# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  What Has Ted Cruz Done

## Karl

Well the media spins Ted Cruz as some radical and asks what he has DONE

Well Ted Cruz Has STOOD UP to OBAMA and was willing to shut the Government down in 2013 over OBAMACARE

TED Cruz has STOOD AGAINST OBAMA and that is what he has DONE so far

but if you belive in Liberty and Constitutional Law and stand against ObamaCare well you are a EXTREMIST and a Kook

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

One must wonder why they have never asked that about Obamalini or Hitlery

----------

Conservative Libertarian (03-27-2015),Foghorn (03-26-2015),JustPassinThru (03-30-2015),Old Ridge Runner (03-26-2015)

----------


## Beevee

LOL. He stood up to Obama and that warrants a shot at the presidency?

In that case, all you GOP supporters here should also put your names forward. You will stand about as much chance as Cruz in achieving it.

----------


## Mainecoons

He's a foreign military misadventurist.  That is sufficient to disqualify him as far as I'm concerned.

Walker is the only one in the entire bunch I can support.

----------


## Katzndogz

As a constitutional lawyer he represented clients before the Supreme Court.  Because of his expertise he was the youngest solicitor general in history.

----------

Coolwalker (03-27-2015)

----------


## NaturalBorn

Compared to Obozo's resume', Ted Cruz is a giant!

----------

Conservative Libertarian (03-27-2015),East of the Beast (03-25-2015),Mainecoons (03-25-2015),Old Ridge Runner (03-26-2015)

----------


## RMNIXON

> LOL. He stood up to Obama and that warrants a shot at the presidency?
> 
> In that case, all you GOP supporters here should also put your names forward. You will stand about as much chance as Cruz in achieving it.



SLH thinks he is the Steven Colbert of the Forum. 

He is fooling very few.  :Slap2:

----------

Conservative Libertarian (03-27-2015)

----------


## Sled Dog

> LOL. He stood up to Obama and that warrants a shot at the presidency?.


Yes.

It means he's an American, unlike all those idiots that defend Obama or were stupid enough to vote for him.

----------

birddog (03-26-2015),Conservative Libertarian (03-27-2015),Old Ridge Runner (03-26-2015)

----------


## Sled Dog

> He's a foreign military misadventurist.  That is sufficient to disqualify him as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> Walker is the only one in the entire bunch I can support.


Cruz openly stated, to Iowa, that the ethanol game is a tax-wasting boondoggle....to the people raking in the cash.

Walker fired his campaign manager who opposed the ethanol game.

Ergo, Cruz is more qualified to be President.

Cruz is opposed to the invasion of the United States, and opposes amnesty.

Walker has in the past been pro-amnesty and has not made convincing motions that he's grown up on the issue.

Ergo, Cruz is more qualified to be President.

----------

birddog (03-26-2015),Conservative Libertarian (03-27-2015),Jim Scott (03-29-2015),Old Ridge Runner (03-26-2015)

----------


## Foghorn

It doesn't matter what Ted Cruz has done because he's sooooooooooooo smart.

And if you criticize him I'll call you a racist.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (03-27-2015),Dr. Felix Birdbiter (03-26-2015),GreenEyedLady (03-27-2015),Karl (03-26-2015),NC_Conservative (03-26-2015),Old Ridge Runner (03-26-2015)

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Let me help you out here.  You desperately need the help.
> 
> Citing laws would look like this:
> 
> A U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization INA 301 (8 U.S.C. 1401), INA 310 (8 U.S.C. 1421) or a U.S. noncitizen national INA 308 (8 U.S.C. 1408), INA 101(29) (8 U.S.C. 1101(29))
> Here you can find more.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8
> 
> ...



You still can bring yourself to answer a few simple questions.  I get it, it would deflate your attempt at rational debate.

