For me, Johnson blew it when he said the Jewish baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Nazis. I switched to MaAfee.

To reiterate what I've said before: Cruz is not the perfect candidate by Objectivist standards. There is no one who has a chance of being elected who is However, I estimate he is approximately 65% congruent with Objectivist standards and that is far and away better than either Trump or Kasich.

I like Ted Cruz and for that which he stands. i have also read the Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers. I refuse to violate the Constitution by voting for Ted Cruz because his father was born in Cuba. My first choice was Ben Carson, second choice Rand Paul both of which are no longer candidates. I will vote for Donald Trump if he is nominated, otherwise i will write in Ben Carson or Rand Paul.

Am I really so welcome? The courts would likely deny me standing. The courts assiduously and adroitly refuse to recognize any injury-in-fact that occurs to any person as a result of allowing someone to stand for election as President who is ineligible to the office.

Part of the problem is that Presidential electors, bound as they are to vote for a certain candidate, are little more than walking, talking checkboxes. Back in the George Washington elections, electors were unbound, uncommitted, and free to vote as they pleased--subject to Article II Section 1 Clause 5. That was the enforcement mechanism.

Technically, a United States Senator could sign off on a written challenge to Cruz' or Rubio's election at the time of the opening of the ballots.

Marco Rubio has another problem: though he was born in-country, his parents did not get naturalized until he was five years old.

I agree he is religious but disagree that he will try to force religion on people. He will however attempt to force the government to adhere to the Constitution.

I beg to differ. John Jay, future CJOTUS, specifically referenced the phrase "natural born citizen," without hyphens. Furthermore, Benjamin Franklin made sure every one of the Framers had a copy of Vattel's Law of Nations, and placed a copy in the official Convention library.

A statute cannot change a concept from natural law. "Natural born citizen" is a concept from natural law. It stands for a person who, by the very nature of nation-states, cannot possibly own any loyalty by birth to any place save one.

Ted Cruz is by definition tri-loyal: USA, Canada, Cuba. (True, it's more Batista's Cuba than Castro's. But still...!)

I don't question his temperamental loyalty. But I do question whether any statute can possibly override natural law. Statutes are positive law, and positive law always subordinates itself to the natural.

Trump's lead decreases with every Primary State vote, however, so to count Cruz out at this point is premature. Until either Cruz or Trump gets the necessary ~1257 votes, both are still potential/viable candidates for the Republican Nomination.

That being said, if it goes to a contested convention, both Trump and Cruz could get tossed aside.

You are welcome to file a lawsuit to challenge his eligibility if you like. Trump threatened to as well, then failed to pull the trigger. Given his litigious past and what he has to gain by eliminating his chief political rival, I have to question why he didn't. I can only conclude that his lawyers had already looked at it and determined they didn't have a case.

Well said.

Of course his view is religiously-originated. And you are free to disagree. You are free to vote for the candidate of your choice and base your decisions on whatever topics your choose in whatever order and priority you choose.

For me, Cruz is the only one (still left) who is doing what I want in my President: acknowledging that his authority to act comes from the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. I note specifically that he always says he will act with Congress to get things done - he never uses an excuse to pull out his "pen and phone". Every other candidate sees Executive Orders as the way for the President to get around a Constitutional separation of powers which are there to prevent the Executive from becoming a Monarchy.

Cruz is also the only candidate to have argued cases before the Supreme Court - and won - in defense of both the First and Second Amendments. This is what I want from my President - to be someone so steeped in the Constitution that they know, understand, and most of all appreciate the Constitution and its original intent. It's been a very long time since our nation has enjoyed the leadership of such an one as that.

ted cruz is a religious zealot and will direct us in that direction without regard for those that it will damage.

Mr. Cruz is a fine man and an excellent debater. Unfortunately, "The Great Communicator", he is not. I understand that this shouldn't matter, but it does: Ted comes across as a mix between a 1980's televangelist and some who was voted as "most likely to wear wingtips shoes at the beach". The art of persuasion requires a little salesmanship. I am not sold.

Like bigjim, I'd like to see documented examples of Ted Cruz saying that his faith supercedes the Constitution. I doubt you'll find any.

