Kruse Hit Piece on Cruz
A guy named Michael Kruse has a very tendentious piece about Ted Cruz’s tenure as Solicitor General of Texas — part of the Politico hit piece series on Cruz. In the piece (safe Web cache link; no links for bullies!) Kruse first chides Cruz for getting involved in Heller despite the”fact” that “Texas had no direct stake” in the case. Kruse thinks this is so important that he says it twice, elsewhere saying that Cruz “was wading into a case that had no immediate connection to Texas at all.”
Of course, Texas had a very real interest in the case, as did the 30 other states that signed the brief: protecting the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.
I don’t have time to pick apart the article point by point, but if you want to look further into Cruz’s record before the Supreme Court, details are available here. It’s an impressive record, including Heller, the famous Medellin case about the Vienna convention, and an argument to retain the death penalty for child rape.
Here’s how Kruse describes Cruz’s performance in the child rape case: “[he] invoked 13th-century ‘Saxon law’ and the practice of cutting off testicles to justify harsher punishments in a rape case.”
My, oh my, how bloodthirsty! Kruse fails to note it was a child rape case — but more importantly, he fails to note that Cruz was responding to a question. This is from Jeff Toobin’s 2014 profile of Cruz in the New Yorker:
Cruz became so comfortable before the Justices that he even employed a touch of humor, which is always risky at the Supreme Court. In 2008, the Justices invited Cruz to argue in support of Louisiana’s position that the Constitution permitted the execution of an individual who raped a child. (To be asked to argue a case as a friend of the court is itself a significant honor for a lawyer.) At one point, Justice Stevens asked whether any country had ever made punishments for rape more draconian. “It’s interesting if you look at the history in England,” Cruz said. “Blackstone actually talks about how rape under Saxon law was punishable by death, and then there was a period—1285—where the punishment was ‘relaxed’ to loss of the eyes and testicles. That was William the Conqueror’s kinder, gentler version.” Laughter followed. Still, the court ruled that Louisiana could not execute the defendant.
Kruse also complains that Cruz “referred to a late-term abortion technique as ‘infanticide.'” That “late-term abortion procedure” was partial-birth abortion, in which a baby is partially delivered, and a “doctor” sticks scissors in the baby’s skull and then vacuums out the brains.
If the world were a fair place, someone would do a review of Michael Kruse’s career and use the same dirty technique of slanting material and removing context.
Thing is, Kruse is not worth the time or effort. Just another hack ankle-biting the constitutionalist candidate for President.
Hillary has had some interesting passionate and funny dealings with rape cases as well
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:35 amIt’s not a “hit piece” for me. I agree with Cruz on all these issues and I like him all the more for what he did and said.
nk (dbc370) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:42 amI think, as usual, that the partisan hypocrisy is shocking. There are things about Cruz’s personality that didn’t set well with me, but stories like this make me more confident and positive.
Thanks for this post.
Simon Jester (57277b) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:48 amClarification on above: MSM partisan hypocrisy because of the electron microscope used on Republican candidates, and the Mr. Magoo glasses worn when discussing HRC.
Simon Jester (57277b) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:49 amAs nk said, I bet a lot of people would agree to castration of child rapists.
MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:58 amAt least at the second occurrence.
Besides, I think Cruz has been approved by DRJ and Beldar (I think by Beldar).
MD in Philly (not in Philly) (deca84) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:00 amI’m OK with castration on the first conviction.
ropelight (52f436) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:01 amTrump is right, if Cruz gets the nomination the Dems will go into overdrive pushing the natural born citizen requirement and claiming Cruz is ineligible for the presidency. Count on it.
ropelight (52f436) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:03 amand he’s already so out of the mainstream to start with, with his exotically uber-establishmentarian educational pedigree and his hoity-toity wall street royalty spouse
i just cannot relate to this strange creature
but i think he’d make a nifty running mate for Mr. The Donald in the interest of unity and cause everyone else he’d pick probably sucks worse
plus he’s very clean and articulate
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:13 amGood thing the Dems won’t be able to think of a single line of attack against Trump. He’s invulnerable.
