Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

His hat is in the ring


Recommended Posts

  • Members

No, no , and no.  I think things will go along pretty much as they have.  I believe this because if he sticks to what he is saying to the group at Liberty he will not get the nomination.  To get the nomination he must change his point of view he espouses or the PTB will not give him the nomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

My primary issue at this time is his eligibility.   The first continental congress set a precedent that a natural-born citizen was one who was both born within the borders of the United States, and both parents were born there, as well. Now, we have since seen others make changes in that, going baclk and forth, some saying only the parents had to be, or that even only one parent had to be a born citizen, and the candidate could be born anywhere. So it really brings up a lot of questions. There was a lot of noise over Obama;'s birthplace, now nary a peep over Cruz's Canadian birth. I think its time to set something in stone over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My primary issue at this time is his eligibility.   The first continental congress set a precedent that a natural-born citizen was one who was both born within the borders of the United States, and both parents were born there, as well. Now, we have since seen others make changes in that, going baclk and forth, some saying only the parents had to be, or that even only one parent had to be a born citizen, and the candidate could be born anywhere. So it really brings up a lot of questions. There was a lot of noise over Obama;'s birthplace, now nary a peep over Cruz's Canadian birth. I think its time to set something in stone over this.

​I mentioned this in a post I typed here last night but when I hit Submit Reply the post disappeared!

As you point out, the original intent was clear but over time it's been moved away with. I agree there needs to be a clear, set standard on this matter put forth. We know, if such is put forth, it will take the broadest view possible since both Dems and Repubs have wanted to run people for office who don't qualify.

Unfortunately, the day may come when anyone holding US citizenship (regardless of their nation of birth or how long they have been a citizen here) may run for president.

Cruz is also only a one term Senator. That's another point Repubs attacked Obama on (for being a one term Senator).

At the moment it would appear Cruz has an uphill battle in front of him. If the Republican primary voters are as fickle as they have been the last two presidential election cycles, that could be very bad for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Well, it early yet.

As for his time in the senate, while many complained about that, its the one thing I saw no problem with. Again, the original intent of the founders was not to have career politicians. Washington held no other politcal office-he was a general with the Army, and then was made president. Originally, a man was to be a citizen, come to office, do his time, and then go back to private life. Not be forever on the dole.  It is amazing what a person can learn about international issues by personal study. Long terms in politics causes people to lose touch with what the real issues of life are in the country, which is why the freshmen in the senate are often so excited and full of zeal-but the longer in office, the more they begin to follow the political thought, and why nothing of real importance to the modern individual ever gets dealt with, and its why both Dems and Repubs believe government needs to be bigger.

So honsetly, I'd like a decent, conservative, Christian guy who hasn't had a life in politics as a president, or senator. And why I believe term limits should be made law for congress, both houses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, it early yet.

As for his time in the senate, while many complained about that, its the one thing I saw no problem with. Again, the original intent of the founders was not to have career politicians. Washington held no other politcal office-he was a general with the Army, and then was made president. Originally, a man was to be a citizen, come to office, do his time, and then go back to private life. Not be forever on the dole.  It is amazing what a person can learn about international issues by personal study. Long terms in politics causes people to lose touch with what the real issues of life are in the country, which is why the freshmen in the senate are often so excited and full of zeal-but the longer in office, the more they begin to follow the political thought, and why nothing of real importance to the modern individual ever gets dealt with, and its why both Dems and Repubs believe government needs to be bigger.

So honsetly, I'd like a decent, conservative, Christian guy who hasn't had a life in politics as a president, or senator. And why I believe term limits should be made law for congress, both houses.

​Highly agree with this! What you say is historically accurate. The Founders intended for men to SERVE as statesmen (not merely politicians) while remaining active outside that role. Career politicians, making huge sums of money and receiving huge benefit packages not only wasn't intended but never considered.

Time in politics does seem to dull the edge even of those who once may have been sharp in good areas. One thing I've noticed watching news programs is the same thing we see with career politicians being out of touch with reality, is also true of most who spend their time in TV studios. Over the past few weeks I can't even count the times I've heard talking heads on news programs say what they think most Americans do or don't think even while I'm thinking that I know what I think is the opposite of what they just said and the vast majority of people I know think opposite what they just said.

It's so easy for career politicians (and those in media) to get caught up in the academic aspects, the political gamesmanship, the rhetoric of it all, and come to live, think and vote from their own little unrealistic bubble.

So, time in politics isn't necessarily a good thing. In fact, I would say it's most often a bad thing.

