So here is your morning after breakdown:
The current delegate count runs as follows: Trump (621), Cruz (396), Rubio (168), and Kasich (138). Or, to put it another way, Trump (621) and NotTrump (702). The line that somebody needs to get across is 1,237. Trump is a mere five delegates across the halfway line — and so this should be considered halftime. A lot can happen in the last two quarters.
If Trump is defeated honestly at the ballot box, then there is a decent chance he won’t go third party.
If Trump is defeated through monkeyshines on the part of the RNC (e.g. rule changes), then he quite possibly would run as a third party candidate. He does have significant ballot access challenges for the general election, and so in order to ignore that obstacle, somebody would have to make him mad enough to be a true spoiler.
Rubio did the right thing by stepping out. Now Kasich needs to do the right thing and follow him. Staying in would be a sheer vanity move that will help no one but Trump. It is now mathematically impossible for him to win it. Both Rubio and Kasich have maximum leverage now. If they wait until the convention to offer their delegates to help stop Trump, they will be offering to solve a problem that everybody knows they created in the first place. But if they coalesce behind Cruz now (which Jeb should also do), then there is a very good prospect that Trump will be defeated in every primary remaining. And if that happens, it will be impossible for him to claim that the RNC did the dirty on him.
If we ratchet back and forth down to the convention, then the party establishment types will be sorely tempted to broker the thing, and offer their idea of a unity candidate. In a year of High Revolt, in a season of Political Turbulence, they will roll out something acceptable to them, someone dressed in pale pastels. And if they do that it will be disaster. By “disaster,” I do not mean losing the general election when it could have been won. That’s not disaster — that’s something the RNC specializes in. That’s not a disaster, that’s their wheelhouse. When I say “disaster,” I am speaking of it from their vantage point, and am referring to the complete implosion of the party.
The one thing that will confirm that all of the above is what needs to happen will be this. If Trump refuses to debate Cruz, one-on-one, then that will indicate where his fears are. With most political observers being manifestly afraid of Trump, it is worth asking, and asking publicly, “What is Trump afraid of?”
And yet the fact remains that Cruz is forbidden by the US Constitution to occupy the office of US President. How does one “restore Constitutional governance” by violating the Constitution?
And yet…no he isn’t. He was a citizen at birth. Get to know your Constitution better.
Perhaps you should get to know the Constitution in the first place — His US citizenship “at birth” was due to an Act of Congress — with respect to US citizenship, the US Constitution gives the Congress *only* the power to legislate regarding naturalization — ERGO: Ted Cruz is a naturalized US citizen. Furthermore, as he was born subject to two (or even three) sovereigns, he cannot be a natural born US citizen. The entire point of that requirement in the Constitution was to limit the role of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the US to persons with an… Read more »
So he isn’t a natural born citizen even though he was born a citizen. That’s some next level pretzel logic you have going there.
I’ve explained it; I’ve explained it clearly, in simple English. That you refuse to understand is not my issue.
Except for your explanation contradicted your claims. The facts that you ignore that, opting instead to play some perverted game of semantics is not my issue. It also doesn’t invalidate Cruz’ national born citizenship.
I would grant to Ilion that we should not be in favor of sneaking any candidate past the true requirements of law, no matter how technical the argument against the eligibility. We would not want progressives to do this to us, and so we should not be willing to do it to them. However, it seems that Ilion’s entire case rests on the idea that “natural born” is an innate property of the universe that cannot be further clarified, interpreted, or conferred through law or Congressional action. Ilion is arguing that “natural born” has a predefined meaning that comes to… Read more »
To further underscore the historic understanding that “natural born” was held to be conferrable, we have the Maryland General Assembly, passing a law in 1784 conferring natural born status:
1) Once again, we see that natural born citizenship is inherited through the male line, not the female. 2) The State of Maryland is not the Federal government of the United States. The US Constitution of 1789 (which date someone or other has told me is after 1784) does not give the Federal government of the United States the power to confer natural born citizenship, but only to enact laws “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization … throughout the United States” Hmmm, last time I looked, “throughout the United States” does not refer to “in Canada”. Does the Congress… Read more »
What determines whether “natural born” inherits through the female line, or not through the female line? Is it an Act of Congress that does that? If so, then Acts of Congress confer, or withhold that status as an act of law. This means that natural born is not an innate measurable property of being. It is a classification that is subject to refinement under law, and continues to be so.
