Why it could cost Trump the nomination.
Let’s hope. As Matt Lewis notes, he’s been behaving even more stupidly than usual as of late.
[Update early evening]
How to dump Trump:
No longer is Donald Trump a trifle, a fillip, an entertainment, the personification of the liberal caricature of Republicans, easy to mock, easier to dismiss, a phenomenon at which to awe, an avenger of the people who has the right enemies. He’s a threat to American democracy. And he must be stopped.
I don’t say this lightly. I’m as critical of our elites as the next talk radio host. Their uncritical attitude toward globalization would embarrass Dr. Pangloss. Immigration, trade, and internationalism have costs. But these costs must be weighed against the benefits, and then ameliorated prudently, gradually, and steadfastly. Trump would have us believe our troubles will vanish as soon as we build his wall, raise tariffs, and exit NATO. It’s a fantasy.
And it is precisely this embrace of wishful thinking that makes him so dangerous. Politicians lie. But there is a difference between the lying common in democracies—a Clinton family specialty—and the construction of alternate realities more common to autocratic regimes. Trump, his rallies, and his Twitter mobs fall under the second category. Trump is expert at asking, “Who are you going to believe: Me or your lying eyes?” He not only gets marks to fall for the con. He convinces them to embellish and to extend it, to harass skeptics and critics, to spew bile and hatred. He’s convinced a large swath of Republican voters to see vulgarity as strength, braggadocio as character, brashness as capability. He inverts standards of judgment and of truth, and if he is allowed to reshape the GOP in his image there is no telling where he’d turn next.
The case of his campaign manager is instructive. Just look at the police video. You’ll see why Corey Lewandowski was charged with simple battery. But Trump and his minions weave an intricate web of lies to deny, excuse, defend, and celebrate their man. That young woman who asked a question? To them, she’s not a reporter. She’s a security threat, publicity hound, hoaxer who enjoys the attention. That their messages contradict doesn’t matter. The lies serve the overarching goal of appearing strong, decisive, unflinching, and untamed. If this is how Candidate Trump responds to a conservative journalist for a friendly publication, how would President Trump behave toward his opponents?
I don’t want to know the answer. Nor should you. Hence the task of liberal democracy: Stop Trump. How? The quickest way would be to deny him the 1,237 delegates required to win the GOP nomination on the first ballot. John McCormack of the Weekly Standard has done the math: Beat Trump in Wisconsin, in Indiana, and in Nebraska, split the delegates in Oregon and Washington, defeat him in South Dakota, Montana, and California, and he’ll fall short.
It’s an uphill battle. But not entirely utopian: Trump has lost some momentum as his campaign turns into a circus that embarrasses most Republicans. And the cause is noble. If Trump doesn’t win on the first ballot, then the convention will be thrown to the delegates. And the complexity of the proceedings will favor the well organized, the best resourced, and the most influential members of the party. The Trump campaign is none of these things.
Yes. Also, I would note that if there is anything that Trump doesn’t understand about how the GOP delegate apportioning works, it is how the process of running for president independently works. It’s a fantasy for both him and his supporters.
If Cruz pulls it out, Hillary will chew him up like a dog gnawing on an old shoe. And the loss of voters made even more disgusted with the GOP (yes, it IS possible!) will seal her victory. Hope you anti-Trump folks out there will enjoy getting what you want. Either way, the GOPe is almost surely badly burned toast. As the knight in Last Crusade would have said, “They chose… poorly.”
If Cruz pulls it out, Hillary will chew him up like a dog gnawing on an old shoe.
Anyone who has run against him underestimates Ted Cruz at their peril.
And Trump is a leftist masquerading as a conservative. It shows in everything he says. He presents himself as a caricature of conservatives. Because, as with his fellow leftists in New York, he think’s they’re idiots.
Mr. Trump is Reform Party which is the same deal as Ross Perot. OK, Perot was never a Conservative or especially not a Libertarian, but if you think Perot to be a Leftist, I got some bridges in the New Jersey-New York-Connecticut tri-state area to sell you.
Trump is not Perot. Perot didn’t have any coherent political beliefs, but he was sincere. Trump is a con man who, to the degree he has any political principles whatsoever, holds largely Democrat beliefs, at least going on his history until the past year or so.
Trump is a con man
What’s the con?
What isn’t?
That’s a non response. It should be easy for you to pick one.
Why in the world would I waste my time?
I’ve known you for decades Rand. So when somebody slandered you saying you didn’t mean what you wrote but were sensationalizing to sell your book I came to your defense. I know you to be an honest person and could not say nothing when somebody accused you otherwise.
You are slandering Trump. You have zero evidence that he is not sincere on the positions he has been consistent about. Yes, he contradicts himself which muddies the waters. But he’s also been very clear on issues that have engaged people to support him. They are not dumb conned people and you slander them when you dismiss them as well.
I asked for one example because that would shed light on the subject. Over and over Trump has been slandered when he simply misspoke leaving out context which is essential to understanding him.
For example: It’s clear now that firing his aid for touching that reporter would be injustice, but you only know that if you take the time to get the whole story.
You have zero evidence that he is not sincere on the positions he has been consistent about. Yes, he contradicts himself which muddies the waters.
If you don’t understand how “contradicts himself” is not evidence that he “is not sincere on the positions he has been consistent about,” I don’t know how to explain it to you. He says what you want to hear, and he tries to act like what he thinks a conservative is based on what all of his fellow leftist friends in New York think that a conservative is. He is treating you like a fool.
It is quite possible to be sincere yet contradict yourself. It just means you haven’t reached a conclusion which some find intolerable. Which is really strange since all decisions go through this process. The difference is Trump exposes the process while others keep it internal.
OK Rand, a person needs to decide at this point on their priorities.
Were you to declare that the Wisconsin Voter-ID law is voter suppression pure and simple, a violation of civil rights, and a stain on the honor of the Republican, Conservative, and Libertarian political movements, I will tell anyone who will listen to me that Rafael Edward Cruz is the best possible choice for President of the United States?
I don’t know anything about, or have an opinion about Wisconsin’s voter-ID law.