Gerald A (949d7d) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:16 amI like the use of Web-Cache for sites like that.
seeRpea (181740) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:28 amI think the death penalty for rape was deemed grossly inappropriate in the late ’70s, which would lead me to think that in the ’60s it was still being done. (iirc, the impetus to stop using the death penalty was due to it being used as a form of legalistic lynching of black men). So all the SC justices knew from their lifetime of the use of the death penalty, which has me confused a bit about Justice Steven’s quoted question to being with. There seems to be even more additional context missing, which makes Kause opinion piece even more flawed.
If that’s the best they’ve got, good luck.
rrpjr (b5da43) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:31 amPolitico long ago became wallpaper on the leftist rape room.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:41 amInteresting when you compare the Saxon penalty for rape against the Sharia penalty for rape: in one you kill the perpetrator, the other you kill the victim.
mer (2d74b6) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:48 amyes yes yes i do not click on the politico
they’re propaganda sluts
has anyone else noticed that this “oilprice.com” outfit from cnbc is actually a global warming hoax site pretending to care about the oils?
creepy.
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:56 amConfused about who to support for President? Look at who the press is attacking the most. He’s your man.
CrustyB (5a646c) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:08 amDeep down, though, you know you’re glad he wrote it, because it meant you got to use that title.
CayleyGraph (353727) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:13 am7. ropelight
mg (31009b) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:59 amyou betcha.
re #18 and #07: i think your nuts (ouch!)
seeRpea (181740) — 1/6/2016 @ 11:41 amGiven the huntings and convictions that are happening on college campuses regarding sexual encounters, whether they happened or not, you want to inflict such damage on a mere conviction?
#14: mer, good point. Compared to pillagers on the shores of the Mediterranean, the Anglo-Saxon’s had another half millennia of social evolution to perfect their sense of justice. Blackstone organized this legacy. Lincoln read Blackstone, and made further progress. But, it’s been entropy clad in good intentions and “academic rigor” for the last century. Isn’t it interesting that our children are taught to hate free enterprise for a few minor excesses at the end of the 19th Century, but the governmental excesses that characterized the 20th Century, which cost hundreds of millions of lives, go completely unmentioned in our government schools? The man on the street knows nothing of the events that allow him to wallow peacefully in his ignorance.
BobStewartatHome (a52abe) — 1/6/2016 @ 11:55 amcruz is a gay muslim married to his college room mate communist boen in kenya!
nate (391652) — 1/6/2016 @ 12:04 pmMr. nate these are different heirloom beans what you can buy
tell me them ain’t some purty beans
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 12:14 pmI really must do that LeftistU.ed course on line because I have no idea what that depravity means.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 1/6/2016 @ 12:38 pmI swear they have their own language, it’s like listening to “ghetto blacks”.
19 – o.k. just take one.
mg (31009b) — 1/6/2016 @ 12:51 pmIf Ted Cruz ran Ads advocating cutting off testicles of guilty pedophiles he would win the election in a landslide.
Rodney King's Spirit (3adc86) — 1/6/2016 @ 12:52 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/06/ifeelsodirtysousedharrowingtestimonyofcolognevictims/
mg (31009b) — 1/6/2016 @ 12:54 pmLet them. They’ve just got done establishing the legal precedent that such claims aren’t justiciable. Now it’s time for them to eat their own cooking.
For what it’s worth I agree he’s not eligible, but I no longer care. I’d rather have an ineligible president who believes in the constitution than an eligible one who spits on it. I’d rather have Walker, Perry, or Jindal than Cruz, but since they’re not available Cruz is looking like the best option left.
Oh, and “the constitution is not a suicide pact”. Hey, I can use it as much as anyone else.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 1/6/2016 @ 1:07 pmHow much is Trump paying for articles attacking Cruz? If it’s a lot, maybe I could write one.
