27% of Iowa GOP Voters Say Cruz is NOT Eligible
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
How does this work? Obama was born in the US. The majority of GOPers say he isn't eligible. Cruz freely admits he wasn't born in the US. Only a quarter say he isn't eligible.
Actually, there were other issues with Obama's birth that were an issue. There are some weird cases where you can be born in the US and NOT be a citizen, and Obama might have actually been one of those. Most birthers were focused on the wrong issue about his birth and I think the Democrats wanted that as well, as that ignored the technicality that might have made him ineligible.
Nearly identical to the same % of folks who are planning to vote for Trump. Coincidence?
Conservatism went all in on the birther argument and now the chickens are coming home to crap all over them.
Who is going to sue to have him ruled ineligible?
I'd like to see it, so we can get a final answer (even though I know the answer).
Don't you love it?
I suppose if you are more scared of Trump than of Cruz maybe you don't love it. But I think Cruz is the greater danger.
Is this the percentage of Trump supporters that are still working towards their GED?
Possibly the percentage that have all of their teeth.
No. If you are born in the US and EITHER parent is a citizen,you are a citizen. All the hype over Obama was just political mishmash and hatchet jobs. The combination of the birth certificate (being validated by the State of Hawaii), and the microfiche of the birth announcement at a Hawaii hospital in a local newspaper pretty much eliminated ANY scenario in which Obama would not be considered a 'natural born citizen'. Anyone who disputes that is really batshit crazy; the evidence is very clear.
Cruz is a little fuzzier issue, as he was born to a US citizen, but not in the US. If he obtained Canadian citizenship at birth, there may be an issue for him, but if he received dual citizenship at birth, then it's really a non-issue, too. Only if he was later 'naturalized' for US citizenship is there a legitimate case that he may not meet the 'natural born citizen' criteria, and I haven't seen anything but political banter about his citizenship, mostly devoid of those facts.
In any case, who cares what 27% of Iowans think; the issue is a legal issue for courts and constitutional lawyers to decide, not voters. Unless the voters want to amend the Constitution to clarify the issue - THEN it's a voters issue.
I was pleased to see Cruz use my line in the debate. In another thread on this, I pointed out that the conventional wisdom on the natural born requirement a few decades ago would have excluded Cruz - and as far as I know, the constitution has not changed since then.
Somewhat less successfully and more obnoxiously he also stole a line from Reagan when he said he wouldn't use Trump's mother's birthplace against him.
How smarmy can you get?
Somewhat less successfully and more obnoxiously he also stole a line from Reagan when he said he wouldn't use Trump's mother's birthplace against him.
How smarmy can you get?
LOL... in a January 12 PPP poll, more GOP voters in Iowa thought Cruz (34%) was born in the United States than thought Barack Obama (28%) was.
I would have hoped that Iowans were smarter than that, but then, they were GOP voters.
This is opinion. It's ONLY opinion. It is NOT constitutional law. You are entitled to hold that opinion and advocate for it. But please quit acting like it is established truth.
Every other time we have run into a case of a candidate who wasn't born here, the issue was resolved by the commonsense view that a territory of the US - an embassy, a military base or, in Goldwater's case, an actual, formal territory - counts as the US.
Since Canada is not a territory of the US, that view doesn't help him.
The closest instance was with George Romney, born in Mexico of US parent who had chosen to move there (and later chose to return). That never got decided because he dropped out of the race before it needed to get decided.
So . . . the conventional wisdom in the 1960s and even as updated for McCain does not cover Cruz. And the constitution hasn't changed since then.
Note that ALL of those other cases could have been decided using your argument, if people then had believe that argument held any weight. Easy. But they didn't use that arguement - because people weren't making that argument.
This is why we need SCOTUS to step up.
Thank you for that totally irrelevant poll that didn't even remotely address what I asked for.
What?
Being born IN the US to at least ONE US citizen parent is absolutely defined as 'natural born'. That is what I posted. There is not any constitutional discussion over that, which is why Obama has been President for 8 years w/o any legitimate constitutional challenge to it.
The issue is whether Cruz is natural born, because he was NOT born in the US, which I clearly stated in my post. But, if he was granted US citizenship at birth, it's fairly likely that he would qualify. ONLY if he was later 'naturalized' and granted US citizenship AFTER being born is there any real controversy.
So stupidity on the part of birthers is now called a technicality? Seems appropriate.
After the Revolutionary War, fear of foreign powers nefariously attempting to divide the new nation or influence its decisions was rampant, just as it would become in post-colonial nations across the globe in the 20th century.