----------


## NaturalBorn

So they do not get lost in the thread:

_Question #1 Natural-rights granted by Congress? Yes/No_

_Question #2 List the terms which ARE defined in the U.S. Constitution._

_Question #3 What is the difference between a natural-born citizen and a citizen? Be specific._

_Question #4 Was there any exception in the U.S.C. for president?_

_Question #5 Who could be eligible for president at the time of the signing of the U.S.C. without any exception?_

_Question #6 Where in the Naturalization Act you quoted is the term natural-born citizen?_

----------


## Jeff0463

I haven't followed this thread closely so maybe I have overlooked it, but will his place of birth be an issue if he runs for President?  Does a Veep
also have the same requirement?

----------


## NaturalBorn

> I haven't followed this thread closely so maybe I have overlooked it, but will his place of birth be an issue if he runs for President?  Does a Veep
> also have the same requirement?



Since the Veep is a heartbeat away from president, it likely applies to him, although there is no specific mention of VP and NBC, since VP is not CinC.  Good question

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I can quote the U.S. Constitution if you like.  But, as has been pointed out, the definition of natural-born citizen must be had elsewhere.  It was never doubted that a child born in the U.S. of citizen parents is a natural born citizen, according to a U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.
> 
> EVERY other classification of U.S. citizen requires U.S. law to grant citizenship.


EVERY classification of "citizen" requires U.S. law to so grant.

"Citizenship" is a legal construct.  A nation decides, whichever way it does, who meets the qualification of "citizen" - if anyone does.

In Medieval Europe, the commoners were "subjects."  They enjoyed no liberties - only duties and burdens placed on them by the Sovereign. 

It was pretty straightforward, the difference between persons born into American citizenship and those who apply for citizenship while nationals of another nation-state...used to be; until the mealy-mouthed sophists who want to show how CLEVER they are with WORDS, got into this.

I used to come up against this crap all the time on another site.  Some claim that a Birf Certificate is title to your body under Admiralty Law, with the documents kept under the throne of the Queen of England.  So the answer is to not report any births.  

Or that there's a Sekrut Document that gives you claim to your land, free of government control; if you just file for it a certain way...demanding a Fee Simple document, which I guess is just handed out if you know the secret passwords.

ALL...THAT...ROT.  And it's all nonsense, a bunch of moronic dweebs trying to show each other how smart they are.  This is the same; what you assert (what you've probably read) has no foundation in law or court rulings.

----------


## NaturalBorn

Since we are not discussing the period 800 A.D. thru 12 A.D. +/- but current (relatively) Laws of Nations as they relate to classifications of citizens and the purpose for those classifications which are important to any nation. As I have shown earlier, the new nation, the U.S.A., shucked their monarchy and were then tasked with creating a new government model.  This model was not just for the 18th Century, but was, as hoped, to be a confederation of nation/states where the citizens were sovereign not a family dynasty ruled by a monarchy or oligarchy.  

To preserve the unique government model required an armed militia to defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic.  It is common sense that this armed militia should never be commanded by any but one who has total allegiance to this nation and never devolve to any but a natural-born citizen.  This classification of citizen was the highest and strictest class of citizen, loyal only to this nation.  All other classifications of citizen will be those of divided fidelity.  How could any persons born with dual-citizenship (or triple) be permitted to hold the nuclear button and command of all military forces.  We are experiencing today, the result of a CinC who has divided loyalties. The military has been weakened and reduced in troop strength, readiness, naval forces, funding, etc.  This can not be repaired by electing another person with divided loyalty even if a bad precedent has been set.

----------


## reason10

> Well the media spins Ted Cruz as some radical and asks what he has DONE
> 
> Well Ted Cruz Has STOOD UP to OBAMA and was willing to shut the Government down in 2013 over OBAMACARE
> 
> TED Cruz has STOOD AGAINST OBAMA and that is what he has DONE so far
> 
> but if you belive in Liberty and Constitutional Law and stand against ObamaCare well you are a EXTREMIST and a Kook


Probably the Senator's greatest accomplishment to date (at least politically) is the fact that he has refused to cower before the left wing media's attacks on him. He has been smarter than his left wing attackers. He has given it right back to them. 

That already makes him a better leader than anyone in the Democrat camp.