Cruz needs to take the gloves off. Trump lives in a glass house, it shouldn’t be hard. He needs the vetting anyway.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/6/2016 @ 1:39 pmTrump is right, if Cruz gets the nomination the Dems will go into overdrive pushing the natural born citizen requirement and claiming Cruz is ineligible for the presidency. Count on it.
Good thing there’s nothing to attack Trump on, the man is so circumspect.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/6/2016 @ 1:41 pmMilhouse–
Why is Cruz ineligible? Natural born citizen does not mean “born in the USA”. It means “citizen by right at birth” which includes anyone born to a US citizen, wherever. And, yes, that means a person born in Kenya to an American mother would have been eligible.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/6/2016 @ 1:47 pmIF you wanted to get right down to it, a “natural offspring” in 1787 was a bastard. Did they mean only bastards can be President? It would explain a lot.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/6/2016 @ 1:48 pmborn in the 13 colonies, why Hamilton wasn’t eligible,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 2:10 pmI find it a foolish exercise to follow that track, this is malpractice, otoh,
http://twitchy.com/2016/01/06/and-this-journalist-still-has-his-job-senior-writer-for-newsweek-compares-ted-cruz-to-hitler/
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 2:47 pmI can’t believe that Ted threw his support behind ethanol subsidies in Iowa. A true conservative wouldn’t do that, right?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/6/2016 @ 2:50 pma minor quibble, cruz would not mix up william the conqueror, with edward 1
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 2:52 pmI just can’t believe that a true conservative such as Ted Cruz would support ethanol subsidies. On the other hand, Marco Rubio supported sugar subsidies in Florida because he’s an evil bastard. Why else would he have done it?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/6/2016 @ 2:55 pmLooks like imadimwit has shown up again.
John Hitchcock (364d1d) — 1/6/2016 @ 3:03 pmit’s a minor point, but it’s an error I expect from Toobin, who admittedly I’ve disliked since he tried oliver north, and congratulated himself in a book length treatment,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 3:03 pmI can’t believe that Ted threw his support behind ethanol subsidies in Iowa.
it’s a mandate not a subsidy picklehead
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 3:06 pmthis is the guy what inventered the frisbee
it’s like onomatopoeia for people
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 3:07 pmPandering fool. Pre has made inroads on Ted, too bad.
Progressive rino elite
remember newt promising everyone in Florida a space-car built for two?
mg (31009b) — 1/6/2016 @ 4:02 pmTed would pandering to iowegians is ridiculous. Iowa and N.H. mean very little in the overall election. Both of these states are a joke.
mg (31009b) — 1/6/2016 @ 4:05 pmheidi’s boys at goldy sacky told her to tell ted that ethanol was *the* key to steak and blowjobs
belieber me now or belieber me later
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 4:12 pmdon’t touch that cupcake yet pikachu
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2579743
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 4:30 pmhot air bottom feeder “jazz shaw” says not so fast there mister
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 4:37 pmwhenever possible, it’s best not to trust the arf’s bark,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 4:40 pmi agree
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 4:50 pmthanks, narciso.