Oh, the humanity at making people show a government issued photo ID to vote. It isn’t as if they’re applying for government assistance, trying to board an airliner, or buy Sudafed, all things that currently require an ID. Voters having to show a valid ID is a requirement for many of the world’s countries. Why should the US be an exception, other than it makes it harder to commit vote fraud?
Check the polls, Cruz wins against Hillary, Trump loses
It’s true of the state electoral map, too.
And that assumes Trump actually wants to beat Hillary , and not take out her opposition for her, which I’m a long way from doing.
I hear, but anyone who thinks that that video proves the police’s case is letting his dislike for Trump overcome his good sense. The video showed zero.
Hey, bro, I also watched that video.
Some overeager reporter pushes their way to approach a presidential candidate leaving the podium and his campaign guy grabs her by the forearm to hold her back?
He touched me! Florida state law! Battery! This evil man, he grabbed me, a woman!
Oh . . . come . . . on! So is the lame State of Florida going to go all “George Zimmerman” on Mr. Lewandowski’s back side? The administration of law up and down the entire State of Florida is a joke, and I will gladly contribute to the man’s criminal defense fund and then break out the popcorn.
If that is the standard, I know how I am voting on Tuesday, and I will start moving my gear into the shed behind the garage starting now, if it comes to it.
Ya, watching the videos shows how big a deal this isn’t. It plays much better in writing where people can use sensational adjectives.
I am registered to vote in ‘Sconsin, so where do I begin?
As I said here before, Donald Trump == Ross Perot. People say that there is no “there” there with Mr. Trump, but that is simply not so — go look at the old Perot speeches and debates and Larry King appearances, and you have a pretty good idea of what Mr. Trump is about. In the way that Mr. Sanders is a Socialist Party candidate running as a Democrat, Mr. Trump is the Reform Party (Ross Perot-founded party) running as a Republican.
You might say there is a world of difference, Mr. Perot was a one-woman kind of guy who enforced his personal standard on everyone else (would you hire a divorced executive for your company — remember that one?) whereas, Mr. Trump, OK, you got the idea. Mr. Perot was all wonky and flip charts whereas Mr. Trump is all over the place.
But remember when Ross Perot got all tin-foil-hat on us, that the Bush campaign was sending private detectives to disrupt his daughter’s wedding, and we all decided Mr. Perot was off-his-meds and his poll numbers plunged? Mr. Trump had us thinking tin-foil-hat from the time he said “hello”, but world events with all of the terrorist attacks and everything were fulfilling all of his tin-foil-hat prophecies, where some political-patronage-job county kitchen inspector brought Mata Hari over here as his mail-order bride and got some Guatemalan beta-male to think he was James Bond by stringing him along with another mail-order bride working for SMERSH. You couldn’t make this stuff up but here it was happening and Donald Trump was soaring in the polls.
I think Mr. Trump’s off-the-cuff winging it on the concerns of the Right to Life wing of the Republicans along with the “maleness waving” contest with Mr. Cruz regarding who has the sillier wife is finally pushing us past Peak Trump.
At least the polls here are suggesting it. Hey, it was from talking to “da guys” up near Green Bay last summer that I got the idea that Mr. Trump was getting some traction when everyone else thought he was a crank. but maybe da guys have swung around to Mr. Cruz, finally?
And then we got these ads here on the TV saying “A vote for John Kasich is a vote for Trump — do the math.” What kind of an argument is that in favor of voting for Cruz? (It is an argument from a “super PAC” and not the Cruz campaign).
I tell you what. A vote for Kasich IS a vote for Trump, and I am voting for Kasich because I want to vote for Trump, but if I let this slip to my family, I will need to relocate to the shed behind the garage for my office, meals, and sleeping quarters. Get it, I will vote for Kasich, which people are “OK” with, but a vote for Kasich is a vote for Trump because I am still fed up with the Establishment and really want to vote for Trump, so that is what I am going to do?
C’mon people, help me out here — how should I vote?
According to something I read a few days ago, about 20% of Republicans are supporting Trump but lying about it to pollsters and other folks because they don’t want to get slammed as being ignorant redneck racist misogynist morons.
That means that when it comes to Trump, the polls are going to be garbage.
I couldn’t stand Trump initially, but Rubio flamed out badly (and deserved to). I was also a big Fred Thompson supporter years ago and that went about the same.
The trouble with polls is that they seem to be over reporting what Mr. Trump gets on election day — he has been winning, but not nearly by the same margins?
I don’t think you can compare Senator Rubio with Senator Thompson.
There is this saying around the U, and I heard it came from our recent chancellor who was an engineering professor and hence had a Clarence “Kelly” Johnson-like view of things, that the people you don’t want to appoint to important posts are the people who badly want the job because those are the people who will make a mess of things. Fred Thompson lost out because he didn’t want the job badly enough whereas Mr. Rubio seemed a little too eager.
“The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarise: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarise the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem.”
– Douglas Adams, The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe
Well, as I’ve been saying, they can’t give it to Cruz because the risk he’ll be knocked off the ballot in several states is very high, assuming there are any Democrat appointed judges in any of the 57 states.
If you go back to George Tucker’s 1803 Commentaries, which was the go-to reference for US judges, lawyers, and politicians for fifty years, he addresses the 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802 naturalization acts by saying:
George Tucker was the nation’s first law school’s second law professor.
What we have with Cruz is either mass amnesia, a game of “let’s pretend”, or some very cynical political maneuvers. If Trump doesn’t get to 1237 and the Republican Convention starts casting about, be prepared for a bunch of delegates and GOP elites to suddenly rediscover Article II, which has probably been their plan all along. I’m assuming that’s why Kasich is really hanging around.
But by the time they get to him, and probably reject him, things will be so ugly that the GOP won’t recover for decades. The problem is that all the Trump voters are voting for Trump because he’s not chosen or endorsed by the establishment, he’s there to stomp on the establishment. Thus his supporters are unlikely to support anyone put in by the establishment due to clever rule changes and some backroom deal making to keep the GOPe in charge. Trump is the SMOD, and it cannot be reasoned or bargained with. ^_^
And you still have produced no proof for your claim that Ted Cruz was naturalized. The mere fact that Trumpettes want to believe something does not automatically make it true.
