12

Ted Cruz: "By Far the Best Viable Candidate"

Posted by $ bigjim 9 years ago to Politics
233 comments | Share | Flag

This is an excellent analysis of Ted Cruz's positions.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    After you. We are all still waiting to here you back up your position with some 'facts.' Not fairy tales, no personal opinion. Not conjecture.There will be no apologies...so go file a complaint. Can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. And learn to read I'm not in the diaper changing business and this discussion was settled previously. Try kite flying.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    And you are citing ....nothing that is included in the law then or now. Not only that it's way past time for such antics...The Republicans have chosen their candidate the Republicans in Name Only have chosen their candidate. How very nice for them. What's that got to do with Objectivism or the 46% not represented? Let the Republican branch of the left get on with their business, The Democrat/Socialist party get on with theirs. So far Mr. Cruz has spurned any assistance from the disenfranchised and the disenfranchised have spurned the rest of the left - for the most part. Their are a few unrepresented independents who are followers of Bernie. And a few who are just lazy.

    Arguing finer points when their is heavy work for them to do getting a candidate elected is counter productive. Nothing was done about it then and it nothing will be done about it now.

    As for me I'm still concentrating on what can be done and is left to do. Namely increasing the percentage of disenfranchised and wait to see if Mr. Cruz still has some memories of his past or has gone all right wing of the left.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You said I don't mind violating the Constitution whenever it suits me. You will now either cite the case or apologize.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You are citing an attempt to amend the Constitution by statute. That can never be valid, except by a wink and a nod.

    In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court said, "Resort must be had elsewhere [than in the Constitution] to determine" what a "natural born citizen" is. The Court then gave the exact same definition Vattel gave.

    That the Constitution lacks a definition of the phrase "natural born citizen," the Supreme Court, in the case I just cited, has attested. But can anyone truly infer that the Framers did not care what their posterity--meaning we--understand that phrase to mean? One does not require mental telepathy to infer properly the intent of the Framers in writing and using any particular phrase. One uses the most likely go-to references.

    Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations is one such reference. Every Framer had a copy. Benjamin Franklin made sure of that.

    Here is the relevant link. Scroll down to "Chapter XIX" and read what it says.

    http://www.constitution.org/vattel/va...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    So now you are a mind reader? It's either there or it isn't there. It either has been addressed or it hasn't. It either is or it isn't. It's either fact or it's BS. So far it's all BS
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    ????????What's that got to do with beating dead horses...Changing objectives in the middle of a fire mission does not put steel on target. I't's just poor selection.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Did you just call me a George Orwellian unperson?

    Now if I am the only one here conversant with the terms "natural law," "positive law," and "bi-, tri-, and multi-loyalty," that is a reflection on this community, not me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Because the Framers did not include all their references. They thought--and perhaps unwisely--that everyone would know what they were talking about. Emmerich de Vattel's principles must have seemed obvious to them. The idea was to define a category of person, the circumstances of whose birth would leave no doubt whatsoever of the loyalties he owed--to one country only.

    If your statutory solution were sufficient, Congress could change that 1790 law today, grant citizenship in the United States to anyone they pleased, and redefine the words "natural" and "born" to mean, respectively, "belonging to the physical world" and "having come to life through a human birth process." In other words, Congress might decide to exclude artificial intelligences only from eligibility to the office of President.

    More to the point, the first Arab terrorist who raped an American woman could see his son grow up to be President of the United States, under your, and Ted Cruz', interpretation of the Constitution--as amended by statute, yet.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    At best, this so-called test is an informal amendment to the Constitution by writ of the natural judiciary. At worst it is a lie, agreed-upon.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by blegg1 9 years ago
    Ineligible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! From alot of these comments it is obvious the constitution is a deaf letter. We should go back to the articles which were far better than this nightmare created by it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I find your remarks and choice of language offensive. And I don't know where you got the idea that I ever "chose to vote for a Republican." Don't bother to apologize.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Leaders lead from the front. he is part of the establishment. ANYONE of them that calls America a Democracy I have problem with. America is a REPUBLIC.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Donald-Brian-Lehoux 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The DC politicians get a full salary retirement after one term, 6 or 4 years depending on whether they are Senator or Representative. Not to mention all the bribes, oh sorry, lobbyist paying them, oh sorry again, giving them gifts. I don't spread false hoods. Can you tell me that the DC politicians are not on a different retirement or healthcare?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The reason you should care is b/c unfortunately the vast reality-tv-watching public cares ! That's who Trump is structuring his campaign around up to this point which is why he's winning. It's sad, but I believe it to be true.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo