPEECHES
http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama's_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf

Is Obama Using Hypnosis in His Speech?
http://www.hypnosisblacksecrets.com/covert-hypnosis/obama-hypnosis-techniques

Hypnotic Inductions and How To Use Them Properly
http://www.hypnosisblacksecrets.com/how-to-hypnotize/hypnotic-induction-methods-and-the-ways-to-use-them

The Making of a Fuehrer http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html

Barack Obama - Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic? http://www.globalpolitician.com/25109-barack-obama-elections

Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder
http://behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/narcissisticpd.htm

Psychological Study of Hussein Obama
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7499200/Psychological-Study-of-Hussein-Obama




Video: Youtube




Olavo de Carvalho on 20 August 2008, warned that the psychological engineering conducted by the Obama Campaign in 2007-2008 was first experimented and carried out in Brazil.

[link since removed, but I still have the brazzil.com quote]

The tactic was "… not to win over voters through rational persuasion, but to weaken, shock, and stupefy them to the point of making them accept every loss, every humiliation, every defeat, just in order not to contradict the assumed moral obligation to elect him, it being of little importance whether he actually is an enemy in disguise.”

Almost half of America entered an unresponsive Orwellian phase, along with an approximate 7,000,000 votes voter fraud to elect Obama in 2008, and perhaps a minimum of 8,000,000 votes in voter fraud or more in 2012, as an entire segment of the population, including the mainstream Media willingly hypnotized,  still blubbers over Obama.



Then the face of Big Brother faded away again, and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:

[ Government Control ]... IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

But the face of Big Brother [e.g., Obama] seemed to persist for several seconds on the screen, as though the impact that it had made on everyone's eyeballs was too vivid to wear off immediately. The little sandy-haired woman had flung herself forward over the back of the chair in front of her. With a tremulous murmur that sounded like ‘My Saviour!’ she extended her arms towards the screen. Then she buried her face in her hands. It was apparent that she was uttering a prayer.
At this moment the entire group of people broke into a deep, slow, rhythmical chant of ‘B-B!... B-B!...’ — over and over again, very slowly, with a long pause between the first ‘B’ and the second-a heavy, murmurous sound, somehow curiously savage, in the background of which one seemed to hear the stamp of naked feet and the throbbing of tom-toms. For perhaps as much as thirty seconds they kept it up. It was a refrain that was often heard in moments of overwhelming emotion. Partly it was a sort of hymn to the wisdom and majesty of Big Brother, but still more it was an act of self-hypnosis, a deliberate drowning of consciousness by means of rhythmic noise. Winston's entrails seemed to grow cold. In the Two Minutes Hate he could not help sharing in the general delirium, but this sub-human chanting of ‘B-B!... B-B!’ always filled him with horror. Of course he chanted with the rest: it was impossible to do otherwise. To dissemble your feelings, to control your face, to do what everyone else was doing, was an instinctive reaction.
George Orwell: ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’

Until you can realize that 1984 is in many ways a psychological reality for tens of millions of blacks and dedicated Democrats, you will not grasp the necessary understanding  of the socio-political reality of the United States.   We begin with combating this with truth and equality in truth and law through education.  Millions are gradually waking up out of this, including many who just happen to be black, so it is not a racial issue.  It is a how do we best wake up a population out of the multi-level hypnotic (usually individual willing) programming issue in the right and most least harmful way?   The difficulty is that most people who are vulnerable, are those who fail to be critical thinkers and WANT to be deceived and believe in an ambiguous dream that is never specified as to what it is, but still hangs as if an opiate cloud in their mind and before their eyes.  So even with your assessment of Obama not being effectually challenged, I do not concur.  As for all the material I submitted against McCain at a Conservative Blog-site, the Administrator at the Hannity Forums erased the entire 3000 plus pages birther issue topic against Obama (or something to that effect) because it became too difficult to manage, and only the NSA can now pull up what some of us wrote about it then.  I probably wrote some 25-30 posts, probably half of them in detail  regarding McCain doubting his position, but at least he seemed to have been cleared by the Court and a non-binding Senate Resolution, one of whose co-sponsors was Barack Hussein Obama (of all people).   But in 2008, as of June 5-6 with a meeting or interview of Hillary and Barack with the Bilderbergers in Chantilly Virginia (if I recall correctly), the fix was in, and only the U.S. Government's cooperation in the Intelligence services would have allowed and did allow and participate in the use of Media Mass Hypnosis on its own public, its seems to me.    Sorry that you don't yet agree. 