Try and keep up with your Ann Coulter reading, even if you disagree with everything she stands for.
Naturalization doesn’t have to mean taking English lessons, answering questions about the three branches of the Federal government, and raising your right hand to swear an oath. It means that you are a citizen by virtue of an Act of Congress, which includes the process I just described along with a bunch of other avenues by which you are “naturalized” by a law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President rather than by a provision of the Constitution.
C’mon people, why was it even a concern if Mr. Obama was “really born in Kenya” rather than in the 50th state because like Mr. Cruz, his Momma was an American citizen?
Yes. If Cruz wins the nomination, the whole ‘Obama’s birth certificate doesn’t matter!’ brigade will be shouting that Cruz isn’t qualified for President because he’s Canadian.
Most likely, the Republican establishment themselves would announce he’s not qualified, and Bush will be their candidate instead.
Waving Ann Coulter’s newsletter hardly helps your case. This is the same woman who thinks her First Amendment rights were violated because her employer elected not to run one of her stories.
If you’re going to rely on Argument By Authority, at least pick an authority who is not an obvious crackpot.
A blanket and reflex rejection of anything and everything Ann Coulter has to say does not make a person an expert on Constitutional Law.
Saying that a person should take a look at what Ann Coulter had to say on the topic of naturalization does not mean I am invoking her as an authority.
What did I start out saying – that you were going to discount any argument made by Ann Coulter “because Ann Coulter” and not by offering any concrete argument counter to what Ann Coulter had to offer. Ann Coulter is a crank, so one does not have to bother with anything she says.
I predicted what you were going to say and then you said it, making your last post low in entropy . . . next!
Remember, I am registered to vote on Tuesday, so unless you are registered to vote here in ‘Sconsin, keep your perspective on who has to persuade whom . . .
A blanket and reflex rejection of anything and everything Ann Coulter has to say does not make a person an expert on Constitutional Law.
A typical Trumpian strawman argument. No one called for a “blanket and reflex rejection of anything and everything Ann Coulter says” or claimed it “makes a person an expert on Constitutional Law.”
Criticizing out your automatic uncritical acceptance of everything Coulter says is not the same as arguing for automatic uncritical rejection.
There is a third way: One can examine the truth value of each individual statement independent of the person making the claim. That is the way rational people reason.
My father was born in the canal zone and served in the US armed forces in WWII, no combat. My mother was naturalized when she married him while he served in the Consular staff at an American embassy in Latin America. Each one of us was naturalized at birth by following the law requiring that an American citizen and, in this case, his American citizen wife, notify the consulate that they had given birth to an American born abroad. My US citizen sister, who still lives abroad, failed to follow this simple process and her children cannot even get a green card.
I have always known, and could quote, the founding documents and was completely and wholly aware that I could NEVER be president of these United States, because I failed to meet the plain requirement of Article II. A natural born citizen is born of American parents on American soil. It is based on English common law. I, unlike Cruz, have NEVER held a foreign passport, ever. I registered for the draft on my 18th birthday, during the Viet Nam war, was subject to the lottery, and in all other ways fulfilled my obligations as a citizen.
Mr. Cruz is a liar, and a mountebank. His wife Heidi, received, from Citi and from Goldman Sachs, a personal signature loan for $1,000,000 that she contributed to his campaign. You do understand that this is expressly forbidden under U.S. law? These loans are a direct, felonious violation of US election laws that forbid the use of unsecured loans for the financing of campaigns because of the potential for the undue influence that they present? No exceptions. And you do understand that Mr. Cruz has informed the FEC that he will not comply with their request for documentation on these loans? And that therefore, FEC will have to institute an enforcement process that will take us well past the election?
I bitterly regret supporting Cruz during his campaign for thee senate, financially and by canvassing on his behalf. Mr. Cruz is fake all the way in and all the way out. He is like a skillful siren singing a beautiful conservative song that he doesn’t believe in, and confounding his listeners…
The current governor of Maine, Paul LePage, had daughters born in Canada, so he dug into the issue and of whether they can be President. He said “They can’t. I know they can’t. I’ve already looked into it,”
Even though their father was a US citizen, they had to be naturalized like any other baby born abroad to US parents, or adopted by US parents (which is also automatic).
So Cruz is the con man… very interesting. He does his dirty work through surrogates… very dishonest. Trump could have avoided the Heidi fiasco by doing the same… but is too straight forward.
Ben Carson is backing Trump… what does he know that Rand doesn’t, hmm?
I’ve heard it said that Carson was bought…impugning his character with zero evidence.
Pass the popcorn.
Ben Carson is backing Trump… what does he know that Rand doesn’t, hmm?
He knows brain surgery. Politically, I’m clearly much better informed (and more coherent) than he is.
The concern about Obama’s birth location (as with his college transcripts) is that he seemed to be hiding something.
The concern is 1) he could have been born in Kenya and thereby be in the same “boat” as Mr. Cruz, 2) his grades weren’t all that great, putting him in the same boat as Rick Perry.
Or his transcripts would list him of having been born in Kenya (whether he actually was or not).
The real issue the Founders were getting at by requiring “natural born citizens” for the Presidency is loyalty. Blackstone explain the reasoning behind the concept in English common law, which was that a person had lifelong loyalty to the liege that protected him in childhood (the country where he was born).
But back then almost everybody lived most of their lives within five miles of where they were born. Travel was slow, difficult, and risky, especially with small children. Transatlantic tourism was virtually inconceivable except for the select few that were rich enough and bold enough to even try it. So it was a safe bet that a person’s primary loyalties and outlook would be formed around the people he grew up with, and reflect those people’s interests.
But the limited travel no longer holds, making the mere place of birth less relevant compared to where someone grew up. Obama highlights the problem, as he feels virtually no deep attachment to this country. He rules it with the perspective of a disdainful foreigner who is hardly even trying to fit in, and his words drip with condescension. As has been asked, if he was an Iranian agent how would we tell? Would he be doing anything differently?