Historically, subjecthood (of which citizenship, such as concerns us, is a recent sub-set) is inherited from the father, not from the mother … except, sometimes, in the case of bastardy.
The legal doctrine which controlled this — universal in Christendom until quite recently, until the triumph of feminism about a century ago — is called “coverture“.
My point here is that your question wouldn’t even make sense to the founding generation.
Ilion wrote: The legal doctrine which controlled this — universal in Christendom until quite recently, until the triumph of feminism about a century ago — is called “coverture”. If the meaning was so innate and universal, as Ilion needs it to be for his case to make sense, then how does Ilion explain the various laws that I quoted above, which refined and modified the circumstances under which one would be “deemed and adjudged to be natural born”? Why do those laws purport to change the circumstances under which one would be deemed “natural born” if such a property is… Read more »
Ilion wrote: 2) The State of Maryland is not the Federal government of the United States. The US Constitution of 1789 (which someone told me is after 1784) does not give the Federal government of the United States the power to confer natural born citizenship. Contrary to Ilion’s claims, the U.S. Congress, even after 1789, believed they had the power to refine the circumstances that confer the status of “natural born”, i.e. not requiring a formal process of naturalization after birth. Congress believed that they could declare someone a citizen by the circumstances of their natural birth alone. They have… Read more »
Katecho, You’re conflating and equivocating. Is this deliberate dishonesty? You are falsely pretending that naturalization means “a formal process of naturalization after birth”, and you are falsely pretending that if one has not gone through such “formal process” that one is ipso facto a natural born citizen. You are further pretending that anything the Congress may do is Constitutional, given the members “believe” they have the power to do it. “Congress believed that they could declare someone a citizen by the circumstances of their natural birth alone. They have adjusted that set of birth circumstances a number of times.” And… Read more »
Ilion wrote: You are falsely pretending that naturalization means “a formal process of naturalization after birth”, and you are falsely pretending that if one has not gone through such “formal process” that one is ipso facto a natural born citizen. Not quite. One may not be a citizen at all, either because they have never been through a naturalization process, or because the circumstances of their birth did not meet the legal requirements for natural born citizenship. However, naturalization is a process that is required only of those whose birth circumstances did not automatically qualify them for citizenship. In other… Read more »
“the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens” Why is it that you people *never* quote the rest of that long-since repealed Act of Congress? “Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States” According to the Naturalization Act of 1790, natural born US citizenship descends from the father … but only for one generation. Cruz’s father was not a US citizen at the time Ted… Read more »
Ever hear of Indian Charlie Curtis? Being born legally an Indian, he wasn’t even considered a Citizen at all., but he would up as vp under Hoover.
You’re implying that Curtis was Constitutionally ineligible to be president … and therefore, it doesn’t matter that Cruz is Constitutionally ineligible to be president.
Now there is a winning argument.
But, in fact, it was “Indians not taxed” who were not US citizens. My Indian ancestors were US citizens.
You are correct, and Harvard Law Review agrees, and so does my husband, who is a lawyer himself. Here’s the article explaining the term “natural born citizen”: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
The Harvard Law Review also agrees that murdering children isn’t really murder and that two (soon to be “or more”) men bopping each other is exactly the same thing as a marriage and that anyone who dares to disagree is a H8Y H8TER.
You OK with that, too?
Or are you just an intellectual hypocrite?
