Of all the words of tongue and pen, perhaps the saddest are these: It might have been.
Talk radio host Laura Ingraham on Thursday mourned the brutal primary battle between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, wishing the two Republican front-runners had concentrated their fire on a common enemy.
“I had this idealistic vision, that Trump and Ted would work together until the establishment was truly killed off,” said Ingraham. “And so neither one would attack one another and it would be détente. It would be like China and the United States working together in the 1970s until the Soviet Union collapsed.”
Ingraham made the comments in an interview with Pastor Rafael Cruz, father of Ted Cruz and a critical part of his senator son’s campaign efforts in evangelical-heavy Iowa.
LAURA INGRAHAM: Is your son closer to Rubio in policy or Trump in policy?
RAFAEL CRUZ: I really do not want to get involved in making comparisons. The American people need to make their own judgment upon — based upon who reflects the values that they believe.
INGRAHAM: Well, I think he’s closer to Trump than he is to Rubio. I have this idealistic vision, Pastor Cruz, that Trump and Ted would work together. Until the establishment was truly killed off, that they’d work together, and so neither one would attack one another and it would be detente until — it would be like China and the United States working together in the ’70s until the Soviet Union collapsed. And I’m not saying who’s the Soviet Union and who’s the United States in that comparison but I wanted them both to work together but no one listens to me. I wanted the establishment to be killed off.
Not only kill the Dem and Repub establishment but kill the dinosaur media as well! How about a 'clean sweep'
I stand with Steve's solution!!!!!!
YES !!!!! The GOP establishment is a betrayal to us, they are worse than the communist dems. At least the dems say what they want, the GOP lies, lies, and more lies !
No Trump can do it without Cruz.
That's right Debra, by the real Constitution cruz is ineligible but won't admit it.
You stole the words right out of my mouth Ed
Have you ever read the entire Happersett Decision. It DOES NOT define NBC status.
As for a foreign book written by a foreign author in a foreign language in a foreign country about foreign laws concerning foreign sovereigns, I'll stick with British jurist Blackstone.
You might want to look closely at the Supreme Court holding in the Minor case.
First the syllabus for Minor states: "1. The word "citizen" is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation. 2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since." These are direct holdings of the case.
Before addressing the issue of whether citizens have the right to vote, the Supreme Court stated their holding as to the citizenship of Mrs. Minor: "Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that 'No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President'.... "
"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."
The Court clearly defined "natural born citizen" by two independent statements: "...all children born in a country of parents who were it citizens became themselves , upon their birth, citizens also." "These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Since the Minor holding in 1875 there have been at least six additional SC cases that use the same or very similar wording to describe/define the term "natural born citizen. A good example is Perkins v. Elg (1939) which defined the term as: "a natural born citizen is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents and born in the mainland of U.S."
In fact the Supreme Court of the U.S. has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than "those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof."
There are also a number of Supreme Court cases which address the citizenship status of individuals in situations similar to Senator Cruz. A good example is the 1971 case Rogers.v Bellei. Bellei was born in Italy to an Italian citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. Justices for both the majority and minority opinions agreed that Bellei was a naturalized U.S. citizen.
I suggest that the idea that the term "natural born citizen" has never been defined by the framers or the Supreme Court is pure bunk!
Anna, thanks for the info.
I recall studying the Constitution in grade school, long before it became 'politically correct' for anyone to decipher, change it for their own egotistical satisfaction whether politician or comment.
I have first hand experience in this 'birther' matter. My 1st cousin is a dual citizen holder because of being born from my aunt & uncle outside the continental borders of the USA.
Being curios,I looked it up way back then.