Althouse: How Ted Cruz answers the no-executive-experience/aren't-you-just-like-Barack-Obama question.

March 30, 2015

How Ted Cruz answers the no-executive-experience/aren't-you-just-like-Barack-Obama question.

72 comments:

khesanh0802 said...: CNN having no trouble with hypocrisy. Surprise!; 3/30/15, 3:15 PM
Anonymous said...: I've got no problems with the lack of executive experience. I did, but not anymore.

I was thinking about my issue with Marco Rubio. He seems like the sort of guy I'd really like to be president. Great speaker. Solid conservative. What's my issue?

And it occurred to me. My issue is, he doesn't understand, or is naive to, the realities of the Federal Government. To include politicians and government bureaucracy.

And this is why he thought comprehensive immigration reform would work. And this is why I don't like him for President.

And this is why I like Ted Cruz. Even if his position is identical to Rubio or Walker or Amy of the others on immigration or something else, he understands how the federal government works.

And this is another reason I worry about Walker. Walker has State executive experience. He might be fooled into thinking, it worked at the state level, why not the federal level? And that's dangerous. If you feed the federal animal, it just gets hungrier and larger.

I therefore really appreciate Ted Cruz. Not because of his executive experience or lack thereof.

Instead, because his actions have shown me that he understands how the conservative philosophy must be implemented at the federal level. And it isn't by first giving progressives their way.; 3/30/15, 3:28 PM
Michael said...: Dana was so disappointed she couldn't trap Cruz. He has a nearly unblemished record as a debater and in the cases he has argued before the Supreme Court. He does not require a teleprompter.

Worse for Dana and her tribe, Cruz believes what he says.; 3/30/15, 3:40 PM
mccullough said...: Ted Cruz is a Harvard Law first-term senator blowhard, just like Obama. The only difference between them is Obama was born in the United States and is better looking. Cruz' wife is prettier than Michelle. Both of heir kids are nice looking.; 3/30/15, 3:44 PM
Sebastian said...: "I therefore really appreciate Ted Cruz."

Same here, philosophically. Not always politically: politics also requires playing well with others on your own team. He won't be president but should improve the race. GOP can use one hardass on its side.

Unlike Barry, Cruz does have real accomplishments. Medellin, for one thing, was a pretty remarkable case. Skillful S.Ct advocacy is harder than executive office in smallish states and, in my book, counts as relevant experience.; 3/30/15, 3:44 PM
mccullough said...: Cruz went to Princeton, while Obama spent two years at an LA college before wasting time at an Ivy League school. Advantage Obama. Obama also seemed to have a more normal adolescence.; 3/30/15, 3:46 PM
mccullough said...: John Roberts is a much better appellate lawyer than Cruz, is better looking, smarter, and more likeable.

Cruz is too ugly to be President. Maybe he can be the HUD secretary.; 3/30/15, 3:48 PM
Mark said...: It sounds like he is claiming the executive experience of the Attorney General with supervising all those lawyers, not as a subservient position to the AG which it actually was.

I never thought being a government bureaucrat counted for executive experience in any real sense.; 3/30/15, 4:01 PM
Rich B said...: Poor Dana. I heard Cruz eats CNN personalities for breakfast, before he moves on to the main course.; 3/30/15, 4:03 PM
Ann Althouse said...: It will be fun to see Cruz defend himself and, more importantly, conservatism.; 3/30/15, 4:08 PM
Birkel said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/30/15, 4:09 PM
Birkel said...: Mark's comment is incoherent.

McCullough's comments are inconsequential and vapid.

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz appears to enjoy confrontation with the other side of the political spectrum. If he can confront them while maintaining a smile and sounding even-keeled, then he has a shot to convince voters he will be a good leader at home and abroad.

The destruction of the United States that Barack Obama and the Left desire is not yet accomplished. There is time to return to sanity. But not for many commenters here.; 3/30/15, 4:10 PM
grackle said...: Questions like this only give Cruz opportunity to regale the questioner with some stark contrasts between him and Obama. BTW, I don't see this clip on the CNN website, where the Bash clips(What an appropriate name!) are all about Cruz signing up for Obamacare.