If I was to revisit the issue to amend Article II, I would say that a person must have spent two thirds of their life prior to age 21 in the United States or its possessions, territories, and bases. To reflect and understand America, a child needs to primarily grow up here. Traveling abroad is great, widening a person’s horizons, but not so much that the child develops a primary attachment elsewhere and feels like an alien in this country. So 14 years residence in the US prior to age 21 would be a welcome addition.
Option B is for Americans to have enough sense to know how bad things get when they’re ruled by a person who is by background a foreigner.
We DO know that señor Cruz está escondiendo el salami que le metió a los votantes de Texas con los préstamos de los grandes bancos de Nueva York. And we don’t know how our heroic senator paid a million dollars back, or even serviced the interest on the loan with his and Heidi’s meager salaries, eh?
Under the Constitution, there are only two kinds of people, natural born citizens, who were born under US sovereignty, and natural aliens, who were not. The process of converting aliens into citizens is naturalization, even if it happens at birth. The Constitution gives Congress the power to write laws for the naturalization of aliens, and the first one they wrote, in 1790, was that children born abroad to US citizens were also US citizens, with some caveats about having to come to the US lest they lose their US citizenship.
To register him as a US citizen, Cruz’s parents had to file a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (if they forgot to, then he’s not even a US citizen). That had to be approved by some bureaucrat in the State Department, and not all applications are approved.
One of the reasons for rejection is that as far as paperwork goes, a father is just a name on a birth certificate, and instead of wading a river, climbing a fence, and crawling through the desert, Mexican mothers would just stick “Joe Smith, from USA” on their birth certificates when they wanted to have an anchor baby.
When an American male fathered an out-of-wedlock child overseas we really put him through the ringer. He had to swear oaths and sign forms pledging that he will provide all financial care for the child until adulthood, etc. When mother had an out-of-wedlock child abroad, well, that was her problem, not ours.
And of course the naturalization laws don’t let the children of US citizens become citizens unless their parents had actually exercised their US citizenship for a number of years. That’s important because eventually almost everyone on Earth will be able to find someone way back in their ancestry who was a US citizen. That means that under the simplistic view that children born abroad are automatically citizens (and thus their children would be automatic citizens, etc), almost everyone on the planet would one day be a US citizen, even if none of their family had set foot in America in six generations.
Or think about the reverse. How many different countries can you trace your ancestry to? Six, twelve? Are you automatically a citizen of all them? Canada handles the problem by limiting out-of-country births to one generation. They also required the child born abroad to return to Canada by age 28 or lose that citizenship.
Canada has considered ending jus soil citizenship to stop birth tourism, but we cannot do the same without a Constitutional Amendment because Congress wasn’t granted the power to touch that. They can only write laws for the naturalization of aliens.
I ask for evidence of a factual claim, and you reply with another rant?
Didn’t they teach evidence in law school?
It is really simple.
The evidence that Cruz was naturalized is that he was born in Alberta to parents who weren’t there at the behest of or in service to the US government. (His parents weren’t diplomats, etc.) Thus he was not born on US soil under the complete sovereignty of the United States. That means he wasn’t a natural born citizen, and therefore to be a citizen he must have been naturalized.
The 14th Amendment begins:
Though somewhat sloppy, this defines all US citizens as having been born or naturalized in the United States (while subject to the jurisdiction thereof). So you can be a citizen born in the United States, or you can be naturalized in the United States. Ted Cruz was not born in the United States, nor subject to the jurisdiction thereof, so he must have been naturalized.
To see how that happens, let’s look at the 1795 Naturalization Act, which is a piece of legislation Congress wrote under its explicit power to write rules for the naturalization of aliens.
Nope. Cruz didn’t do that, so he wasn’t naturalized under section 1.
Nope. Cruz didn’t do that either, so he wasn’t naturalized under section 2.
Ding ding ding!
“…and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States”
Children like Cruz were made citizens under the many varieties of what is found in the Naturalization Act of 1795, section 3.
Note that people naturalized under section 3 are naturalized at birth without oath or affirmation.
Also note that Congress doesn’t have the power to make a nature born citizen. Only parents can do that by having a baby in the US. Congress’s power is limited to writing the rules for the naturalization of aliens, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that children born abroad to US parents abroad are natural aliens (US v Wong Kim Ark).
If Cruz wasn’t a naturalized citizen, he wouldn’t be a citizen.
I am registered to vote this coming Tuesday — are you?
Didn’t anyone teach you to be polite to someone you were trying to influence in a direction favorable to your interests?
I am speaking to the remarks of our esteemed fellow participant in Rand’s fine salon, Mr. Edward Wright.
A call for persuasion is an interesting tactic.
The evidence that Cruz was naturalized is that he was born in Alberta to blah, blah, blah…
No, that isn’t evidence, it’s an argument. i.e., rhetoric. Evidence would be something like a legal document (naturalization certificate), videotape, eyewitness testimony, etc.
I could make a wonderful rhetorical argument that you are from Mars. That would not prove you were from Mars.
I’m surprised you did not discover the distinction between evidence and rhetoric in your extensive legal reading.
It’s remarkable that Trumpettes, who never care about the Constitution when the Donald proposes unconstitutional acts on almost a daily basis, suddenly care so much when the Donald throws up a spurious Consitutional challenge to his opponent.
If Cruz cannot provide that evidence then he is not even a US citizen and must resign from the Senate.
Everyone born abroad has go through the federal process of naturalization and its attendant paperwork or we don’t acknowledge them as citizens. They might as well be a Syrian refugee. The parents have to supply documentation of the birth, signed by witnesses. For further information you can go to the many State Department pages on how to complete the process. They’ are there to help you through it.
If Cruz has a Social Security number then his parents had to have completed the naturalization forms because we just don’t hand those out to random Canadian babies.
This is not rocket science. It’s centuries old, very well established law. It predates percussion fire arms. We have hardly changed it at all since then.
What Cruz is banking on is that Americans are drooling morons when it comes to the Constitution and Colonial and British law. Well sorry, but many of us are not. There are only three requirements for the Presidency. Age, residency, and being born on US soil, with the interesting and well reasoned exceptions to that (diplomats, etc) that come down to us from antiquity.