----------


## Dan40

> Since we are not discussing the period 800 A.D. thru 12 A.D. +/- but current (relatively) Laws of Nations as they relate to classifications of citizens and the purpose for those classifications which are important to any nation. As I have shown earlier, the new nation, the U.S.A., shucked their monarchy and were then tasked with creating a new government model.  This model was not just for the 18th Century, but was, as hoped, to be a confederation of nation/states where the citizens were sovereign not a family dynasty ruled by a monarchy or oligarchy.  
> 
> To preserve the unique government model required an armed militia to defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic.  It is common sense that this armed militia should never be commanded by any but one who has total allegiance to this nation and never devolve to any but a natural-born citizen.  This classification of citizen was the highest and strictest class of citizen, loyal only to this nation.  All other classifications of citizen will be those of divided fidelity.  How could any persons born with dual-citizenship (or triple) be permitted to hold the nuclear button and command of all military forces.  We are experiencing today, the result of a CinC who has divided loyalties. The military has been weakened and reduced in troop strength, readiness, naval forces, funding, etc.  This can not be repaired by electing another person with divided loyalty even if a bad precedent has been set.


You are obsessed with "THE CONSTITUTION," and refuse to even acknowledge current laws.

And you demand answers to inane questions that have no bearing on anything.  And you will only accept that a question has been answered if you agree with the answer.  For example, natural rights.  I answered that natural rights are a fiction.  MIGHT is the only 'natural right.'  Here in the USA, WE have legislated some 'natural rights.'  And of late we have also legislated some completely UNNATURAL rights too.

Your obsession of "THE CONSTITUTION" vs current law.

WHICH Constitution is the object of your obsession?

The 1788 one with no Amendments?

[*amendment*
a. The process of formally altering or adding to a document or record.
b. A statement of such an alteration or addition]

Or the 1791 Constitution with 10 Amendments ADDED. (rights specifically GRANTED by the Constitution)

Or are you obsessed with some later version of the Constitution with 15 amendments?  Or with 20, or with 25, or with 27.  Or with some of the more than 100 constitutional Amendments PROPOSED every year?

From the ratification of the ORIGINAL Constitution, until say 1950, city, county, state, and federal govts passed thousands of laws each year. 90% or more of those seemingly complied with the Constitution.  At least the Constitution as it was written to that date.  Since 1950 those various governments have passed about 50,000 LAWS each year [65 years] AND those same governments have passed about the same number of regulations each year.  That is 6,500,000 laws and regulations you choose to reject as non-existent.  Just since 1950.

That the Constitution CONSTANTLY undergoes changes is a FACT.  I am not saying that is GOOD, I'm not saying that is BAD.  I'm saying it IS a FACT that you have to realize.

How would life in the USA be under the original Constitution?  Nobody alive can say since no one alive has ever experienced that.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> You are obsessed with "THE CONSTITUTION," and refuse to even acknowledge current laws.
> 
> And you demand answers to inane questions that have no bearing on anything.  And you will only accept that a question has been answered if you agree with the answer.  For example, natural rights.  I answered that natural rights are a fiction.  MIGHT is the only 'natural right.'  Here in the USA, WE have legislated some 'natural rights.'  And of late we have also legislated some completely UNNATURAL rights too.
> 
> Your obsession of "THE CONSTITUTION" vs current law.
> 
> WHICH Constitution is the object of your obsession?
> 
> The 1788 one with no Amendments?
> ...


The Constitution spelled out the general structure.

Specifics were left to the legislators.

There were only a few ironclad absolutes given, mostly listed in the Bill of Rights and following Amendments.  One was the requirement that the President be someone who was born a citizen, or was a citizen of the new Republic at the time of adoption of the Constitution.

Born a citizen.  Not born elsewhere and having petitioned the government to be made a citizen (Naturalization)

NOWHERE does the Constitution spell out the minutia of what qualifies someone to be a citizen.  That is left to the Congress.  What the Constitution states is that whatever test or criterion is set, the President must meet it and must have met it upon birth.

I cannot believe we're arguing about this.  We might as well fight over whether the sun will set in the West.