Cruz seems to be an eloquent speaker who doesn't need notes or prompter to put forth a clearly stated, easy to understand message. And smart enough not to be tripped up by the likes of Dana Bash.

Personally, I would like to see just one candidate on the right who is vocally adroit enough to present a credible case for the conservative viewpoint. Someone who knows how to work a crowd. Since Reagan there has been no one. But the primaries will tell us what we really need to know about all of the candidates. Flaws seem to surface during the heat of battle.; 3/30/15, 4:22 PM
MadisonMan said...: He does a good job distinguishing his record from Obama's in that clip, though it took a while for him to get around to it.; 3/30/15, 4:30 PM
Tank said...: She kept trying to trap him, until he gave a good answer.; 3/30/15, 4:35 PM
Mountain Maven said...: Clinton News Network; 3/30/15, 4:39 PM
Hagar said...: It is not about "experience," but about achievement.

Cruz made it on his own and he did achieve something, while Obama has always been carried by others to be used for politics. He never really was a professor or even an adjunct.; 3/30/15, 4:42 PM
Lyle said...: Obama wishes he had the oratory skills and experience of Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz is Senator inspite of establishment Texas Republicans. He destroyed their hand picked candidate.; 3/30/15, 4:42 PM
Rich B said...: You know what else is great about Cruz? Peter King hates him.; 3/30/15, 4:52 PM
Tank said...: @richB

You are soooooooo right.; 3/30/15, 4:56 PM
The Godfather said...: Ted isn't my first choice, Scott is. Right now I don't have a second choice. But it is absurd to compare Ted's record with Obama's.

Walker-Cruz wouldn't be a bad ticket: "Walker-Cruz to victory in 2016!"; 3/30/15, 4:59 PM
The Godfather said...: Let's see. If Cruz were the Republican nominee, who would he be running against? The former First Lady with an undistinguished record as a Senator, followed by a disastrous record as Sec. of State? Or the first-term Granny Sen. from Ma.? Or the former Gov. of MD, who nobody ever heard of? Or Joe Biden, who proves that experience doesn't equate to competence?; 3/30/15, 5:06 PM
The Godfather said...: Somebody said Cruz was too ugly to be president. Look at the competition. I saw Hillary! in a skirt before she went all pants-suits, and I'll never get the image out of my mind.; 3/30/15, 5:07 PM
FullMoon said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/30/15, 5:08 PM
FullMoon said...: the Godfather said...

Somebody said Cruz was too ugly to be president. Look at the competition. I saw Hillary! in a skirt before she went all pants-suits, and I'll never get the image out of my mind.

Was there a well placed, artistic bloodstain?; 3/30/15, 5:23 PM
Wilbur said...: I've been a Cruz man since I first read about him before he won the Texas GOP Senate primary.

Like Lincoln said of Grant "I can't spare him ... This man fights."

He's the only candidate who motivate me to open my checkbook.

Can we do that through the Amazon portal?; 3/30/15, 5:44 PM
Wilbur said...: "could motivate" Sorry; 3/30/15, 5:45 PM
Leigh said...: @annalthouse Cruz won't be defending conservatism, he'll be explaining it. And that will be fun to watch.; 3/30/15, 5:46 PM
MAJMike said...: How many cases did the so-called "Law Professor" Barrack Obama argue before the Supreme Court?

Other than abject failure as a Community Organizer (check the results of the neighborhood he "helped") and short stints in the Illinois and U.S. Senates, what sort of experience does THE WON have?

A phony Nobel Peace Prize cannot equal Cruz's resume. Look it up. I won't do your homework for you.; 3/30/15, 5:47 PM
djf said...: Anyone who thinks the problem with Obama is that he didn't have "executive experience" before becoming president is a moron. Obama has accomplished a huge amount - all of it bad, but that was by design. Some of his disasters were unintended (e.g. the Middle East exploding) but things going wrong had nothing to do with poor management ability, but the wrong-headedness of the substantive ideas he has been trying to implement.