mg (31009b) — 1/6/2016 @ 5:01 pmyou keep ‘jumping to conclusions’ thanks to carney and others, and you’ll have broken shins, (mind you there is some wiggling, but it’s the allowable portion)
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 5:04 pmhere is an “urban murphy bed”
i’ve looked at a few and i like this company for the pricing and how they offer custom baseboard cutouts
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 5:05 pmi’m very urban you know
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 5:05 pmcan we a little frank, the msm will make up what they can’t find, the huntress was spotless, in reputation and they trawled in muck from the trash compactor, mittens was turned into lex luthor when he had hair, they’ve already floated the mob ties and rape allegation re trump,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 5:08 pmlet her go dude
just let her go
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 5:08 pmborn in the 13 colonies, why Hamilton wasn’t eligible,
Hamilton was not born to someone who was, at the time of this birth, a US citizen.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/6/2016 @ 5:16 pmhere is an “urban murphy bed”
What I want to see is a Murphy waterbed.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/6/2016 @ 5:22 pmyou have vision
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 5:23 pmIf only Barry Goldwater had won in 1964.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/6/2016 @ 6:20 pmyou’re working for free i can tell
i have a coupon for a free m burger you can have
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 6:22 pmit’s cause i wnet there and they was out of turket burgers so they gave me a free coupon for any kind of burger
how super-sweet is that
city of broad shoulders indeed
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 6:23 pm*went*
*turkey*
gotsta go meemees this is when the sleeper pills kick in
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 6:23 pmThe purpose of the natural born citizen requirement was to make sure a US president had no divided allegiance, or harbored no grudge against another nation. By insisting both birth parents were US citizens the Founders were attempting to ensure there were no lingering ties, positive or nagative, to a country other than the US.
Natural born citizen does not mean citizen at birth. It sets a higher standard: both parents had to be US citizens at the time of birth in order for their offspring be eligible for the presidency.
Citizens of one or more naturalized parents don’t qualify.
It makes sense if you stop and think it over.
ropelight (52f436) — 1/6/2016 @ 6:34 pmSubstitute the following for the next to last sentence in my comment at #61.
Citizens born of one or more parents naturalized after the birth don’t qualify.
ropelight (52f436) — 1/6/2016 @ 6:38 pmTo anyone inclined to respond, please consider the following excerpt from Free Republic:
ropelight (52f436) — 1/6/2016 @ 6:52 pmropelight (52f436) — 1/6/2016 @ 6:52 pm
All of a sudden you’re going by what McCain says. Isn’t he the dreaded GOPe that’s trying to take Trump down, which is why we’re all supposed to rally around Trump?
Gerald A (949d7d) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:08 pmNow it begins. US News reports on the odious Alan Geayson’s attack on Ted Cruz’s eligibility.
Congressman Readies Ted Cruz Eligibility Lawsuit With Eye on Mom
ropelight (52f436) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:11 pmGerald A. I’m not like you. To me the truth is the truth no matter who says it, it’s still the truth. John McCain said what he said. I reported it accurately. I’m not going by what anyone else says. I’m pointing out that opinions differ on the question of eligibility. And, those differences will have consequences for the upcoming election. Only a fool would ignore the issue.
ropelight (52f436) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:17 pmMaverick can’t catch a clue if it was dropped on his head, which he may been,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:23 pmif the voices in Meghan’s brainwashed coward daddy’s head say Mr. Cruz is a Canadian then that settles that i’d say
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:24 pmI was born in the USA.
Nobody can deny that.
Love,
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:27 pmBruce Springsteen
So are Yeargh Dean, Red Queen and Lurch, and der Commissar Sanders, you need another criteria to winnow out,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:30 pm“Winnowing” is how will we will win in 2016!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:35 pmAre you with me?
Or are you against proper punctuation?!
us news, is that even a thing anymore?
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:39 pmus news is no longer a thing
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:44 pmneither is proper punctuation
or capitalization
to reiterate, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Bernie Sanders were all born here; but they might as well have been on Ceti Alpha 6.
Is Senator Cruz, sometimes too earnest, unwilling to suffer fools gladly, perhaps, why should they be given any more deference then they deserve,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:48 pmIt was U.S. News and World Report. Now it can be found at http://www.usnews.com
ropelight (52f436) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:52 pmMaybe you don’t care who says something but for a large chunk of Trump supporters if McCain said something about Trump that would invalidate it. He would be assumed to be gunning for Trump on behalf of Bush. It would give the typical Trump supporter heartburn. But, supposedly, you don’t care who says something. Maybe, maybe not.
In fact I pointed out how Trump blatantly lied in one of the debates about how he never sought to get Bush to okay casino hotels in FL when he was Governor. I quoted from an article in a Florida newspaper which quoted some people who were were working the issue on Trump’s behalf. You replied that the source was questionable – based on nothing.