----------


## Dan40

> The Constitution spelled out the general structure.
> 
> Specifics were left to the legislators.
> 
> There were only a few ironclad absolutes given, mostly listed in the Bill of Rights and following Amendments.  One was the requirement that the President be someone who was born a citizen, or was a citizen of the new Republic at the time of adoption of the Constitution.
> 
> Born a citizen.  Not born elsewhere and having petitioned the government to be made a citizen (Naturalization)
> 
> NOWHERE does the Constitution spell out the minutia of what qualifies someone to be a citizen.  That is left to the Congress.  What the Constitution states is that whatever test or criterion is set, the President must meet it and must have met it upon birth.
> ...


Well if you travel west far enough you end up in the east.  Except for the 3rd Tuesday of the 4th month, and right after Happy Hour.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> The Constitution spelled out the general structure.
> 
> Specifics were left to the legislators.
> 
> There were only a few ironclad absolutes given, mostly listed in the Bill of Rights and following Amendments.  One was the requirement that the President be someone who was born a citizen, or was a citizen of the new Republic at the time of adoption of the Constitution.
> 
> Born a citizen.  Not born elsewhere and having petitioned the government to be made a citizen (Naturalization)
> 
> NOWHERE does the Constitution spell out the minutia of what qualifies someone to be a citizen.  That is left to the Congress.  What the Constitution states is that whatever test or criterion is set, the President must meet it and must have met it upon birth.
> ...





Sometimes it will set in the Southwest

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Well if you travel west far enough you end up in the east.  Except for the 3rd Tuesday of the 4th month, and right after Happy Hour.


How far is the East from the West?.  If I were out to sea in the Atlantic and watched the sun set it would set toward New York City.  Now we all know New York City is an Eastern Seaboard city so how can we say the sun will always set in the West?

----------


## Dan40

> How far is the East from the West?.  If I were out to sea in the Atlantic and watched the sun set it would set toward New York City.  Now we all know New York City is an Eastern Seaboard city so how can we say the sun will always set in the West?


"The sun will always set in the West."

"The sun will always set in the South."

"The sun will always set in Mingo Junction."

Like that, it is not so hard.






That's what she said.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> "The sun will always set in the West."
> 
> "The sun will always set in the South."
> 
> "The sun will always set in Mingo Junction."
> 
> Like that, it is not so hard.
> 
> 
> ...


The sun is never SEEN in Mingo Junction

I know.   In my early railroad career, I took trains in and out of there.  A more benighted hellhole one cannot imagine...unless you go a few miles south to Steubenville, which is far worse.

Good to see you've escaped it.

----------


## NaturalBorn

Obsessed with the Constitution?

Rights are granted by Congress?

I guess that settles it, we're fucked.

----------


## old wood

> Well the media spins Ted Cruz as some radical and asks what he has DONE
> 
> Well Ted Cruz Has STOOD UP to OBAMA and was willing to shut the Government down in 2013 over OBAMACARE
> 
> TED Cruz has STOOD AGAINST OBAMA and that is what he has DONE so far
> 
> but if you belive in Liberty and Constitutional Law and stand against ObamaCare well you are a EXTREMIST and a Kook


  Cruz has pandered to the most low instincts, has done ANYTHING  to  make himself a poster child for right wing hate cults. He's kissed KOCH as much as possible for $.   He has been a ZERO when it comes to actually doing ANY useful stuff.  

He's a turd who wants to make $$ off politics.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Cruz has pandered to the most low instincts, has done ANYTHING  to  make himself a poster child for right wing hate cults. He's kissed KOCH as much as possible for $.   He has been a ZERO when it comes to actually doing ANY useful stuff.  
> 
> He's a turd who wants to make $$ off politics.



As opposed to Hillary who is dead broke?

----------

NaturalBorn (03-31-2015)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> The sun is never SEEN in Mingo Junction
> 
> I know.   In my early railroad career, I took trains in and out of there.  A more benighted hellhole one cannot imagine...unless you go a few miles south to Steubenville, which is far worse.
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see you've escaped it.


That was an old Wabash Railroad location. Now its a terminal for the Norfolk Southern Railway

----------


## old wood

> I haven't followed this thread closely so maybe I have overlooked it, but will his place of birth be an issue if he runs for President?  Does a Veep
> also have the same requirement?