Presidents are not "managers" who draw up administrative flow charts. They hire other people to do that (if they're smart). Jimmy Carter thought the president's job was to be a manager. That didn't work out too well.; 3/30/15, 5:50 PM
mccullough said...: So in other words, Cruz and his supporters can't point to any difference between Cruz and Obama except Cruz argued a case in front of the Supreme Court. So he talks real good without notes and is a good debater. Can he hit a curve ball, too?

The soft bigotry of low expectations.; 3/30/15, 6:07 PM
mccullough said...: Obama's problem was that he didn't have humility and pragmatism forged through experience. Cruz has the same problem. Most Senators who weren't governors have this problem. Senators are usually arrogant and not competent to deal with problems that require responsibility. They are teenagers; 3/30/15, 6:11 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/30/15, 6:35 PM
Brando said...: It's as good an answer as he can give on that--his lack of executive experience is a weak point, as his opponents include a number of governors and most of Obamas critics rightly point out his greenness as one of the reasons for his clumsy mess of a record.

Cruz will need to either make his inexperience into an asset like Obama did in 2008 ("better a fresh face with fresh ideas than someone with the wrong kind of experience") which could work against Hillary, or he's got to overcome the issue by playing up other strengths.

My bigger concern about a Cruz presidency is that another term with a polarizing president who can't work with anyone who isn't already part of a narrow ideological base would mean zero chance of any libertarian reforms. We already lost two decades of opportunities to reform entitlements or taxes or business regulations thanks to Clinton, Bush and Obama.; 3/30/15, 6:46 PM
Bob R said...: He'll make a good
Attorney General in the Walker administration.; 3/30/15, 7:03 PM
John henry said...: I love Cruz and think he would make a great president. He says what I think.

What I can't get past is his being born outside of the US. He may or may not be a "natural born citizen" which may or may not be the same as being a "citizen at birth" (which he indisputably is.)

But we have a 200+ year history of never having a president, or even a major party candidate who was born outside of the US. Other than McCain.

Why start now?

Goldwater was not born in a state but was born in a territory and thus born in the United States.

John Henry; 3/30/15, 7:13 PM
richard mcenroe said...: McCullough, how many cases did Obama argue before the Supreme Court?; 3/30/15, 7:33 PM
Moneyrunner said...: I’m rather surprised that Obama supporters (or Cruz opponents, almost the same thing) are citing the need to bring people together, to forge a consensus. That’s an admission that Obama is divisive, when he was billed as the man who could bring the races, the cultures and the parties together. Isn’t that right, Ann? Admit it, that’s who you voted for: the uniter. That’s why you were so spectacularly wrong. That’s what people who took note of his friends, his minister, his book saw clearly; he’s a radical ideologue. But is a radical ideologue a bad thing? What was Abraham Lincoln, the man whose election was the spark that started the Civil War? Was that war a good thing? Certainly not, but was it necessary to end slavery? Why don’t we ask a Madison law professor?; 3/30/15, 7:52 PM
lemondog said...: The Press

He is a master of self-control. He evinced not a shudder or wince when compared to Obama.

His personal story is compelling as is his passion for the constitution but he is too conservative. Drop the social issues and concentrate on fiscal, economic issues and foreign affairs.; 3/30/15, 7:57 PM
Michael K said...: "one candidate on the right who is vocally adroit enough to present a credible case for the conservative viewpoint. "

This is a significant point. I haven't watched that clip. I guess I will.; 3/30/15, 8:01 PM
mccullough said...: Obama should never have been elected President. That's the point. Cruz is a an arrogant inexperienced fool like Obama. He is 5-4 in arguing cases before the Supreme Court, for those who think this is a qualification for President and not an indication that being a good appellate lawyer has absolutely nothing to do with being President.