The residency requirement is interesting because mere residency doesn’t pass muster for the House and Senate. Members of Congress have to have been citizens for the specified number of years, but the President only has to have been a resident. That’s because if the Constitution said the President had to be a citizen for 14 years, echoing the wording for House and Senate requirements, George Washington and other Founders wouldn’t have been eligible because when the Constitution was adopted, the pool of people who had been US citizens for fourteen years was zero. The Founders actually understood that, weighing the legal consequences of each word that was adopted.
Every word and clause in the Constitution has meaning, and no valid interpretation of the Constitution can strip words of their meaning (Marbury v Madison).
Alexander Hamilton suggested “born citizen” as the requirement for Presidency, but Madison and others insisted that “born citizen” was not restrictive enough so they used “natural born citizen”. That one word, “natural”, is loaded with meaning that comes from English common law, which I cited above, and which was explained at length by subsequent legal writers whose books were the primary reference of the Supreme Court for half a century.
Everybody knows all this. We were taught it in civics class. Ted Cruz knows it. He ran anyway, knowing that he couldn’t possibly meet the Constitutional requirements of office. So he wiped his ass with the Constitution, betting that American conservatives were dumb as rocks.
It’s not going to fly. He is as ineligible as Justin Bieber and Celine Dion. I’m just pointing out the obvious, known to everyone for two centuries now.
Perhaps you have an attachment to Cruz, but that attachment should never have been allowed to form, other than our fondness for Canadian conservatives like Mark Steyn. Natural born Canadians can do almost anything in the US except be President. It’s a rule, laid down in the Constitution, to restrict our exercise of democracy to allowed candidates and provide a wall against slick talking people who might have foreign interests or attachments at heart. It’s there to protect us from ourselves.
We cannot vote for a youngster, no matter how popular, nor a person whose spent less than 14 year here, even if he gets the United States better than we do (A lot of conservative people from India fit that category, in both the US and Canada). We also cannot elect someone whose might have dual loyalties, especially one whose loyalty might be with Great Britain, France, or Spain.
So ask yourself this. How many upstanding, native born conservative does America have, or do we have to import Canadians? What happened to our native-born conservatives? Oh, some Canadian took out a million dollar loan and shunted them aside. Tom Cotton, Tim Scott, and countless others never even left the starting gate because a natural-born Canadian was intent on derailing the Republic for his own personal aggrandizement.
And the GOP establishment, in theory chock to the brim in Constitutional scholars, sat back and let this happen, confident that Jeb! – or Rubio – or Romney would win the nomination because Cruz’s illegitimate candidacy would derail the conservative wing.
The GOPe needs to be put up against a wall and shot because their idiocy, incompetence, or scheming put us between Scylla and Charybdis. And they’re still shoving the knife in our backs. We are being played for fools, the same as if they talked us into supporting a 23-year old against a rival to Jeb!, knowing that they’re just using us to stop the rival so they can hand the nomination to Jeb! – or Romney, or Kasich, or whoever will keep the money flowing.
I’ve been saying this for months, and filing a ballot challenge costs about $60. Standing has been a problem but the cases that have failed have pointed the way forward. If Cruz is nominated but knocked out early then the Republican party might still have time to nominate someone who is eligible and get them on the ballot in all 50 states
The key is filing the challenge early, and effectively, to make the ruling quick, because Hillary is going to drag it out so the Republicans can’t recover and file in key states.
As scary as that all seems, what you have is a bunch of strict Constitutionalists who will knock Cruz off the ballot to try and save the Republican Party from the idiocy of the GOP establishment. Then we will take them out in the woods, explain where they screwed up, and go to McDonald’s on the way home.
Warning the GOPe what will happen is hopefully a way that they can avoid that outcome, because nobody is going to have many qualms about it. We’ve been stabbed in the back too many times.
Actually, the main reason I’m pro-Trump is the Wall. I view illegal immigration and abuse of legal immigration as the existential issue. *Second*, he’s the GOPe’s destructor.
Cruz, I could vote for; but I don’t see him as a terribly likeable person, and so even if he decides to actually fight against Hillary in the general, his attacks will backfire and he’ll get crushed. Women will vote for an Alpha like Trump; Cruz reminds me of the slightly creepy guy women hope doesn’t hit on them at the company party. Plus, I expect all kinds of birther stuff from the Left. There will be lawsuits to have Cruz removed from ballots, and probably something filed nationally right before or right after election day. And I’ll eat my words later if I’m proven wrong, as long as I get to use ketchup. Lots of ketchup.
what important about Wisconsin is, if Sanders wins.
Also if Kasich gets less than 10%, he might then decide to quit due to the blatant embarrassment. Though if Kasich manages to get any delegates he can then claim a victory because it’s an improvement from the previous two state primaries.
If Cruz loses Wisconsin then it will become obvious that Cruz is doing a Kasich if he doesn’t quit. And if Cruz wins in landside, then he has definite hope that with that momentum he might get close to getting enough delegates to win at the convention.
If Clinton win big, then she that too would help her win at the convention- assuming she does not become sick and die, or doesn’t get indicted and wears an orange suit.
If Wisconsin something close to a tie with dems and reps, than it merely prolongs the suspend until New York [and maybe continues after this continuing to be a media dream until California with the ever increasing din re the brokered conventions].
A very important thing to watch in all these primaries, especially open ones, is the massive drop in Democrat turnout from 2008 and the massive increase in Republican turnout.
If the GOPe doesn’t do something as mindlessly stupid as causing a major third party run, the Republicans have a lock on it.
Yes, I build a big state-by-state spreadsheet of the 2008 primaries and general compared to the 2016 primaries, where I can shift votes by fixed amounts or decrease or increase party turnout as a percentage. Then it calculates the electoral college totals. All the primaries predict a big Republican win, and some of the primary shifts have been so large that they predict the Democrat will only get about 45 electoral votes.
The only way Republicans can lose is if the establishment pisses everybody off.
and the massive increase in Republican turnout
An increase in turnout for Trump is not necessarily a Republican turnout.
Is that a bug or a feature?
You could say that Democrats are turning out to vote for Mr. Trump because they want the Republicans to put forward the guy they can beat and who they think discredits the Republican brand.
Or maybe there are Democrats who really like Mr. Trump. If that is the case, maybe Mr. Trump is a stronger candidate in November?
