Just like (Carter,Bill Clinton,Obama) destroyed the country? Predictable as clockwork, every four years we are told "Vote for a Republican (even one you despise) rather than voting your principles, because the Democrat will destroy the country." Not a particularly effective way to promote the cause of liberty, or feel good about your vote. And if the country is that easily destroyed, we're doomed anyway.

Neither case you cite states that Vattel is controlling on this issue, I believe. And why did all those framers vote in favor of the 1790 Act?

John Jay wrote a letter to at least one of the Framers (I forget which), reiterating his stand.

Vattel allows for a child born on-station to an officer serving abroad at the time. He specifically said on this point: "A person in the diplomatic or military service of his sovereign, even when serving abroad, cannot be said to have quitted his territory."

But the elder Mrs. Cruz was not in the armed services or the diplomatic corps.

I can cite you two cases at least that cite Vattel in particular: the Venus case (1812), and Perkins v. Elg. Consider also Minor v. Happersett, giving the same definition Vattel gives and saying that of such a person, having no alienage, there can be no doubt of his citizenship.

Cruz started turning me off, about the same time my pick, Rubio, started doing likewise.Kasick is the handmaiden of the establishment, and took about $700,000 in funding from Soros. My real issue with Cruz is wife Heidi! If she is for the North American Unions, and okay with making Mexico, US and Canada one without borders, how can Cruz actually be for all he says he is for?They all seem to be going too much Bush/Romney, and that is bad for us.

I agree that this was a very odd answer by Johnson. I doubt that he didn't know this was inconsistent with libertarian thought since he ran in 2012 as a Libertarian and seems a pretty bright guy, so I am at loss to explain it. I can only guess that he was forced by logic to take this position after he staked out a position against anti-gay bakers in hopes of currying favor with gay rights voters. A mistake in any event. Not as big of a howler as McAfee's support of free taxpayer funded college for all, however.

Jay was not at the Constitutional convention. Franklin had Vattel's book (which is thousands of pages long) as did others. All the framers were familiar with the much more common texts of Blackstone which does cite the much more common definition of "natural born subject" under British law which, of course, allowed for non-UK born subjects of the King to be citizens (think of children born of British officers serving in India). I repeat, nobody at the convention made a single reference to Vattel and his idea. And of the 11 people on the drafting committee at the convention who actually came up with the "natural born citizen" phrase, 8 of them were serving in Congress in 1790 and voted for the Act which expressly allows citizenship of those born outside the US if their mom was a citizen. Why would they do that if they thought Vatel's definition was enshrined in the Constitution they had just voted for???? This is an issue of Constitutional law and interpretation of that document. No Court in the history of this country has ever cited the Vatell definition as controlling. It is fanciful thinking to believe that it will ever be otherwise.

Cruz is a religious zealot. Only god knows what he will be told in the middle of the night in some communication with his version of god

I think that polls are tilted to fit who is taking the poll. I say "in the quiet of the voting booth", voters will make their final choice. Probably going to be Trump vs the establishment career politicians.

He is a southern preacher, thumping the bible and constitution while he does his share of sneakiness (the pictures of Trumps wife to make trump look bad and then not even apologizing after the fact). He is a career politician who just whines on and on. Its tiring. He would make a terrible communicator- people will just turn him off

I will vote for Trump as my number one choice. He spends his own money to run, which I respect a lot. He is a straight shooter (doesnt use teleprompters like the others do), and is politically incorrect. For 4 years of shaking up the establishment, he has my vote.

BUT, Hillary will destroy the country in the meantime.

Neither am I. For all the hate that surrounds Trump, he IS a good communicator and actually did something with his life. People are so concerned that he just tells it like he sees it, but whats wrong with that for a change? I am 100% positive that when it comes to actual business transactions, he is VERY thoughtful and decisive after getting all the facts. I think he would do far better than our other alternatives.

I have to give Trump credit for spending his own money to run for president , and stand up for us citizens who are tired of the standard career politicians who lie and manipulate and take money from companies in exchange for favors. The job of president of the USA is a shit job, where people are always after you to make you look bad. Just look at the people who exit the job- they look very aged !!! If Trump is willing to do this, I have to applaud him.

I think its important to have a president who is part of the American culture, not Cuba's or Canada's. We deviated from that with Obama and now with Cruz. Are these the ONLY people who have the administrative abilities to be president????

Obama is popular and skated by the whole issue. I personally think he is a socialist muslim entitled black culturist. He is also VERY inexperienced and makes a fool of himself with foreign countries (grounding the Bolivian presidents plane to look for snowden !!, tapping the phones of various world leaders with the NSA and not stopping it and even apologizing !!)

But Obama was a black person, and THAT was his qualification. Cruz is a Canadian and skated by the whole citizenship by having one parent a citizen. He thumps the bible and the constitution but I really wonder how deep that concern really is.