Gerald A (949d7d) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:53 pmNatural born citizen does not mean citizen at birth. It sets a higher standard: both parents had to be US citizens at the time of birth in order for their offspring be eligible for the presidency.
Where do you get this information?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:56 pmPeriods are for liberals. Especially the women!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:58 pmCitizens born of one or more parents naturalized after the birth don’t qualify.
Uh, no. Persons who were not citizens at birth don’t qualify. Which would be the case if neither parent was a citizen at birth, whatever they did later.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/6/2016 @ 7:59 pmUtter, rank bullshit.
I can see I will have to do a post about this.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:02 pmA mandate is a subsidy.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:03 pmAnd Cruz supports neither.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:03 pmropelight quoting Alan Grayson should trigger a moment of clarity to lay off the TrumpAid.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:04 pmAlso, this “true conservative” nonsense is ridiculous. Look at the voting records. That’s how you determine who is conservative, and who isn’t.
Eyes on the prize: keeping HRC out of the Oval Office.
Simon Jester (a37ddc) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:04 pmAnd totally farks up the analysis in the process.
But whatever thin reed you can reach for, in order to distort the record of Ted Cruz, you’ll grab it, won’t you?
Patterico (86c8ed) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:04 pmOr his wife.
Simon Jester (a37ddc) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:07 pmHere is the WSJ headline today:
“Ethanol Backers Mobilize Against Ted Cruz in Iowa Republican Race ”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ethanol-backers-mobilize-against-ted-cruz-in-iowa-republican-race-1452127023
Apparently HotAir’s Jazz Shaw is taking Cruz’ suggestion of a phase-out as “support.” I hope he gets raked over the, um, coals for that.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:10 pmif you see something that is totally out of character, with who the candidate is, doubt it, specially if it’s coming from a self serving trade lobby, which has made food more expensive, and not improved engine efficiency, not to mention the extravagant effort needed to generate power,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:11 pmA mandate is a certain kind of subsidy yes yes yes.
but the reason you have a distinct word for mandate and a distinct word for subsidy is cause of they are different
i’m so sleepy
happyfeet (831175) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:11 pmWhomever becomes the GOP nominee, we need to support him against the Clinton Mafia. I realize many conservative purists would rather see the Clintons in the White House than the Romneys, the Ryans, the Rubios, or the Kasichs, but there’s too much at stake. As Simon Jester says, let’s keep our eye on the prize.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:13 pmyes, that’s crossing the streams, now who does this trial balloon benefit, who has committed to this racket,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:17 pmGerald, give me a link. I’ll have a look and get back to you.
Kevin, the issue has its origins during the Constitutional Convention:
Because the issue has never been conclusively settled we find ourselves adrift and in jeopardy of electing someone who will find themselves entangled in partisan legal struggles for years at the very time we need strong unwavering legitimate hand on the helm.
It’s imperative we address the issue now while there’s time to get it done or we’ll rue the day we looked past an issue which could hamstring the next administration. I’m not stumping for Trump or undermining Ted Cruz. I put the issue in stark terms so the lines are brightly drawn, the issue can be revealed and discussed intelligently.
ropelight (52f436) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:18 pmhe reminds us why people dislike him,
http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/05/video-rick-santorum-supported-ted-cruz-opposed/
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:20 pmKevin, if I’d seen your stupid comment at #83 I wouldn’t have taken the time to respond you at #92. I won’t make that mistake again.
ropelight (52f436) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:21 pmseriously you think Alan Grayson cares about this issue, he would support a Karellen, it’s an open question whether he is one,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:23 pmI’ll have to ask the homeless lady who poops behind the 7-11 if she agrees with Alan Grayson and John McCain.
nk (dbc370) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:27 pmropelight, you have the bit well between your teeth and there’s no stopping you. Far be it from me to try. But you seem to take up every last thing that Trump takes up and argue it well past its sell-by date.