Now if only that guy you mentioned in your last paragraph would get in the race!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I notice conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer is saying Cruz doesn't have enough experience to be president.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump (who once again says he might run for president) went after Cruz by saying he thought only those born in America could run for president.

Some Republican congressman and a few others were on Fox News saying Cruz is unfriendly, rude, impossible to work with, unable to pull the Party together and not who the country needs as president.

I didn't think it would take long for this sort of stuff to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My primary issue at this time is his eligibility.   The first continental congress set a precedent that a natural-born citizen was one who was both born within the borders of the United States, and both parents were born there, as well. Now, we have since seen others make changes in that, going baclk and forth, some saying only the parents had to be, or that even only one parent had to be a born citizen, and the candidate could be born anywhere. So it really brings up a lot of questions. There was a lot of noise over Obama;'s birthplace, now nary a peep over Cruz's Canadian birth. I think its time to set something in stone over this.

​​You got the "L" in the wrong location :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I am so excited about his running!  He would make a great POTUS because he does love the Constitution and this country.  He is a born-again Christian also, which should make folks happy.

As to his eligibility, it has been shown by a number of people - both liberal and conservative - that he is indeed eligible. The usage of the term Natural Born Citizen by the founders was borrowed from the idea Blackstone wrote regarding a country's citizens.  (People try to say that Vattel is the one who they borrowed from, but he was a monarchist and the founders would not have used his thoughts as they were getting as far away from a monarchy as they could).  Anyway, Blackstone defined a natural born subject as one who was born in the realm...and also outside the realm if the parents were citizens of the realm.  

The founders intended this wording to stop a foreign born prince from coming to America and taking the presidency. They also intended for future congresses to decide issues that would come up after the signing and adopting of the Constitution.  In regards to citizenship, that would be US law code. Section 1401 delineates who is a citizen by birth - synonymous for natural born. According to US law code, Cruz is eligible due to the fact that his mother was a US citizen, and had lived in the US for (more than) the required 5 years before his birth, with at least 2 of them being after her 14th birthday.

Some people are trying to say that Cruz was also born a Cuban citizen, but a look at their requirements for citizenship shows that he was not. He had dual citizenship - Canada and the US - by virtue of his birth (thus making him a natural born citizen...the only other way to become a citizen is to be naturalized). He rejected his Canadian citizenship.  Oh, and BTW - the founders never said anything about not being able to hold dual citizenship...Were Ted not an NBC, he would not be able legally to be in the Senate - simply by virtue of the fact that he was never naturalized.

The founders looked on people here in this country as three classes: natural born citizen, naturalized citizen, and alien.  Ted is NBC.

As to his electabilitiy - the same was said about Reagan. Now RR was not the conservative I hoped for when I voted for him, but he was better than what we had before and what we have now. He did a lot of good things. I do believe that there are enough people in this country who are tired of BO and his policies who, if they would get out and vote, would elect Ted. He might not be able to get everything done that he'd like, but if he could begin to set things aright, that would be very good, indeed!

The rank and file GOP doesn't like Cruz because he won't kowtow to them. And Krauthammer is a big disappointment.  I would take his opinion with a huge grain of salt.  He voted for both Carter and Mondale.  As for experience?  The Constitution doesn't say it is necessary.  That document lists the three necessities: NBC, 35 or older (which would lend to life experience), and having lived the previous 14 years in the US.

Nary a peep about Ted's birth?  Au contraire, it's been going on all over.  Liberals can't really say much because of the Obama situation, though. The "birther" movement actually began with Hillary's campaign, not with conservatives as so many people try to say. Although there are a lot of conservatives who won't accept Ted as being an NBC...simply because they do not understand that Congress was given the authority to create law in line with the Constitution. And that law is set unless Congress changes it, POTUS vetoes it and Congress doesn't override, SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional, or states nullify it. None of which has been done with the citizen at birth law.

I'm hopeful. I know that only Christ can save this nation and its people. But wouldn't it be grand to have a Christian, Constitution-abiding POTUS?  Imagine....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Good post LuAnne and good to "see" you!

Regarding Krauthammer, while I agree we need to consider what's said no matter who it is, he used to be a Democrat until he learned better so it's no surprise he voted Dem way back then. He's often a good voice of reason.

That said, I don't think he's always right and whether him or another pundit, I believe we should weigh what they say rather than simply accept it outright.

At least three of us here agree, including yourself, that time in office isn't necessarily an important point.

I'm looking forward to seeing who all jumps in, how they deal with one another, and how their positions and abilities on the stump and in debates compare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...