  Well.. a GREAT MANY right wingers...unable to just say Obama is not a WHITE MAN-thus can not be President... claimed that while his MOTHER was in Hawaii.. he got born in Kenya.. thus.. not okay to be President.. despite papers the State of Hawaii  issued. Now? CANADIAN BORN.. Teddy is ironically loved by some who were BIRTHERS.    You just can't make this shit up.

I NOTE... it is the Supreme Court that actually says what is CONSTITUTIONAL. NOT the Legislature.  This... is shit most of us learned in school.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Well.. a GREAT MANY right wingers...unable to just say Obama is not a WHITE MAN-thus can not be President... claimed that while his MOTHER was in Hawaii.. he got born in Kenya.. thus.. not okay to be President.. despite papers the State of Hawaii  issued. Now? CANADIAN BORN.. Teddy is ironically loved by some who were BIRTHERS.    You just can't make this shit up.
> 
> I NOTE... it is the Supreme Court that actually says what is CONSTITUTIONAL. NOT the Legislature.  This... is shit most of us learned in school.


I dislike Obama's white half too.  I suppose you love him only because he is (less than) half black. You are the racist.  (Actually Obama has more white blood than black.)

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

I get so fucking tired of being accused of being a racist because I dislike Obama's socialist leanings.  I didn't like Jimma Cawda for the same reason.  He was a socialist, something you cannot argue against without changing the meaning of the word socialist.  He was for government control of the economy for starters.  Obama has taken that several steps further and wants government control of the economy, of our health care, our modes of transportation, race relations (he has set race relations back to the mid 1960's at least) and all aspects of our lives.  That cannot be logically argued.  My dislike of Obama has absolutely nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his politics and philosophies of the same.  The left is so arrogant they are unable to believe even for an instant their belief system could be flawed and more harmful than good in the long run.  

You call me a racist because you are morally bankrupt and have no true argument of any merit.

----------


## NaturalBorn



----------


## Dan40

> I NOTE... it is the Supreme Court that actually says what is CONSTITUTIONAL. NOT the Legislature.  This... is shit most of us learned in school.


Legislatures pass and Governors and Presidents sign many THOUSANDS of laws every year.  ALL are "Constitutional" until challenged as 'unconstitutional.'
The Supreme Court DECIDES the Constitutionality of LESS THAN 100 LAWS PER YEAR.

So THOUSANDS of laws, agreed upon and passed by legislatures are assumed Constitutional, until proven otherwise.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Legislatures pass and Governors and Presidents sign many THOUSANDS of laws every year.  ALL are "Constitutional" until challenged as 'unconstitutional.'
> The Supreme Court DECIDES the Constitutionality of LESS THAN 100 LAWS PER YEAR.
> 
> So THOUSANDS of laws, agreed upon and passed by legislatures are assumed Constitutional, until proven otherwise.


Was Jim Crow laws Constitutional in your opinion.  By your flawed logic, it would seem they were.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> Was Jim Crow laws Constitutional in your opinion.  By your flawed logic, it would seem they were.


Until they weren't they were.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Until they weren't they were.



So in your opinion the Jim Crow laws were a good thing, since in your opinion they were legal?

----------


## MisterVeritis

> I answered your questions.  That you did not like the answers is your problem.
> 
> Mark Levin, NEVER, not once, Ever listened to him


Your loss.

----------


## Dan40

> Was Jim Crow laws Constitutional in your opinion.  By your flawed logic, it would seem they were.


There is no OPINION about it.  Laws on the books are enforceable constitutional laws until they are struck down.  That is fact, not opinion.

Perhaps is you asked if, in my opinion, they were good laws, you might have received an answer more to your liking.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> There is no OPINION about it.  Laws on the books are enforceable constitutional laws until they are struck down.  That is fact, not opinion.
> 
> Perhaps is you asked if, in my opinion, they were good laws, you might have received an answer more to your liking.


Just because the legislature passes a law and it is signed, or an executive order is signed, does NOT automatically mean it is in line with the U.S. Constitution.  Surely you understand that.