I agree with PaddyOConner. You’re a troll who is deliberately ignoring the issue that has been repeatedly explained to you. The issue isn’t whether or not Harvard Law Review is correct regarding unborn children or gay marriage; the issue is whether they ARE correct regarding the definition of natural-born citizenship. Read the article: “And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes… Read more »
The truth is not in you.
So… whether one is a “natural born citizen” or not is a moral issue that God established for man in the book of Genesis?
Clearly, you have no interest in the truth.
…And you came to this conclusion how? I didn’t make any statement on Mr. Cruz’s citizenship. I am only questioning you equating what the U.S. Constitution might or might not say with God’s moral law.
A smidge grating.
Yet, totally appropriate in context.
Heavens, if you can’t take blunt truth, I hope you never crack open a Bible! And if you do, stay away from those red letters, unless you want your head to explode.
Don’t feed the trolls…
Had to. Trump certainly hasn’t answered the question as to how, if not by his birth, Cruz was a citizen. Maybe some of his hypocritical disciples can. Alas, they cannot.
Good advice. Everyone should ignore Ilion.
Like beating a straw man on a dead horse…
I suppose you read those sites that “reveal what no one wants you to know” and have shown how the NWO and the Bilderberger’s are running the whole world?
Oh, like, wow, man!
You’re intellectually dishonest.
And it’s intellectually honest to equate the Constitution with God’s moral law?
No he’s not loony, and there is thought behind what he’s saying. As in actual real legal thought, that has been published by lawyers. Now it definitely is the minority report, and I never would have found it unless he posted it.
Sooo… Its actually only the second part of your post that’s incorrect. :) Cruz is good, Rubio is good. And so are all my progeny.
You’re the only person who cares. Sorry.
Yes, I totally understand that most of the people who comment here don’t care about the truth of the matter.
That’s the way to persuade people, just castigate the majority. This absurd birther argument probably did have some trivial effect but now you’re just barking at the moon.
It’s a popular tactic — all of Pastor Wilson’s posts about Trump have effectively been doing just that.
You make it clear that you are not interested in the truth of the matter. In fact, your language makes it clear that you’re just a leftist.
I care about the law and the truth, but I just don’t find Ilion’s argument compelling.
It seems pretty clear from precedent at the time that the Founders held “natural born” as a set of criteria subject to refinement and modification through law, and not as an innate measurable property of being. The laws have changed such that the circumstances of Cruz’s birth (even just his mother’s citizenship) is enough that he doesn’t require a process of naturalization in order to be a citizen. The circumstances of his birth alone were sufficient according to the law at the time.
Thanks again. I’d have to vote your argument as definitive.
What is Trump afraid of? Not ridicule, clearly. Not illogic. Not incompetence. I’m guessing it’s being ignored. He plays the media like a harmonica–they can’t ignore him. Not even we can ignore him.
“When I say ‘disaster’. . . [I] am referring to the complete implosion of the party.”
And, yet again, considering the irreparably flawed state of what remains of the Union, why is this a bad thing exactly?
Because then the Democrat party runs roughshod, unchecked for a generation without any organized opposition.
Why is this a bad thing, exactly?
Mostly because Dems have a propensity for fascism and I’m kind of self centered about not wanting to live under complete totalitarianism?
Focus on the matador, not the cape. Totalitarianism continues regardless — the permanent government, the academy, and the media are much more powerful than elected officials.
Because they’d make your avatar a hate crime and have you executed.
Care to speculate why that hasn’t happened yet? Seems less likely to happen under a good ol’ girl from Arkansas than the current Magic Negro, if choice of elected officials made that much difference in policy.
(I’m aware Hillary is a Northern WASP but she sure puts on a good show on the campaign trail when convenient.)
Nikki Haley and my state’s own illustrious Robert Bentley don’t need no stinkin’ Dems to do that. Shoot, threaten a Repub governor with a loss of money, which would hurt his reputation, and he’ll back down from protecting private businesses against being forced to bake a cake for a “gay” “wedding”. Sure, they may look unhappy doing it, but that’s mostly because they have to.