And Cruz wife works for Goldman Sachs, another corporate welfare beneficiary.

I do have to say I'm super impressed Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship. Such a profile in courage. He was also a great debater at Princeton. I'm sure Putin fears Cruz.; 3/30/15, 8:25 PM
richard mcenroe said...: If I didn't consider Peter King a mendacious d-bag of the highest capacity, I would re-examine any belief I held he claimed to share.

I wouldn't likely change the belief, but it might help me figure out what kind of cheap hustle he's trying to run this time.; 3/30/15, 8:48 PM
richard mcenroe said...: McCullough, do you have the slightest idea how much work goes into arguing a case before the SCOTUS. Do you know how much work you have to do just to even get to the point where you can start?

Please. You're just embarrassing yourself now.; 3/30/15, 8:50 PM
richard mcenroe said...: Walker-Cruz, Cruz-Walker...I could vote for either one with a clean conscience. Let's just hope the DC GOP doesn't dick it up.; 3/30/15, 8:52 PM
RecChief said...: who is the talking head trying to submarine Ted?

Democrat Operative with a microphone; 3/30/15, 11:08 PM
mccullough said...: Richard McEnroe,

He's running for President. What about arguing Supreme Court cases has anything to do with being president? I think Nixon argued a case before the Supreme Court.

You are embarrassing yourself. You think a blowhard with no relevant experience should be President based on words. Talk is cheap and you are an easy date. Did you vote for Obama too because he talks so pretty?

Vote for the blowhard Cannuck who went to Princeton! He's a great debater! He makes me feel good about myself!; 3/30/15, 11:42 PM
mccullough said...: By the way, Richard McEnroe, John Roberts is considered the best Sureme Court advocate of the last 30 years. So you should be pushing him for President based on your swooning. He's also better looking than Cruz and has a personality. So Roberts is your guy.; 3/30/15, 11:46 PM
mccullough said...: Cruz is against crony capitalism except when his wife rakes in money working for the biggest one.

But Cruz loves country music. And he's a great debater.; 3/30/15, 11:50 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm not sure what experience people think is needed in order to be President of the United States.

The most relevant experience I can think of would be military service, because you're going to be commander in chief. But then, military service doesn't prepare you for all the other duties our President currently performs.

Maybe it's better to be a good manager of people. This way, you don't have to be a good Commander in Chief, you put good military personnel in the right positions and they will make you a good Commander in Chief.

Maybe it's better to be a good manager of people for other areas as well. This way, you don't have a to be a good economic mind, hire Thomas Sowell or someone like him.

You don't have to know everything about Immigration, hire the right people, put them in the right places.

So, being a good manager of people is important to being a good President.

But what's more important than that? Ideology.

Because Barrack Obama is a terrible manager of people, but he's still doing a damn good job of shoving his ideology down our throats.

I'll take Cruz, thank you very much.; 3/31/15, 12:33 AM
Mick said...: Cruz is exactly like the Usurper Obama. Both were born with allegiance and citizenship to a foreign nation---- admittedly.

Obama admitted to being born British, of a British subject father (and probably is STILL British to this day).

Cruz admitted to being born Canadian, and recently renounced that citizenship.

Both are not eligible natural born Citizens, a requirement that forbids foreign influence and allegiance at birth (that's the purpose--- see Federalist 68).

Cruz is thus protecting Obama and helping the NWO bankers (his wife is a Goldman Sachs exec.) cement the illegal precedent of one being born with foreign citizenship and serving as POTUS.

There is no "United States" or "Constitution" when the executor of the laws is an illegal entity.

If course the "law prof" (I use the term loosely, since a "Con law prof" could never vote for a non eligible POTUS, could she?) sees one eligible who is "born a citizen", which could be a naturalized citizen.

I am guessing that since she is a "law prof" she knows both are not eligible, but is too much of a coward to discuss this important Constitutional question on a "law blog". She is too afraid of the "birther" label.