Frankly, not only does Trump have lots of similarities to Obama, but so do his supporters.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:39 pmIt is well-settled what “natural-born citizen” refers to, but every damn time the issue comes up, there’s someone who pretends to find new meaning there, which coincidentally helps them and harms an opponent.
Lincoln’s eligibility could be questioned if you wanted to do so, at least after Kentucky voted to secede.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:43 pmI’m working on a post right now, and there is some coal-raking going on, lemme tellya.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:45 pmI see that Ron Berkle is raising money for someone other than Hillary. Maybe Jerry Brown wants another go.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:46 pmKevin M,
Trump probably voted for Obama in 2008. He supports the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision regarding eminent domain. He supports single-payer for health care.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:47 pmAll in all, you’re absolutely correct to suggest that Trump’s not a conservative. Although, if he becomes the nominee, he’s a better choice than the Clinton Mafia.
Jazz Shaw has already that tweeted he will still probably endorse Cruz in the primary. Let’s just consider that fact prior to throwing him under the bus for being an apostate.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:59 pmAt #8 above I agreed with Trump when he predicted the left would attack Cruz on the issue of eligibility.
I posted the US News article about Alan Grayson’s legal challenge to Cruz to show the veracity of that prediction. Please note the first 3 words at #65 are: Now it begins, and that I refer to Grayson as odious.
ropelight (52f436) — 1/6/2016 @ 8:59 pmwell Trump did a fundraiser for mccain, and he did speak well of the huntress that year, he subsequently did slobber all over obama, the following year,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:01 pmshameless weasel, being shameless; not a surprise.
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:02 pmI don’t care whether he supports Cruz or not, and this is not about his being “an apostate.” It’s about his getting the facts inexcusably wrong, and failing to retract when called on it.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:07 pmFarm subsidies are not a deal-breaker for me. The ethanol mandate bothers me because we’re burning food in the short term and topsoil in the long term. Not because of free market theory or even car nostalgia. I remember being very enthused when the Indy cars became alcohol powered. I had an alcohol powered RC myself. But we can distill fuel alcohols from non-food sources.
nk (dbc370) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:08 pmAt #98 Kevin claims: It is well-settled what “natural-born citizen” refers to…
As well-settled as say Anthropocentric Global Warming, or whether Benghazi was caused by a video tape, or if the Magic Bullet got both John Kennedy and John Connally, or that Hillary has turned over all her emails?
Just how well-settled do you imagine it’ll be if Cruz gets the nod? And how long will it stay well-settled if the presidency is on the line?
It’s easy to get on your high horse and make grand pronouncements now, but how about when the chips are down, when the nation’s future is on the line? Are you so sure it’s going to be as well-settled as a few thousand hanging chads?
ropelight (52f436) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:17 pmalready jumping to conclusions now, will be bringing the torches then,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:28 pmSo you say. I disagree, following Blackstone. Until 2008 I never heard it even suggested that it meant anything other than “born in the USA”, or rather, as Blackstone would have it, “under the protection of US law”. But as I said, I no longer care. It’s not justiciable, and the poor old constitution has taken enough hits, it can surely take this one for the sake of rescuing it and restoring it to its proper place.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:38 pmWrong. Hamilton was eligible, because he was a citizen at the time the constitution was adopted. Otherwise they would have had to wait 35 years before anyone was eligible, which would have been slightly inconvenient.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 1/6/2016 @ 9:41 pmIf only.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:06 pmThey did no such thing.
I agree, though the consensus now seems to be otherwise.
Wrong. There is no basis for such a position. The only reasonable options are “citizen at birth” or “born under the protection of US law”. Following Blackstone I believe in the latter. But I support Cruz anyway.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:10 pmAnd we should care what McCain said why?