It all comes back to the maintenance of their power and profits, doesn’t it? My property, my land, my culture, the Constitution, morals and principles, are ALL forfeit – we’ve got to be practical and pragmatic, don’t you know! – if the status quo is threatened in any way!
The GOP and their cronies in the state and local chambers of commerce, town/county councils, will be happy to do that, too!
Mr. Mangum, if I sincerely believed that in the big picture there was a “dime’s worth of difference” between the openly Leftist Dems and the faux conservative GOP; if the Republican Party had anything to do with conservatism as I understand it; if it actually sought to be an opposition party, then I’d agree with you. But it doesn’t. As others have written better than I, hard times are coming, like it or not. Any hope I had that the corpse that was once a constitutional republic could be revived is long gone. In order to face this future, and… Read more »
I’m fine with that and share your sentiments. But, having four young children, I’d rather let the Advent occur at its regularly scheduled pace, instead of turbo-charging it with an obtuse buffoon like Trump.
What about “Cruz (396) and NotCruz (927)”?
If Trump is defeated honestly at the ballot box, then there is a decent chance he won’t go third party. If Trump is defeated through monkeyshines on the part of the RNC (e.g. rule changes), then he quite possibly would run as a third party candidate. He does have significant ballot access challenges for the general election, and so in order to ignore that obstacle, somebody would have to make him mad enough to be a true spoiler. Thanks, Doug. Being a premillianist myself, I’m not bound to an unjustifibly optimistic position (jab, jab), although I often find myself more… Read more »
Both of those scenarios speak to another profound failure of the GOP. The party seems to be reaping something it has been sowing for awhile. It’s hard to even blame Hillary for the self-inflicted disaster. Fortunately, our hope and trust is not in political parties. I’m praying that any apparent collapse of the GOP would be a good thing in the long run. We may need to suffer under Hillary in order to come to repentance as a nation. If that is the case, then I say let it come, and pray for God’s protection of His people through the… Read more »
kill kill kill the patriarchy. …what? “yeah” I know it’s dead already, just playing along fo the ‘family values’ of it….In order to be a Natural Born Citizen you have to have a fatther that is a natural born citizen. period. >.
In a desperate attempt to change the subject, I am going to postulate that what we are currently experiencing is the Age of Prodigal America. Taking the parable to its logical conclusion, I would further postulate that the coming election will result in a further squandering of our God-given inheritance until such time as we find ourselves bankrupted both economically and spiritually, longing to dine on the pods we are feeding the pigs. I believe that then, and only then, we will return to the Father in humility and repentance. I pray each day we would repent long before that… Read more »
As a nation, we seem to be finally waking up to our sudden bankrupt condition. We are distressed by it, and anxious, but not enough to repent. We may have moved past the denial phase, but we seem to have merely entered the anger and bargaining stage. We are still prepared to put our hope in a strong man who promises to crush our adversaries, and save us without any need for repentance. We are still looking for a hero to “Make America Great Again”.
We’re not even to the point of Christians agreeing on what needs to be repented of.
Agreed. And well said.
I’m so far down this list that you’re likely never going to see this, but here goes.
Endorsements almost never matter. Except now. Trump has been endorsed by both Carson and Jeff Sessions. That matters. Can you speak to that?
And just so you know, I’ve been backing Cruz since he first announced.
Endorsements almost never matter. Except now. Trump has been endorsed by both Carson and Jeff Sessions. That matters.
And Cruz has been endorsed by Shmuley Boteach, the guy who denounced The Passion of the Christ as hate propaganda, and says the New Testament is a pack of lies that has directly caused the murder of millions of Jews over the centuries.
Caitlyn Jenner also supports Cruz.
But Charles Manson has endorsed Trump.
Sure, he did.
Just like Jung was into S&M.
In other words, it’s not true.
You really need start reading with a lot more discernment, jilly.