Thanks.  - Brianroy

[Israel Chai]

To be honest, Brian, I'd love to see an American that is acceptable to true conservatives run and win. So far, Cruz is the only one acting like an American. Propose a possible alternative, or do what you've got to do. I'd be for him being an emergency president, and the constitution stays however you like it until after the election.

You can't just say "I don't like him" at this point anymore. There isn't any conceivable alternative.

[GreenLightToGo]

To be honest, Brian, I'd love to see an American that is acceptable to true conservatives run and win. So far, Cruz is the only one acting like an American.

You can't just say "I don't like him" at this point anymore. There isn't any conceivable alternative.

Are you absolutely certain that Cruz is the only candidate acting like an American, and that there's no conceivable alternative? I don't mean this as an attack on you, but do you regularly listen to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or the other Fox pundits/commentators?

Rick Santorum is only behind in the polls & less likely to win because he has BOTH the liberal AND the supposedly conservative media against him.

Here's an example of Rick Santorum being compared to a racist by Chris Wallace (son of Mike Wallace, who interviewed Meir Kahane & compared him to a racist/NAZI):



Another example I can give you is that while Fox correctly complains about Obama not being transparent (when he promised us otherwise), Laura Ingraham complained that she didn't like it how Rick Santorum "feels like he has to answer every question", when he answered a question about whether or not women should serve or should be allowed to serve in the military.

Charles Krauthammer, who is revered by many on Fox, flatly dismissed him as a social conservative in the last election and argued that Santorum was wrong to express his views on contraception because it was a "done issue".  How is contraception not politically relevant when moves to make it free (at the tax payers' expense) or easier to obtain come from one side of the aisle?

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Brian, you are a weirdo.

[Brianroy]

... because America is predominantly Protestant, you have a bunch of people who are used to rejecting authoritative interpretations. ... Now they are trying to do the same thing with the Constitution and in this case it is hurting America.

Dan Ben Noah,
  I am curious as to what "authoritative interpretations" of the Constitution you rely upon.  Please cite and quote several of these.  Thanks. 


Would you consider Chancellor James Kent of the early 1800's an authority?   You will want to check out  Lecture 25: Of Aliens and Natives and Lecture 29: "Of Parent and Child".    If you are unfamiliar with him and the sparseness of of authorities in U.S. Law early on, you will want to read the following Columbia Law Review article (available at Yale Law)
  http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_History_of_Legal_Literature.pdf

Would you consider the sources that Chancellor Kent as authorities to help us arrive at a conclusion on the subject, be they Grotius, or Puffendorf (a favorite of one of the Supreme Court Justices) or Vattel?   If not, why not?   And if these are authorities in their spheres and times, affecting how we arrive at what the Framers of the Constitution meant by Natural Born Citizen, I think that to be helpful and an enlightened approach.  I expect we shouldn't say University Law Schools should be banned from going back to sources and source references because it is inconvenient in a certain Forum discussion to back a Sarah Palin, a Tim Scott, a Louie Gohmert, a Mike Lee, should any of these qualify and pass the scrutiny test as worthy Pro-Israel Conservatives, right?   