Both Cruz and Obama cannot be considered a "child of our own",(See Federalist 68) since they were born of foreign fathers ("improper ascendants"-- See Federalist 68), but the US adopted them at birth by Congressional statute, since they were born to US Citizen mothers and were "subject to the jurisdiction of the US". They were naturalized by 8 US code 1401 (1), "and have all the rights of a native, but only the natural born are eligible for POTUS." (See Schneider v. Rusk). They have all the rights of the "natural born child of a citizen" (See Wong Kim Ark @ 693).

There is no "Right" to be POTUS, one must be eligible. A2S1C5 is a self executing Constitutional provision--- no law or statute is necessary to enforce it (See 3 US Code 19 (e)), yet the complicit judiciary plays praetorian guard with "standing".

Millions (but not the "law prof"-- go figure) are aware of the Usurper Obama's ineligibility, and he has acted in bad faith by hiding all past records--- so his presidency cannot be considered "precedent". He is a criminal, and Cruz and Rubio are traitors by protecting him.; 3/31/15, 4:15 AM
Mick said...: "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners". Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1894)

That is US Law. Whatever Kayatal (who is the Usurper's Solicitor General-- go figure) and Harvard Law, and the CRS say is NOT US LAW. It is an opinion, and as wrong as the "law prof's" opinion.

The Original Common Law--- law of nations (see Sosa v. Alvarez, quoting the Nereid)explicitly defines natural born Citizen as one born in a country to parents who are its citizens (See Vattel, Law of Nations, Bk 1 Ch. 212).

Minor v. Happersett was citing law of nations. The "Common Law" could not be British Common Law, since BCL makes no distinction for the birth parents in who is a natural born SUBJECT. That definition was repeated by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark in 1898.

It is obvious that Cruz is not eligible, and neither is Rubio. Both are traitors. Do you think it's a coincidence that so many seeking the office are not natural born?; 3/31/15, 4:29 AM
MadisonMan said...: As sure as the sun will rise in the east....; 3/31/15, 6:51 AM
Brando said...: "So, being a good manager of people is important to being a good President.

But what's more important than that? Ideology."

Really? So if someone agrees with you on the issues, but cannot lead, manage or actually accomplish anything, you're fine with that?

I'm not even saying Cruz can't do those things--only that he hasn't shown any indication that he can and in fact has burned enough bridges among conservatives that this indicates he would not be able to get anything done. I don't care that the Left hates him--they'll hate anyone the GOP nominates. But a GOP president is going to have to unite the Right, and pull in enough moderates to actually get some things done or prevent awful things from getting done.

Ideology is important, of course, but more important is judgment, temperament, leadership ability, and general intelligence. A good leader needs to appoint good people, and know when to listen and when to disagree. Obama has proven himself poor at these things, and his failings are as bad for the Left as for the Right (if you know anyone on the Left who isn't a total hack (Krugman) and still thinks Obama was great for their side, you found a rare gem).; 3/31/15, 7:23 AM
Brando said...: "I’m rather surprised that Obama supporters (or Cruz opponents, almost the same thing) are citing the need to bring people together, to forge a consensus. That’s an admission that Obama is divisive, when he was billed as the man who could bring the races, the cultures and the parties together."

First, not all of us skeptical (or critical) of Cruz are Obama lovers, and that's Cruz's challenge--his first obstacle is winning over the coalition of the Right (he'll never be the darling of MSNBC nor does he need to be). Second, yes Obama is divisive--even by objective measures (Washington Post notes this based on polling) he is the most polarizing in recent history. He did promise to be a uniter in 2008, and he had an opportunity to be once he was elected. Instead, he now has at least half the country not just opposed to him but contemptuous of him.

The Left blames this on the GOP--pointing to McConnell's quote about wanting to make Obama a one-termer, and saying that the birthers demonstrate a disrespect never seen before--and the Right of course blames the Dems for ramming the stimulus and ACA through with the assumption that the minority party (then the GOP) is irrelevant and they were the New Deal redux.