I guess so. It sounded reasonable to me. After all, people do call Charlie for his opinion about many things. But thank you for setting me straight.
Well, he is a Republican. Remember how that was more controversial than him dressing up like a girl?
You know, the more I think about it, I think Trump does actually have a chance at winning the general IF he wins the primary. He’s behind Clinton in the polls *right now*, that is, Primary-Race Trump is behind Clinton. If he’s the Republican nominee, he will need to fill in the gap from the #NeverTrump crowd, and the only way to do that is with Democrats. Trump will flop to the left on those issues that matter to #NeverTrump but don’t matter as much to his current supporters. Think gay marriage, abortion, things like that.
During this last batch Cruz won … no states (right?).
There are so many things wrong with this post by Doug that it beggars belief. Trump Derangement Syndrome pretty much nails it.
Wish I wasn’t too tired to fisk it. Suffice it to say it’s a fantastical pastiche of special pleading, ignorance, whistling past the graveyard, playing make believe, and finding a happy place.
You’re really making yourself look silly, Doug.
Sillier and sillier by the day.
Why do you kick against the pricks?
Looking through the comment thread, it is unbelievable that there is still so much confusion regarding the fact that Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen. A lot of the confusion arises over the fact that people are equating “naturalized at birth” with “natural born”. This is like equating adopted at birth with biological child. The former needed to go through some legal process to become your child – the latter did not. That is the difference. Cruz’s US citizenship was acquired through a naturalization process established by Congress – my US citizenship was NOT dependent on any legal process,… Read more »
It’s not confusion; it’s willful ignorance.
Cruz isn’t going to be president anyway, so y’all can just relax.
And a President Trump ain’t gonna do jack, because he would have no partisans in the Congress to provide the CYA and to “legitimize” any unconstitutional thing he might try.
However, a President Trump *would* control the Bully Pulpit … and that terrifies both arms of the elite.
Because Ted Cruz has been confirmed a legal citizen of Canada up until renouncing his Canadian citizenship in May of 2014, and because he has been confirmed a citizen of Canada at birth, and because his father is on public record stating that he and his wife became citizens of Canada during their eight years living in Canada and because Rafael Cruz remained a citizen of Canada until he renounced and applied for legal citizenship in 2005, there is simply no way that Ted Cruz was, is or ever can be a “natural born” Citizen of the United States eligible… Read more »
If Cruz is smart he approaches Trump (or vice versa) for Supreme Court appointment w/ commitment to dial back his campaign and offer his delegates at the convention. This is a win-win situation for conservatives. Trump’s ego will cause him to follow-through on border wall, H1N1B, TPP, debt, and foreign intervention…. he does these things and appoints Cruz to USSC, he will have had the greatest positive impact on the future of the USA than any president in our lifetime. Frankly, Cruz on USSC is far more important than as the Republican nominee as he will not win the general… Read more »
The math seems to me to be: Trump (673), Cruz (411), Establishment (327). Lord willing, the Establishment loses. Although I don’t like Trump, the Establishment is on the run.
Pastor Wilson, you claim that for Kaisch, “Staying in would be a sheer vanity move that will help no one but Trump.” This claim appears to presume that Kaisch objectively thinks the only meaningful issue is whether Trump or Cruz gets more delegates, and that he automatically favors Cruz. From his positions on the debate, and guessing that his evaluation of Trump and Cruz’s character is roughly similar to my own or that of most people who have been around Cruz, my guess is that Kasich doesn’t care much at all to see either one of them in power. I… Read more »
p.s. – You seem to have posted that delegate breakdown without actually counting all of the previous day’s delegates. The actual breakdown:
Trump is not just “5 delegates” over the halfway point, which sounds nice, but 76 over. And when he wins Arizona next, he’ll being up another 60 more and probably hold more delegates that Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio combined.
Thomas Woods has a good article on why neo-cons hate Trump. And Woods doesn’t endorse Trump, either. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/03/thomas-woods/theyre-lying-hate-trump/