Is Constitutional Originalism, that advocated by Justice Scalia, and the view I discuss and present my position from, even a legitimate viewpoint in how YOU view the Constitution, or is it so Progressive, we might as well tell the Europeans like Putin to come over, reside here for two years, and run and be elected President because our definition has evolved from whatever archaic intent the Founders had in mind when they worded the Constitution.  Never mind that:



Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) @ 12 http://supreme.justia.com/us/121/1/case.html
"It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the language of the Constitution here relied on, as indeed in all other instances where construction becomes necessary, we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument."

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189 http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html states:
" ...the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction."


Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to William Johnson, dated June 12, 1823 from Monticello, wrote:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840)@ 570-571 http://supreme.justia.com/us/39/540/case.html
“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution have proved the correctness of this proposition and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies …”

South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905) @ 448 - 450   http://supreme.justia.com/us/199/437/case.html
The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now.


Did these Supreme Court Cases advocate Originalism or not?  Clearly they did, for more than a century after this nation was founded.  So if I seek to find what the original intent of the Founders was, I am following the advice of the Court.  So then, it is apparent that I am FOLLOWING the legal authority of the United States Supreme Court of the 19th Century and a little after, rather than, as you claim, rejecting it.  Would you not agree?  So then, what and who are yours?  I still have lots more I can share and discuss upon.  So if it is agreeable to you, then let us do so. 

Thanks.

[AsheDina]

I have always kept on every issue re BHO plus his Kenyan birth.
Which people should have done, but didn't.

We can thank the Bill O'Reilly's, Michele Malkins, Ann Coulters for this.

I have not looked far into Cruz. So, I cant answer this as of yet.

[Israel Chai]

OK, Santorum.

Question: can he win the next election against Hitlery?

[GreenLightToGo]

OK, Santorum.

Question: can he win the next election against Hitlery?

Politically correct Republicans like Eric Bolling on Fox's "The Five" tell us we should support Chris Christie because he can win, but does that mean we should support him? Some principles aren't worth compromising even if there's less of a chance we'll win and more of a chance we'll lose.

I'm sorry to have to cut against the grain on this forum, but if you want my honest opinion, Ted Cruz only gets ahead by playing it safe as Romney did. Ted Cruz has the wind of Fox liberals blowing behind him; Santorum does not. Ted Cruz has the wind of the ignorant & anti-semitic Pauls blowing behind him; Santorum likely does not.

Both if Cruz lost and if he won and finished out his first term: after these events, the Pauls will still be unexposed to conservatives and will still be reasonably popular. All of the Black and Hispanic apologists who tell us Blacks & Hispanics are conservative because they are religious, oppose gay marriage, and support family values will be unproven wrong, because Ted Cruz wants the wind of liberal & strictly-fiscally-conservative Republicans blowing behind him who oppose discussion of these socially-conservative issues.

If Santorum lost or won and finished out his term, the above two scenarios would be significantly less likely to occur.

[Israel Chai]

Politically correct Republicans like Eric Bolling on Fox's "The Five" tell us we should support Chris Christie because he can win, but does that mean we should support him? Some principles aren't worth compromising even if there's less of a chance we'll win and more of a chance we'll lose.

I'm sorry to have to cut against the grain on this forum, but if you want my honest opinion, Ted Cruz only gets ahead by playing it safe as Romney did. Ted Cruz has the wind of Fox liberals blowing behind him; Santorum does not. Ted Cruz has the wind of the ignorant & anti-semitic Pauls blowing behind him; Santorum likely does not.

Both if Cruz lost and if he won and finished out his first term: after these events, the Pauls will still be unexposed to conservatives and will still be reasonably popular. All of the Black and Hispanic apologists who tell us Blacks & Hispanics are conservative because they are religious, oppose gay marriage, and support family values will be unproven wrong, because Ted Cruz wants the wind of liberal & strictly-fiscally-conservative Republicans blowing behind him who oppose discussion of these socially-conservative issues.

If Santorum lost or won and finished out his term, the above two scenarios would be significantly less likely to occur.

It's fair to say that you like Santorum, but I have never once seen a liberal thing come out of Cruz's mouth.