Frankly, I have always imagine Cruz as being personally very conservative as it relates to social issues and very liberal (Constitutionally minded) as it relates to enforcing governmental policy onto others.

An example of this is how Ted Cruz speaks about the issue of gay marriage. It's obvious from his tone that he is personally opposed to the idea, but every word he has ever said about it is rooted in the 10th Amendment. When the Supreme Court decided to legalize gay marriage across the board, Cruz never said that gay marriage was wrong in his opposition to that SCOTUS decision. What he said is that 5 unelected/unaccountable judges just acted against the individual states' rights to decide on the issue. The 10th Amendment basically says that those rights/powers/etc. not specifically spelled out in the Constitution for the federal government are reserved specifically for the states and the citizens. Gay marriage as an issue has failed every single time at the ballot box regardless of whether you're talking liberal California or socially conservative Utah. Not once, ever in any state has legalizing gay marriage won the majority of the popular vote, yet the Supreme Court acted directly against the wishes of the people to govern themselves, If you ever listen to Ted speak on this particular issue and listen to the exact words that he uses, his opposition to the SCOTUS decision is always based on the 10th Amendment and never his own moral compass.

Personally, I could care less about that particular issue, as I believe government should have no business is sanctioning the relationships between consenting adults, straight, gay or whatever. I simply use this example to illustrate how Ted Cruz thinks as it relates to governance. He may have a personal opinion on a subject, but he would govern with the Constitution in the forefront of his mind, not his Bible.

Like Ted, I will use my Bible for guidance in my own life, and I would use the Constitution for guidance in governmental policy.

Anyway, if you have examples showing the opposite, I'd like to see them, but for now, I am pretty skeptical when you say, "He is a social conservative on religious grounds. He believes in using the power of the government to force those views on others."

Example: Abortion. There is not a word in the Constitution about it. I suspect the origin of Cruz' views is religion. Am I wrong about that?

Johnson

Gary Johnson. By the way, USA Today states in today's issue that a recent Monmouth poll of general election voters gives Johnson 11% of the vote agains Clinton and Trump despite the fact that 75% do not yet know him well enough to express and opinion!

He is, it's already been determined, now rubio? that's a stretch.

Vattel's definition was not incorporated into the Constitution either expressly or by reference nor even mentioned during the constitutional debates. In fact, the Naturalization law of 1790 expressly contradicts Vattel's definition and many of the signers of the Constitution voted for that bill. Cruz is eligible because his mom was a U.S. citizen living outside the U.S. at the time of his birth. Just like Goldwater, McCain, Romney (George) and Obama (if you believe Trump).

Just one problem: he's not eligible to the office. He doesn't meet Emmerich de Vattel's definition, which he gave in The Law of Nations, of a "natural born citizen." To be that, one must be born in-country (or on-station in the case of a parent in the military or diplomatic service) to two citizen parents. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to a Cuban national and an American mother--and his birth place was not the American consulate in Alberta, and his mother was not the consul or any other diplomatic officer.

I voted for Cruz in the Alabama primary. Since then he's been turning me off.
First he blames Trump for creating trouble that was plain as a sunny day created, bought and paid for by George Soros and MoveOn,OrganizedCommies.
Then Cruz throws mud after (at least) his own people started the put down the wife distraction.
I just may write in John Galt during the general election or vote for that libertarian what's-his-name.
Won't really matter due to where I live. The Birmingham area of red state Alabama votes blue.

You are talking about all the statist party candidates. None of them are worthy of wiping your shoes.

Is he viable? It is getting pretty late in the game.

I would vote for Sanders before I would vote for a person who us such a liar and underhanded as Cruz. If he is this way now, wait until this establishment guy makes dictator.

Cruz IS a politician and one of "the good ole boys" of DC.AND he is Canadian because that is where he was born. If you use the argument his mother is American then EVERY anchor baby needs to go by YOUR decision of mothers birth country. Divide and conquer is why they do.
Vote veteran someone that puts America B4 any party, we come from all backgrounds.
End the double standards,put DC politician on Obama care,SS. mrpresident2016.com