I doubt any candidate of either party these days can "unite" both sides, as the poles are too bitterly opposed for that. But to win, and then get anything done once in office, the next president is going to have to unite their own side, and peel away just enough moderates to pass things. A strategy of "find all these hidden ideologues who keep sitting out elections and get them to vote" is not going to cut it--you think the lower turnout Left isn't going to be dragged to the polls to vote for Hillary if Cruz is on the ballot? Or that some moderates, disgusted by polarizing choices, may not go third party and stay home themselves, balancing out the new voters on the Right?

And once in office, President Cruz would still need to get 51 (or 61, if filibusters are still around) Senators and 218 congressmen on his side. The ones in the middle will be key.; 3/31/15, 7:35 AM
Kyzer SoSay said...: McCullough took a Wrong pill this morning and chased it with a shot of Asshole. Geez, what a troll, and totally incapable of making a point that can be agreed with by anyone with an ounce of sense.; 3/31/15, 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Cruz has burned bridges with conservatives?

Uh, no.

Republicans? Of course. And he ought to keep it up.

But we conservatives love what Cruz is doing.; 3/31/15, 10:34 AM
Mick said...: eric said...
"Cruz has burned bridges with conservatives?
Uh, no.
Republicans? Of course. And he ought to keep it up.
But we conservatives love what Cruz is doing."

Ah, another "R" team member that is just as bad as the "D" team. You are not a "conservative" if you do not respect the Constitution. Cruz was naturalized at birth, and is not a natural born Citizen, and not eligible.

Divide and Conquer.Tha is what political parties are about.; 3/31/15, 10:38 AM
Pianoman said...: Fen's Law.; 3/31/15, 10:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Mick, we get it, we have read your interpretation of the Constitution. We disagree.

You don't have to keep writing the same things over and over again.

Cruz was born a US Citizen, which makes him a natural born US Citizen.

I get that you disagree with that. Now you need to get we disagree with you and move on.; 3/31/15, 11:06 AM
Mick said...: Eric said,
"Cruz was born a US Citizen, which makes him a natural born US Citizen".

Says which SCOTUS? WHERE does SCOTUS holding say "born a Citizen" = nbC?
SCOTUS already defined nbC:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners". Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1894)

"Born a Citizen" could be a naturalized citizen, as Cruz was. "Born a Citizen" was the wording suggested by A. Hamilton at the Constitutional Convention, and was rejected in favor of nbC.

It's really a farce that a "law blog" doesn't know this. All of you relativist idiots, and those like you, are responsible for the end of the Republic.; 3/31/15, 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Mick,

Seriously? I said we get it. We disagree with you. With your interpretation of what is being said.; 3/31/15, 12:21 PM
Mick said...: eric said...
Mick,

"Seriously? I said we get it. We disagree with you. With your interpretation of what is being said".

Yes seriously, your attitude, and that of the "law prof" (what a joke) is why the Republic has been allowed to be overthrown. You nor she has ever justified why "born a citizen" = nbC, or why the holding of M v. H does not apply.

What you suggest is against all rules of statutory construction:

That all words in a statute have separate and distinct meaning (Citizen cannot mean natural born Citizen).

That the usage of a term of art in a statutory scheme adopts the entire body of knowledge from whence it came (nbC is a term of art of the Original Common Law-- law of nations, which explicitly defines nbC as one born in a country of parents whom are it's citizens (just like M v. H).

That the meaning of a statute is well informed by it's regulatory purpose. The purpose of nbC req. is prevention of foreign influence, so it is impossible to think that a nbC is born of a foreign parent.

To name a few. I really hope you are not a lawyer, because I just destroyed your "opinion". Constitutional Relativism is the death of the Republic; 3/31/15, 1:16 PM
Bilwick said...: Re "Il Dufe's" pre-POTUS resume, I love Gred Gutfeld's line that "community organizer," in terms of its usefulness to society, is about on the level of selling celebrity toenail clippings on E-Bay.; 3/31/15, 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick,

Let's agree that you've destroyed my opinion and my argument.

