Thanks for your reply, OA. My objective at this point is to vote for the person who has exhibited that he will uphold the constitution and the principles of freedom, liberty and limited government.

I think that because there is nothing in his past or in his record to suggest that he would. In fact, it all points to the opposite.

What makes you think that he will? Other than you just don't like the guy. Something substantive would be nice.

References please! Evidence. Your opinion, which is all this is until it is backed up, doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Is he pro life to the extent that he will use his power as president to use the federal government to force people to conform to his views? That I would be against. But I have not heard him say that.

Why are you asking me if you're wrong? Go find out if you are wrong or right. You're making accusations with no evidence or references.

I haven't specifically looked at his views on abortion. I will do that also.

I can, and you know what, I think at this point I would welcome a little reset and chaos in the political establishment. It would provide all kinds of opportunities for the people to rise up and call on their elected Representatives to change politics as usual!

There is Trump, who at least is honest and tells it like it is and isnt a career politician. He would be good for us for the next 4 years. The establishment hates him, and thats a plus for me. I am tired of lying and manipulative career politicians beholden to their contributors.

No, we can also choose a natural born citizen and former Secretary of State who is part of the American culture . . . of corruption.

"Can you imagine what chaos would ensue if President Obama's two terms in office were declared null and void as a result of him being ineligible retroactively?"
No prob, just reset the calendar to January 2009 and let the Panamanian have his turn. :-)

Sorry I was too unspecific. I thought that Cruz wants to make abortion illegal based upon his religious belief that abortion is immoral and that it is the role of government to forcibly intercede in the woman's decision and prohibit abortion in most cases. Am I wrong about that?

He wants to mix up religion and government as I note in the next reply.

He wanted gays out of the military, and is pro life an against same sex marriage, for religious reasons not based on individual rights.

Can someone in all these people tossing around the "religious zealot" trope please provide some EVIDENCE?!

Ted Cruz has strongly and successfully defended 2nd Ammendment rights in his career.

Again, can you please provide some examples of his "zealotry?" I understand that you don't care for his religious views. I have not seen evidence that he has or has said he will be guided by that in his duties as president.

Just tossing out the cliche doesn't prove anything.

But your "example" is an issue. Not Cruz's views or policies on it. Has he said that he is going to try to force his views on abortion on everyone? Please let me know where and I will objectively consider it.

My guess would be that he would like to see Roe v Wade overturned, as would I because it is bad law, and the issue returned to the states. That's generally the conservative view.

Since you didn't give any examples of Cruz's views on abortion I'm not sure what you're asking me that you are wrong about.

Citing Vattel is different from holding that the Constitutional Presidential requirement of natural born citizen is identical with Vattel's formulation. That's what I meant by Vattel not being "controlling on this issue."

Ineligible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even as a personal opinion, I am appalled that anyone claiming any understanding of liberty, freedom, free markets and personal property, can even picture a scenario where an individual can be forced to perform any kind of a service against his will for the "benefit of the society" and especially for the benefit of "equality."

While I don't agree with his answer, I understand it. He was speaking his personal opinion, and he did not make that separate from public policy as it must be.
It is not the job of the federal government to dictate and force businesses or individuals who they must work for or who they serve.
Johnson's experience is in state government where such policies could be experimented with if the people of the state so decide.
This is my opinion but I think the constitution supports it..

I dont listen to the Rupub establishment either. I think Trump is a bit different in that he is anti-establishment (which is why the establishment hates him so much), and just says it. I think he would run the government in a more open way, which I think would be a refreshing change for 4 years.

Because that act concerned only the granting of the right to vote, and to hold offices of honor, trust or profit under the United States or any State--offices other than the Presidency or Vice-Presidency.

And you say you believe those cases do not cite Vattel. Why don't you look them up? The Cornell Law Library should have them, I believe--even the text of their opinions. I'm almost positive they do so cite Vattel as controlling.

If Johnson felt that he was pressured to make a choice between gays and free market, from the Libertarian point of view, he made the wrong choice.

In politics you can never say never. And HRC still might be on trial instead of campaigning. But...it would be a tough one, imo. HRC has an entrenched group who feel she was robbed 8 years ago and many D's will vote for anyone with a D by their name. Cruz has no derply established base, even evangelicals ( who I think he thought were a 'gimme' and then Trump came along and stole them away) and many Republicans don't like him, and he's made no friends among hispanics. So I just don't see it. But who the hell knows in this year's race !

Am I alone is thinking Cruz could never beat Hillary? Ever?

Eh...he's a politician. Who cares what he said? (a little sarcasm...)