It’s official: Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is running for President in 2016. He made the announcement on his Twitter account:

The tweet included a short 30 second video with Cruz narrating, saying that it was “a time for truth, a time to rise to the challenge, just as Americans have always done.”

“I believe in America and her people, and I believe we can stand up and restore her promise,” Cruz continues. “It’s going to take a new generation of courageous conservatives to help make America great again, and I’m ready to stand with you to lead the fight.”

As Breitbart Texas reported, Cruz teased the news with a tweet posted just after 7:00 p.m. Central Time, writing that around midnight — presumably Eastern Time — “there will be some news you won’t want to miss.” The Senator also made a similar comment in his appearance on the Breitbart News Sunday program on SiriusXM Patriot.

This makes Cruz the first Republican candidate to throw his hat in the ring. As Breitbart Texas reported, Cruz opted to go ahead and officially launch a presidential campaign, rather than continue to promote his activities through his leadership PAC or through an exploratory committee. Senior advisers close to Cruz had told the Houston Chronicle that the Senator was done “exploring” and wanted to get the campaign officially started.

read more:

Views: 2181

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Trust me LBF, you can't win. 

Oren, this guy destroyed one of the other forums simply for accepting no other opinions and that his were the rule of law.  Of course he is not any constitutional professor nor lawyer but boy does he know his s--t.

I did not anywhere offer my own "opinion", but rather provided argument supported by fact, as I did with Oren above. I also have not "destroyed" anything, much less a "forum". I have only disagreed with your unfounded opinion. Horrors.

Opinions are great; everyone has them. Yet informed opinions based on recognized fact are far more relevant.

You however seem to imagine your repeatedly offered opinion of me personally is somehow relevant,and none should contract your opinions with even supported argument. You are apparently unwilling to recognize that your comments about me personally, ad hominem attack, are not proper discussion on this forum.

Incidentally, Lawyers are trained to represent their client's interests under the terms of the law, and constitutional professors teach that law to future lawyers. However we're quite fortunate that neither is necessary in these considerations.

TJ , It is not all debatable since you have your own library of facts.

Nope, I don't even use my own facts. I use facts that are publicly available.

However those who argue for Cruz's  eligibility do so cherry-picking facts, while ignoring those that profoundly conflict with their prejudicial self-serving opinions. 

An example of this are the claims that Cruz is eligible using the terms of naturalization law, making the presumption that  Congress has an authority to create a natural born citizen by law, when natural born citizen is never even indicated by those naturalization laws, and Congress has no such authority since the phrase falls outside of any statutory authority, even by definition.

Tonight I've actually been having a discussion with lawyers regarding evidence from the founders themselves, showing their deliberate refusal to have natural born citizen be altered under Congress' statutory authority.

You however are an admitted partisan, with little evident regard for Constitution or Country, so I don't expect any of this to trouble you.

I hope that you can find someone who will accept your BS, maybe the col. can show up and you and he can screw up everything. Or, maybe Dee will start following your post, I hope she will have more patience than I. 

I can cite numerous attorneys, and even Supreme Court Justices, and long-established Supreme Court opinions, all of which  support my argument.

One such attorney wrote:

"How does someone who is a 'citizen of the United States' under the Fourteenth Amendment, which was passed in 1868, automatically converted into an Article II 'natural born Citizen' without showing that the person in fact meets the definition of a 'natural born Citizen' upon which the Founders and Framers relied when they wrote the clause into the Constitution in 1787?  Again, the Fourteenth Amendment says "citizen of the United States," not "natural born Citizen." Furthermore, Minor said that the amendment does not define a 'natural born Citizen'."

I am guessing all of this is way beyond you, given that you're so preoccupied making idols and chasing elections.

Incidentally, Is there some reason Dee's approval should matter?  Is Dee one of your esteemed lawyers, are you making an appeal to some other authority? 

You're only debating yourself, no else is paying any attention. 

I see that. You're doing a great job not paying attention, once again looking silly by your own words.

Incidentally, I don't debate.

It is interesting how many believe that if you take a horse to water, you can make it drink! Who said you can't teach a old dog new tricks. My point, make your point and let others make theirs.

Or a rendition of that, 

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him  *think* " ...

... or regard the Constitution.

Nonetheless, more than one person has learned from this discussion, and adapted their views.

TJ - YOUR "FACTS" NEED  an overhaul !  The Founders are much more wiser then you are and they rejected what you present . your slant  on things is the same slant Hitler had and Lincoln had and the OWG has.




Political Cartoons by Chip BokPolitical Cartoons by Al Goodwyn

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

C o r o n a V i r u s

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service