By the way, I am a one-issue voter. I am really, really put out that I will have to fish my Wisconsin Driver’s license out of my pocket on Tuesday. I am also put out that instead of voting at the school house across from my backyard fence as at did for TWENTY ONE FREAKING YEARS I have been living in my house, I have to either drive or walk a mile down the road to this other school that is on a steep hill. The left-hand turn into the polling place parking lot is a blind left turn on account of the crest of the hill, and the pedestrian crossing to get there isn’t much better, and I can’t cross elsewhere BECAUSE THERE IS NO FREAKING SIDEWALK ON THE SCHOOL SIDE OF THIS HIGHWAY.
Ted Cruz was just endorsed by the one guy responsible for these acts of VOTER SUPPRESSION OF A LIFELONG STRAIGHT-TICKET REPUBLICAN-REFUGEE IMMIGRANT FROM THE ONE-PARTY TYRANNY IN HIS BIRTHPLACE (Cook County, Illinois). Ted Cruz turned around and said that the fellow who did these things was a stand-up guy.
Were I to get a phone call (or an e-mail, or a blog post) from Senator Cruz or one of his supporters or endorsers saying, “I hear you man, sorry about your voting situation — it wasn’t aimed it you, it was aimed at the loony-lefty neighbors of yours (including the ones with the pro-Republican yard signs in my ‘hood?) Can we send a van over to give you a safe ride to your polling place at a time of your convenience”, were something like that to happen, that would be really nice gesture.
It doesn’t matter who you vote for in the Presidential election. In Madison, the location of polling places is determined by the common council. The city clerk, your alderperson, and the disability rights coordinator collude to pick polling locations.
Sorry if that is the wrong city but its probably something similar.
In WA, we vote by mail and only face the racist discrimination of voter intimidation of the white people, who happen to be Democrats, when we register to vote. Prior to vote by mail, I think we had to show racist ID all the time but I could be wrong. The system is very convenient for voters and people who need to find boxes of ballots in the trunks of cars.
You could say that Democrats are turning out to vote for Mr. Trump because the want the Republicans to put forward the guy they can beat
Or it could be that the Know Nothing movement crosses party lines. The current wave of xenophobia is the California Cancer. It began in one of the left-most states. It was quite strong in Washington state when I was living there, and few if any of its adherents could be described as conservative.
The GOP pandered to the Know Nothings hoping they would switch parties while the Democrats pandered to a cultural conservative Catholic group (Latinos) who otherwise might have been recruits for the Republican Party. The Republican strategy failed and the Democratic Party succeeded.
One must wonder what would have happened if the GOP had welcomed Latinos, as Reagan and Kemp recommended, rather than driving them deep into the Democratic camp in order to woe Archie Bunker.
I also wonder if a third-party run by Donald Trump would really hurt Republican chances. I think it’s entirely possible that Trump might drain the Archie Bunker wing of the Democratic Party, drawing more votes from Hillary than from Cruz.
By the way Rand, if you want to get the Ted Cruz campaign in touch with me to get me a ride to my polling place, they can look me up by checking the — heck, they have voter lists, they know who I am and where I live.
In terms of the Republicans being the Stupid Party, I once tried to get a STRAIGHT TICKET-VOTING LIFELONG REPUBLICAN REFUGEE IMMIGRANT FROM A REAL-LIFE COMMUNIST TYRANNY a ride to the polling place, and after a bunch of phone calls, the Door County head of the Republican Committee offered a ride if “absolutely necessary”, I had to drive for three and a half hours each way to take him to Early Voting.
So Rand, I will know if people are really serious about opposing Donald Trump and supporting Ted Cruz if I get a call from the Cruz people offering me a ride on Tuesday.
If I don’t hear from anyone, I will know all this bluster about the peril of Trump is “all hat and no cattle.”
Trump, regardless of ideology, is running as a republican so by definition it is republican turnout. By losing sight of that you are voting for Hillary.
Trump, regardless of ideology, is running as a republican so by definition it is republican turnout.
Nope. In many cases, people voting for him have done so in open primaries, or registered Republican just so they could vote for him, but that doesn’t mean they share traditional Republican values.
Based on interviews in Youngstown Ohio, many of the cross overs hold traditional American values, but had always voted Democrat because their parents and grandparents voted Democrat. They were blue collar Democrats working in a steel town, and at one time they were the Democrat parties base. They’re jumping ship.
As Reagan said, he didn’t leave the Democrat party, the party left him. That same holds true for a great many centrist (non-progressive) Democrats, but they weren’t willing to support the GOP establishment, people like Bush, McCain, or Romney, who they viewed as privileged, country-club Republicans. Trump owns the country clubs, and perhaps he views such people as his customers, not really worth any more than the poorly educated. For whatever reason, blue collar Democrats, those not swayed by all the virtue signalling and progressive posturing, have latched on to him.
Many conservatives have been wondering when the truck-driving, gun-loving, blue collar Democrats would notice that their party despises them and their values. Trump seems to be making them stand up and cheer.
If the Democrats lose their blue-collar base, they’re essentially done at the national level. They’ll hold on to the Northeast and West coast cities, and places like Chicago and Detroit, but they can write off the Midwest, along with many other key states.
It might prove similar to what happened in the South during the 90’s and 2000’s, when Southern voters woke up and realized that their once proud and glorious Democrat party, strong on defense and independence, had become the hippy/commie/appeasement/welfare party.
If Trump can pull that off, it’s transformational, perhaps even seismic. Sanders and the Berkeley types will then have an even stronger influence over what remains of the Democrat party, and it will reflect American values even less than it does today. They’ll become the socialist/green party and flounder in obscurity, and be in no position to do anything of consequence for minorities except kvetch and gripe, hemorrhaging even more of their base.
Many conservatives have been wondering when the truck-driving, gun-loving, blue collar Democrats would notice that their party despises them and their values. Trump seems to be making them stand up and cheer.
It shouldn’t have taken a Trump to do that.
It shouldn’t have, but think back on all the other Republican candidates from this and prior elections. When they speak, they all speak as if from the same mold, not in the content or their views on federalism or deficit spending, but in how they speak, and from what social strata, and how they phrase it and frame their statements. They all sounded just like Republican politicians.