----------


## Dan40

> Just because the legislature passes a law and it is signed, or an executive order is signed, does NOT automatically mean it is in line with the U.S. Constitution.  Surely you understand that.


I never said otherwise.  You have phenomenal powers of misinterpretation.

But it is constitutional until struck down.  Not "in line with" the constitution, but constitutional until struck down.

Facts are not opinions.  You have such strong but erroneous opinions that you are trying to make facts into opinions.  And trying to make the facts I post into opinions.

Is the ACA, "in line with" the constitution?  Hell no, but it is the law until it is repealed or struck down.

2 Small parts of the ACA were challenged.  Both were found unconstitutional, but one part WAS REWRITTEN (illegally) by the SCOTUS and the other part was struck down as unconstitutional.  And we still have the law with us with about 40 clauses of it, "delayed" because they are unworkable.  Illegally delayed.

Does your OPINION of the ACA matter in court?  Does my OPINION of the ACA matter in court?

No, neither of our opinions, probably similar opinions, matter in court.  The ACA is the worst law ever passed and signed into law.  But it is Constitutional until it is struck down.  In line with the spirit of the Constitution, NO, Constitutional yes.
I'm a total realist, I deal with what IS, not with what I wish.

And I've been yanking your chain for many, many posts now.  I'm sure you're tired of it, and so am I.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> I never said otherwise.  You have phenomenal powers of misinterpretation.
> 
> But it is constitutional until struck down.  Not "in line with" the constitution, but constitutional until struck down.
> 
> Facts are not opinions.  You have such strong but erroneous opinions that you are trying to make facts into opinions.  And trying to make the facts I post into opinions.
> 
> Is the ACA, "in line with" the constitution?  Hell no, but it is the law until it is repealed or struck down.
> 
> 2 Small parts of the ACA were challenged.  Both were found unconstitutional, but one part WAS REWRITTEN (illegally) by the SCOTUS and the other part was struck down as unconstitutional.  And we still have the law with us with about 40 clauses of it, "delayed" because they are unworkable.  Illegally delayed.
> ...



Just because "it is the law" does not mean it is constitutional, as you admitted.

----------


## Dan40

> Just because "it is the law" does not mean it is constitutional, as you admitted.


Does too.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> So in your opinion the Jim Crow laws were a good thing, since in your opinion they were legal?



I never even came close to implying they were a good thing.  Where did that come from?  The law is the law is the law, good, bad or indifferent.   I only said they were LEGAL.  Abortion is LEGAL but it certainly is not a good thing.  If a law is passed its assumed to be legal until the law is challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court.  That does not impart in any manner a stamp of GOOD on the law.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> I never even came close to implying they were a good thing.  Where did that come from?  The law is the law is the law, good, bad or indifferent.   I only said they were LEGAL.  Abortion is LEGAL but it certainly is not a good thing.  If a law is passed its assumed to be legal until the law is challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court.  That does not impart in any manner a stamp of GOOD on the law.



This was for Dan40 I believe.

----------


## Dan40

> This was for Dan40 I believe.


No, that is what I have been telling your closed, locked, and cemented mind.  But you haven't understood.

----------


## Dr. Felix Birdbiter

> This was for Dan40 I believe.



Go back and look.  You quoted my post and I responded to your quote.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Go back and look.  You quoted my post and I responded to your quote.


You are right.  I was addressing Dan40 and you jumped in.

The bottom line is, a law can be passed and signed, then later the Supreme Court can determine it was unconstitutional from it's inception, not from the day the court ruled. This is evidenced by any action taken under the new (unconstitutional) law is then determined to be nullified and the parties are made whole.  This seems to be the crux of disagreement.

----------


## Dan40

> You are right.  I was addressing Dan40 and you jumped in.
> 
> The bottom line is, a law can be passed and signed, then later the Supreme Court can determine it was unconstitutional from it's inception, not from the day the court ruled. This is evidenced by any action taken under the new (unconstitutional) law is then determined to be nullified and the parties are made whole.  This seems to be the crux of disagreement.


How much "LATER?"

And the only party that will be made whole is the party that can afford to sue.