At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason spoke of “foreigners and adventurers” trying to “make laws for us” and “a rich foreign nation, for example Great Britain” sending “tools who might bribe their way” into federal office for “invidious purposes.”
Scholars have speculated that the actual “natural born citizen” wording in the Constitution came initially from John Jay, who would later become chief justice of the Supreme Court. Jay was not at the Convention but was corresponding with George Washington, who was presiding over it.
in a letter to Washington dated July 25, 1787, Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Washington, according to Seymore, wrote Jay “thanking him for the ‘hints contained in your letter.’” Seymore continued: “Two days later a second version of the presidential qualification clause was presented to the Convention,” which contained the “natural born” requirement. It passed without any discussion, or at least any discussion passed down through history.
“Considering Washington’s considerable presence at the Convention, it is entirely possible,” Seymore theorized, “that Jay’s reasons for including the natural-born requirement were the primary motivation behind the provision: namely, fear of foreign dominance of government.”
It produced no significant controversy in the ratification debates that followed because nobody cared about the fine print in the face of much larger burning questions about vesting so much power in a single person.
Was the presidency an embryonic monarchy or an open-door to tyranny? After the Convention, that was the question.
And while it arose again during the candidacies of Barack Obama and and now Ted Cruz, and was raised by those who thought Canadian-born former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm belonged in the White House, the question of who is, and who isn’t, a “natural born citizen” has never been truly joined, either by Congress or the Supreme Court, and never definitively answered.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hp_no-name_morning-mix-story-c:homepage/story
I dont think it even matters where your parents were born. If you are born on us soil you are a citizen, thus the anchor baby stuff.
I have asked you this in multiple Cruz eligibility threads but have not yet received a response. I'll make one last attempt:
What is the established truth, the constitutional law, that defines who is and who is not a natural born citizen?
Sorry. My bad. I'm so used to people saying that having one parent being a US citizen is all the constitution requires that my brain just read your comment that way (without the in the US part).
Apologies.
A new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds that 53 percent of Republicans still doubt Obama's citizenship. At the same time, an overwhelming 70 percent don't have any doubt Cruz is American and eligible to be president.
More interestingly, most of the Republicans who don't think Obama was born in America aren't concerned about Cruz's citizenship. Sixty-four percent think Cruz is eligible to become president, while just 18 percent think he's not. Another 18 percent are not sure
Link. Not that you'll actually believe any of it, but that's what politics has become in this country.
A new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds that 53 percent of Republicans still doubt Obama's citizenship. At the same time, an overwhelming 70 percent don't have any doubt Cruz is American and eligible to be president.
More interestingly, most of the Republicans who don't think Obama was born in America aren't concerned about Cruz's citizenship. Sixty-four percent think Cruz is eligible to become president, while just 18 percent think he's not. Another 18 percent are not sure
Link. Not that you'll actually believe any of it, but that's what politics has become in this country.
Hey, if the poll says so, I have no reason to doubt it. I just couldn't believe there were that many idiots running around out there. No wonder this country is tanking. Well done, Fred.
You're the best.
A new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds that 53 percent of Republicans still doubt Obama's citizenship. At the same time, an overwhelming 70 percent don't have any doubt Cruz is American and eligible to be president.
More interestingly, most of the Republicans who don't think Obama was born in America aren't concerned about Cruz's citizenship. Sixty-four percent think Cruz is eligible to become president, while just 18 percent think he's not. Another 18 percent are not sure
Link. Not that you'll actually believe any of it, but that's what politics has become in this country.
Okay, how about a legitimate poll instead of a HuffPo/YouGov poll?
You're a clever fellow, Fred. Still getting my vote for best poster on this board.
I always knew you liked stalking me the most. I got a little worried there with the amount of creepiness you showed Red Warren. But now that he's gone, I get all of Jan's creepiness.
I knew that's how you would respond. It's how people who have been proven wrong normally respond. I'm not going to go look for another poll because you'll find wrong with the next one too.
What I'll ask from you is since I've provided evidence that a majority of GOPers still think Obama is not eligible to be President like you asked for. You go out and find a poll that contradicts what mine is saying. It can be as partisan or bipartisan as you like.
I think I'll remind you that you responded to my post. But I'm sure that's an honest mistake on your part. Otherwise, brilliant posting, Fred.
It's a hard job but I didn't want you to sound like a moron any more. I like looking out for the less fortunate.