“Well in my state, we …”
“I can bring that leadership, because I’m a leader.”
“Because Washington, the inside-the-beltway politicians, have failed us.”
etc etc.
And the blue collar Democrats just filter it out, especially with help from the media.
In contrast, Trump says things like:
“Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man – he made a good decision.”
“Our great African-American President hasn’t exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore.”
“I think the only difference between me and the other candidates is that I’m more honest and my women are more beautiful.”
“My IQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure; it’s not your fault.”
And with that, he breaks through their filters.
I thought he was a buffoon through early March, but some of what he says is political genius. “I love the poorly educated!” ^_^
When Rubio attacked him with a well-rehearsed line, saying “You’re the only person on this stage who has hired people illegally.” off the cuff Trump retorted “I’m the only person on this stage who has ever hired people.”
So moderate Democrats are hearing that, and then comparing it to the nonsense and doublespeak that comes from Hillary, and they’re deciding they can’t do it anymore. Like many Republicans, they feel they’ve been stabbed in the back or sold down the river by a bunch of corrupt and greedy morons, people who in any other vocation would be losers.
Trump may be a disaster as President, but disowning him is easy, if it comes to that, and even he couldn’t be worse than Obama.
With that risk comes a good shot at forever peeling away blue collar union voters and regular working class Democrats and turning them into staunch Republicans, essentially gutting the Democrat party.
I think it’s worth a gamble, especially since stopping Trump through all sorts of clever gamesmanship might do the opposite and split the Republican party.
that doesn’t mean they share traditional Republican values.
It doesn’t mean they don’t either. What does blue collar mean [rhetorical]?
All the primaries predict a big Republican win
Primary election turnout is not predictive of general election results. “In the six elections where there were contests on both sides, the party with the higher primary voter turnout won the popular vote just three times.”
“…indicted and wears an orange suit.”
Great Pumpkin 2016!
http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/40/33/66/8502686/3/1024×1024.jpg
He’s a threat to American democracy.
Really? The evidence being his supporters say things the author disagrees with, like the supporters of every single other politician. If conduct of supporters is the standard with which we evaluate threats to democracy, other candidates are a far far larger threat.
Trump is not my preferred candidate but stuff like this is wacko bird territory. The most revealing thing about this election is how fast some Republicans have turned to using Democrat’s attacks against their own.
The quickest way would be to deny him the 1,237 delegates required to win the GOP nomination on the first ballot.
Yes, let the voters decide AND keep the voters concerns in mind should the nominee be decided in a contested convention.
Amazing how many comments are extended rants on Cruz’s eligibility. As I’ve said before, most legal scholar think this is a non-issue. It doesn’t become one just because you write a long comment.
All of the lawsuits have been thrown out so far too. IIRC, for technical reasons but…
They’ve been thrown out because at present it’s not in anybody’s interest for them to succeed. Democrats know that Cruz staying in the race adds to the chaos. Republicans want to keep him as a check against Trump.
But the calculus changes immediately when he gets nominated. Then all the liberal judges can cause further chaos in Republican ranks by ruling against him, especially as the calendar rolls through the time when the ticket can be changed.
Given that the Supreme Court and all supporting cases and legal opinions are crystal clear on the subject (they wrote about it at length), no serious judge can stand on the facts of the case and rule in favor of Cruz. So one will rule against him, which will of course get appealed, moving things into higher courts. It will probably go to the Supreme Court.
So who on the Supreme Court will support him? I’m sure he’ll get at least half the evangelical judges just out of blind loyalty. But wait, there aren’t any of those. There aren’t even any Protestants on the court. He could get support from conservative justices, but those are going to be the strictest constructionists who will go back to what was written in the late 1700 and early 1800’s. So Cruz won’t sway them, either.
That leaves the liberal justices who support a living document approach. But none of them are even Protestant and they’d all despise Cruz. If knocking him off the ballot would hand the election to Hillary or Bernie, they’d jump at the chance, especially when they’d get to sound so erudite and patriotic while doing it, hewing to the Founder’s words and writings.
The question is how far this goat rodeo will have gone before they so rule, and it may take us into totally uncharted territory. What if the case comes after the election? What if it comes after he’s been sworn in? Does power still transfer to the Vice President or is the entire election overturned?
We’re in this mess because the GOPe screwed around, leaving us with a choice between Trump the clown, an ineligible candidate, a candidate who went nowhere but is too delusional to quit, and some random piece of shit the establishment will try to foist on us. There are no good options because an usurper was allowed in to wreak havoc on the process. Some one is to blame for that. They should be held to account.
Pardon me if I assume that the great majority of legal scholars know more about it than you do.
Actually only a couple have spoken out about it, while many more have said he’s not eligible. Cruz’s own law professor, Lawrence Tribe (who represented Al Gore in 2000) says he’s not eligible.
Law professors have said “natural born citizen” means born on US soil for two centuries now. It’s in your civics book.
The second law professor at America’s first law school said it back in 1803, that those naturalized under the immigration acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802 can never be President. He put that in a book that was for fifty years to standard reference for American judges.
Cruz has cited a poorly researched Congressional Research Service article and a very poorly researched Harvard Law Review article written with the specific intention of saying that their classmate is eligible.
Both paint the term “natural born” as a mysterious phrase whose meaning eludes us – because they never read a damn thing on the subject.
Standing against that is over 200 years of practice, including numerous Supreme Court cases where they reiterate that the meaning of “natural born” is to be found in English common law (Blackstone and then Tucker).
Blackstone – Chapter 10 : Of people, whether aliens, denizens, or natives.
It’s very short. A more readable version is here, from 1765.
It starts out saying:
None of the authors whose paper’s support Cruz apparently read any part of it.
Tucker’s commentary on whether a foreign born person can be President. The answer was no.
I’ve got about thirty or forty more references, reflecting what James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Joseph Story, and other Founders and early justices and legal scholars thought. In 1795 James Madison even changed the wording of the 1790 Naturalization Act so people couldn’t possibly be confused by the wording of it into thinking that children born to citizens abroad actually were natural-born citizens. And everyone who says that Cruz is natural born is citing the 1790 act and making the same mistaken interpretation.