The Rep leaders are so hell bent on stopping Trump that they are now getting behind Cruz. Doesn't say much for Cruz in MHO. Also says Trump must be doing something right to get the 'establishment' so bent out of shape. This stinks all around.

I have to say that I have grown increasingly uninterested in Cruz for the following reasons:
1) He preaches to me, which I dont appreciate
2) He seems to be reading from a script from his handlers with talking points. After he delivers one that gets applause, he has this strange smile- as if he was really in it for the power. Creepy.
3) He is heavy duty into this "Destroy Trump" thing. I dont like the attempts to destroy another candidate instead of sticking to what HE can do. Its as if Trump threatens his potential power grab, and I dont like that.
4) Maybe he doesnt like Trump, but he shows no respect for him. I mean, Trump is a legitimate candidate spending his OWN money. Cruz spends other peoples' money and has no right to denigrate another candidate like that.
5) I dont believe Cruz didnt know about the pictures of Trump's wife being put out there to make Trump's candidacy look bad. I never heard any disavowing of them later either, or apology that they were put up there on his behalf. That makes me think of Cruz as a sneaky bastard who then lies about it. Do we really want another Nixon?
6) I just cant see Cruz getting any respect from other countries as our president. Something about him just has no class. Even though people seem to hate Trump, he has the class and attitude when it comes to dealing with foreign countries.
7) Cruz has no appreciation for other candidates spending their OWN money and time to run for an office like President. Cruz is just another career politician who is spending OUR money as senator to run for president- and he spends that time dumping on other candidates??

So you're going to base your entire position on Ted Cruz not on whether or not he opposed the ACA (he did) neither on whether or not he filibustered it (he did), but on whether or not he was affected by it after it passed? Really?

The only esconced requirements to be President are that one be a "natural born citizen" and one be 40 years of age. There is no requirement for military service and a religious test is specifically forbidden - not just for President but all political offices. One doesn't even have to have held any other political office.

None of the candidates were veterans. So what? There have been good CinC's who were from military backgrounds (Washington, Eisenhower), and terrible ones (Grant). What I care more about is whether or not that person is going to respect our service men and women. I want a President who is going to defer to his military commanders to run a war - not armchair quarterback - and one who is not going to jeopardize either operational security (see Bin Laden) or the safety of the soldiers (engagement policies).

Thanks for that.

Well done to you.

Because he supports the Constitution and federal intervention in religion is not allowed. I believe his values will not allow him to violate the Constitution.

FYI, I did not vote you down.You are entitled to believe as you do and so am I.

I'm half-expecting that the whole election process will collapse this year. And maybe that's the best thing that could happen.

Trump is beginning to lose support, so Cruz may catch up in delegates before the convention, but neither will have the required 1237. Then the Repuglican establishment will step in and start pulling strings at the convention to take the nomination away from Trump and Cruz, then substitute some RINO. Then the 65% of Republican voters that voted anti-establishment will take a walk, and either not vote, or vote Libertarian.

On the Dimocrat side, Bernie will keep beating Shrillary, just because she's such a total liar and drips insincerity from every pore. But the Dimocrat establishment will keep Shrillary pumped up by awarding her super-delegates so she gets the nomination. Then when the FBI makes a criminal referral to the inJustice Department over her mishandling of classified data, her candidacy may be over. (Just maybe. The Dimocrats may try to figure out a way to run a federal criminal for president.)

Then what happens when neither the Repuglicans nor the Dimocraps can field a decent, honest, viable candidate with a clearly stated program of reform and the work history to actually put it into practice? Maybe We The People should petition for "NONE OF THE ABOVE" to be added to every ballot. If "NONE OF THE ABOVE" wins, it's time for a Constitutional Convention.

Wow ! There are even more suits than I jad heard about ! A google search revealed the following:

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.co...

As a public servant, Cruz received government sponsored health insurance coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. But for Cruz, that privilege only highlighted the inequality of America’s health care system. AND non of them are veterans so are not qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Hello bigjim,
It is good to hear from you. The implications of "viability" are most distressing and always inescapable.. Setting aside his particular shortcomings, which no candidate is without, he is the least objectionable among those that have fair odds at being elected. If one is to vote adhering strictly to objectivist principles there is no one with clean hands. If your objective is to vote for the least pain (lesser of two evils) and for a candidate with a chance to win. Then Ted is probably the one for you.
I respect any vote based on reason and self interest, even if only short term, far more than one based purely on emotion and envy. It may not be objective, but it is the world we live in. A is A.
Regards,
O.A.

Yes, you hit the nail on the head - I do not believe the polling ! I participated in a Frank Luntz focus group and it was so obvious how they were trying to achieve a particular response. Needless to say, I was the proverbial fly in their ointment.