Well done.

Now, please don't bring this up again in every thread about Ted Cruz. You don't have to, you've won.; 3/31/15, 3:30 PM
John henry said...: Mick and I disagree about the meaning of "Natural Born". I don't think it requires being exclusively under jurisdiction of the US. I think that Obama, born in HI, regardless of who his father and mother are is natural born.

I've read research from various knowledgable people that say it requires birth in the US and others who say that it only requires citizenship at birth.

What I do know is that we have 200+ years of precedent. We've never had a president born out of the US. Why start now?

I think it opens up the possibility of too much mischief. What happens if, in Oct 2016, the SC or any other court rules that Cruz is not Natural Born?

What happens to laws that he signs? Can I say that he is not Constitutionally qualified to be prez and the laws are invalid? That would eventually require a SC decision. What happens if in 2018 Cruz is ruled unqualified, to all the laws passed in the interim. Wouldn't they all be illegal?

We never needed a 2 term amendment until FDR because everyone respected custom and precedent.

I hope Cruz will respect custom and precedent.

And I am a huge Cruz fan.

John Henry; 3/31/15, 3:35 PM
John henry said...: I don't want Cruz to drop out, not now at least. Let him stay in the race until just before the convention. He can run interference, draw fire and savage the assholes in the press.

Then, at the last moment, he can say "Due to precedent, I am withdrawing. I recommend all my supporters and donors shift their support to Rand Paul"

I am not making a prediction, just saying what I would like to see.

John Henry; 3/31/15, 3:37 PM
hombre said...: CNN medicine can't just ask questions of conservatives they have to debate them. Not a great tactic with Cruz.; 3/31/15, 3:38 PM
hombre said...: The back bench comment was about leadership. Dana was too stupid or biased for that to register.

Leadership is the deal. Nobody has the experience to be POTUS. Ideas and leadership are what count.; 3/31/15, 3:45 PM
hombre said...: @At 3:38: "medicine" should be "mediaswine."

I can use it 1000 times and predictive text doesn't get it.; 3/31/15, 3:48 PM
Mick said...: eric said...
"Mick,

Let's agree that you've destroyed my opinion and my argument.

Well done.

Now, please don't bring this up again in every thread about Ted Cruz. You don't have to, you've won".

You can prove nothing, and you know nothing. No amount of proof will convince you, and "law prof" and others here that you are aiding and abetting the enemies of the Republic. You don't care that the Republic has been ended by the Usurpation of the Presidency. I will continue for the benefit of those not hypnotized.; 4/1/15, 5:20 AM
Mick said...: John said...
"Mick and I disagree about the meaning of "Natural Born". I don't think it requires being exclusively under jurisdiction of the US. I think that Obama, born in HI, regardless of who his father and mother are is natural born".

SAYS WHO?? Your opinion means nothing. Disprove this:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners". Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167 (1894)

So you think that Mexican nationals can crawl across the border, spit a child out on American soil, and that kid is a natural born Citizen? It is beyond irrational and stupid. There is no such thing as birthright citizenship in the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment has been used by enemies of the Republic to undermine it for 150 years.

Birthright citizenship is KIDNAPPING and creates all sorts of ills and illogical situations, like birth tourism and situations where a child is a US Citizen and parents are illegal aliens.

Of course no amount of logic and truth will convince the enemies of the republic or the hypnotized or the brainwashed or the just plain stupid.; 4/1/15, 5:32 AM
Mick said...: John said,
"What I do know is that we have 200+ years of precedent. We've never had a president born out of the US. Why start now?"

Again you are wrong (so what else is new). The earliest Presidents were not born in America they were grandfathered in by "or a citizen at the time of the ratification..."

All of the others were NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, except 2, Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. Both of them acted in bad faith and hid everything about their birth situation and past. Fraud is not precedent.; 4/1/15, 5:37 AM