What Cruz is trying to do is manufacture a fake 97% consensus because he doesn’t have a case. Under no reading can he win in a serious courtroom. The only question is how much damage his fun little self-indulgent romp will do to the Republic.
I’ll wave the accusatory digit at Reince Priebus, head of the RNC.
If Trump doesn’t get > or = 1237 delegates, the GOPe will get to choose. And they won’t choose Cruz (who will be mathematically impossible to get first ballot after 26APR2016). Instead, the GOPe will choose either a wimp or a cuck, based on previous GOPe choices.
From Hot Air:
–The NRC picked up on that one pretty quickly and provided a transcript.
CHUCK TODD: “When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?”
CLINTON: “Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists.. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights….,
…And I think that’s an important distinction, that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had enshrined under our Constitution.”
And:
“While it pains me to say it, Clinton is quoting a doctrine which has long been popular in some of the more libertarian segments of the commentariat and there’s a bit of text to support Clinton’s assertion… possibly. It comes directly from the 14th Amendment.”–
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/03/video-clinton-unborn-children-have-no-constitutional-rights/
Two factors why I post this here. It’s in regard to Trump’s recent flaps and that bit about “popular in some of the more libertarian segments of the commentariat ”
I think unborn children do have constitutional rights. Because constitutional rights are unalienable rights. Or no State [anywhere] grants these rights.
So, the federal government does not grant any constitutional rights, rather it recognizes these unalienable rights.
Though I do not accept that the federal government has the sovereign right to impose every conceivable constitutional rights/unalienable rights upon the 50 sovereign States of American.
Though thru a constitutional amendment process, the Federal Government could gain such power.
And each of the 50 States also have a right to recognize unalienable rights of it’s citizens- again, if they follow their state process of doing this.
I see very serious problems of Federal government getting involve with enforcing the alienable rights of children or unborn children, but I see no federal interest in denying these rights exist- though Roe v. Wade appears to do this {it’s a bad law imposed incorrectly by Supreme Court].
More about Trump and abortion, headline:
–Donald Trump took 5 different positions on abortion in 3 days–
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/
[linked from another article at Hotair which was linked from Instapudit-
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/03/maureen-dowd-to-trump-have-you-ever-asked-a-woman-to-get-an-abortion/ ]
So this started with premise that abortion were made illegal.
So a way this is possible is that Wade vs Roe was struck down- presumably this is done by Supreme Court. So this could happen if a State outlaws some aspect of abortion. Ie outlaws late term abortion.
And such state law then is challenged and brought to Supreme Court, and Supreme court upholds the law and invalidate past Wade vs Roe
ruling.
So with this as the the premise, Trump asked would the women be punished if she got a late term abortion in that State which outlawed this.
So trump said, yes. Then few hours later he said, no. [to oversimplify all this].
Now, it’s reasonable that if a State outlawed something, that this requires that those violating the law, would be punished, but trump changed his opinion from woman being punished to instead the party doing the abortion would only be punished. Again, assuming a State passed a law prohibiting late term abolition.
Or if one passes a law, then the law must be enforceable, and for any law to be enforceable there must be some kind of punishment [or reward could also be possible- or there must be some kind of consequence, otherwise the law lacks any significance or meaning]. Or a law against speeding or littering must have some kind of punishment- otherwise it’s not a law.
But it’s reasonable to punish a professional who is expected to have the expertise, ie is it a late term abortion or would a women life be endangered were she not to get an abortion, etc.
But a true pro life position is that women should not be forced to have abortion, unless abortion is actually needed. And as far as federal govt is concerned- it probably should outlaw the sale of baby parts. And should have federal policy to control population growth and by using abortion as means to this end.
-And should have federal policy to control population growth and by using abortion as means to this end.-
Should be:
And should *not* have federal policy to control population growth and by using abortion as means to this end.
There is the bizarro possibility that the punishment for any woman seeking an illegal abortion is to have her baby cut out and murdered before her eyes.
*looks around suspiciously*
What this all says is that, like every other issue, Trump has never expended a single neuron giving it any thought, other than absorbing BS from his fellow leftist friends in New York about what conservatives believe.
I think that’s playing in his favor with lots of people. He doesn’t have rehearsed answers to anything.
In the New Hampshire debate Bush uttered the most telling comment I’ve heard this cycle:
“Poised to be in the right place, the sweet spot for a Republican nominee“? It seems a consultant looked up from his spreadsheet to tell Jeb what his position on abortion would be. Only Jeb wasn’t supposed to quote the Power Point presentation in front of a live audience. Honestly, Ross Perot had flip charts with more of a human soul.
Trump at least showed that his opinion isn’t based on some DC consultant’s polling data. Yes, he has had a bad, bad, very bad week – and his poll numbers went up. He is the destructor. He’s like one of those comic book monsters who absorb all the energy fired at them and then use it to get bigger. I’m sure it’s causing panic in many circles, but it is quite entertaining to watch.
In our 3 branches of government, the executive does not make the law. If Trump sticks with conservative supreme court nominees (and congress does its job) it doesn’t matter what Trump thinks about abortion.
What Salon says about Bernie [and republicans]:
“According to the British website, PoliticalCompass.org, which measures political ideology on a multi-axis model, based on social and economic beliefs, Sanders is the true moderate of the 2016 primaries, while Clinton is a both economically and socially on the center-right, and Republican candidates are on the far right. ”
If go to link that British website ranks Bernie mid way between libertarian and authoritarian and off center and towards the Left:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
And all republicans are clustered in tight corner of right and authoritarian- though they don’t rate Kasich.
Of course in Europe one can’t get an abortion beyond 8 weeks.
Perhaps if Bernie agreed with Europeans about abortion, republicans would vote for him.
The only countries [four] which allow late term abortion [and will also force a woman to get one] are places like North Korea and China who trying to control population growth.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/04/hillary_is_sick_of_the_left_why_bernies_persistence_is_a_powerful_reminder_of_clintons_troubling_centrism/
Also it appears that Clinton has now given up on the Lefties of Wisconsin.