Are the SIX MILLION POLICES and 12 to 18 million people that lost coverage due to obamascam going to be made whole at some time in the future?

A law is 'Constitutional" until it is not.  And how far back ANYONE is made whole is negotiable.

And 10's of thousands of laws are placed in force EVERY year and LESS than 100 are decided by the court each year.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> How much "LATER?"
> 
> And the only party that will be made whole is the party that can afford to sue.
> 
> Are the SIX MILLION POLICES and 12 to 18 million people that lost coverage due to obamascam going to be made whole at some time in the future?
> 
> A law is 'Constitutional" until it is not.  And how far back ANYONE is made whole is negotiable.
> 
> And 10's of thousands of laws are placed in force EVERY year and LESS than 100 are decided by the court each year.


Without a doubt.

But since you were stating ALL laws are constitutional, and I provided an example of when they are not, then ALL is inaccurate, but MOST seems to fit.

----------


## Dan40

> Without a doubt.
> 
> But since you were stating ALL laws are constitutional, and I provided an example of when they are not, then ALL is inaccurate, but MOST seems to fit.


I shall cease bothering you with facts as you made up your mind without them.

----------


## Jim Scott

> Born in Canada, let me remind you. Anyone asked to see his birth certificate yet, or are conservatives happy with his renunciation of a better life elsewhere?


Get real.  Ted Cruz was a toddler when his parents returned to the U.S. after working in Canada.  He was raised in Texas, went on to have a splendid college career and was elected senator against the odds.  The naysayers will drone on about Cruz being ineligible to be president because he was born on Canadian soil but it won't stick.  His mother was an American citizen and courts and scholars have determined that the constitutional term 'native born' can apply to any person born either on U.S. soil (the 'anchor baby' scam Mexican women are now playing) or to at least one American parent (not a 'naturalized' but born in America).  Ted Cruz is as American as anyone on this forum.

Some posters enjoy endless arguing and will keep beating this dead horse but I'm content to allow the issue to be decided by the courts - if necessary - and the public, should Cruz win the Republican presidential nomination in '16.  

*Jim*

----------


## NaturalBorn

> Get real.  Ted Cruz was a toddler when his parents returned to the U.S. after working in Canada.  He was raised in Texas, went on to have a splendid college career and was elected senator against the odds.  The naysayers will drone on about Cruz being ineligible to be president because he was born on Canadian soil but it won't stick.  His mother was an American citizen and courts and scholars have determined that the constitutional term 'native born' can apply to any person born either on U.S. soil (the 'anchor baby' scam Mexican women are now playing) or to at least one American parent (not a 'naturalized' but born in America).  Ted Cruz is as American as anyone on this forum.
> 
> Some posters enjoy endless arguing and will keep beating this dead horse but I'm content to allow the issue to be decided by the courts - if necessary - and the public, should Cruz win the Republican presidential nomination in '16.  
> 
> *Jim*


Jim, you may want to look at U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws first before criticizing Constitutionalists.  If Ted did not before his 18th birthday, declare himself a U.S. citizen to INS because he was born out of the country, to a citizen mother, he was not naturalized.  If he DID declare, he is then a naturalized citizen, but not a natural-born citizens.  That means he becomes a citizen, by law, not by nature.  You may not accept the later, but the former is law.

----------


## Katzndogz

> Jim, you may want to look at U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Laws first before criticizing Constitutionalists.  If Ted did not before his 18th birthday, declare himself a U.S. citizen to INS because he was born out of the country, to a citizen mother, he was not naturalized.  If he DID declare, he is then a naturalized citizen, but not a natural-born citizens.  That means he becomes a citizen, by law, not by nature.  You may not accept the later, but the former is law.


And you would still be wrong.  I did post the Harvard Law Review treatise on the subject.   You can find it or look it up yourself.

----------


## NaturalBorn

> And you would still be wrong.  I did post the Harvard Law Review treatise on the subject.   You can find it or look it up yourself.



Rawng!!  I posted Chief Justice John Jay's opinion and the opinion of the men in convention at the Pennsylvania State House.

----------