No, it is not the case, because in 2008 it set the precedent that presidential eligibility is not justiciable. It’s not going to change its mind in 2016.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:13 pmLet him. The courts will treat him with the same disdain that they turned on those who challenged 0bama in 2008. They’ll have to.
US citizenship can’t be forfeited involuntarily. The only way to lose it is to intentionally renounce it. So unless he can prove that she did so, there’s no case. And if someone really wants to see her birth certificate I’m sure she’ll have no objection.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:18 pmExcept Trump or Huckabee. I’d rather have Clinton than either of those.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:21 pmNo, it’s not imperative that we ever address the issue, since it’s not justiciable. If the Electoral College elects an ineligible person, and Congress counts the votes, then that person is president. End of story.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:23 pmIt’s not well settled. No court has ever addressed it, and now none ever will. Which means that as a practical matter it no longer matters.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:25 pmHaven’t the liberals already admitted it is a vile act of racism to speculate about someone’s birth certificate?
If a person can change the gender which has appeared on their birth certificate since day one, then certainly they should be allowed to change the location of the hospital in which their mother happened to be nearest when her water broke. Technically, a childbirth is a health “issue,” and no good liberal would interfere with another person’s health “issue.”
One man’s “Calgary” is another man’s…uh, “Kalamazoo.”
We’re all citizens of the world, anyhow. At least that’s what they tell us.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:26 pmNo, it couldn’t. At the time of his birth KY was under US jurisdiction. What happened to it afterwards is irrelevant.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:26 pmMy ethanol post is up. I don’t think Jazz Shaw is going to send me a Christmas card next year…
Patterico (86c8ed) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:30 pm#119, they also don’t believe in borders, so it shouldn’t matter which side of the line Calgary is on. Besides, Calgary is south of 54°40‘. Fifty-Four-Forty or Fight!
Milhouse (8489b1) — 1/6/2016 @ 10:32 pmI went over this whole thing before ropelight.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/09/17/surprise-trump-lied-about-florida-casinos-gambit-n2053478
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e088e3071e0941d68befe1782af412bb/trump-tells-bush-he-didnt-want-florida-casino-he-did
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/17/trump-vs-bush-on-florida-casinos-whos-telling-truth.html
Is that enough links?
Gerald A (949d7d) — 1/7/2016 @ 6:06 amMilhouse–
If a person is born to an American-citizen mother in Zaire, never enters the US and never in any way asserts his right as a US citizen, the IRS will still claim a portion of his income and will consider him subject to US law in that regard.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/7/2016 @ 1:00 pmKevin, the USA considers everyone in the world subject to its laws. A businessman born in Zaire, with no ancestor who ever left Africa, and no connection at all to the USA, who agrees with others in his field to coordinate their business activities so as to raise the world price of whatever they sell, has violated US law and is subject to arrest if he ever sets foot in the USA, and any assets he has in the USA can be confiscated. It’s one of the uglier faces of the USA.
But he is not protected by US law. If someone tries to murder him it will be Zaire law that stops and prosecutes the would-be murderer. He is also not subject to US jurisdiction in the sense used in the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause. And the same would be true even if both parents and all his ancestors back to 1789 were born in the USA.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 1/7/2016 @ 1:37 pmjeb didn’t allow any casino’s that weren’t tied to indian concerns, hence the brouhaha with abramoff, and the gus boulis deal,
narciso (732bc0) — 1/7/2016 @ 2:04 pmGerald, at #76 you wrote to me: ropelight,
Since I have only a vague recollection of the exchange, I asked you for a link and offered to “have a look and get back to you.”
I wasn’t ducking, or being facetious. It was a polite and sincere response.
Now you ask if your 3 links are enough. Well, no, you neglected to link or identify my offending comment, the one you referenced in #76. Note, I’m not denying your assertion, I’m asking where it is so I can revisit it.
If it’s too much trouble for you to find it, imagine how difficult it would be for me. If you can find the offending comment I’ll have a look and get back to you.
ropelight (757b7f) — 1/7/2016 @ 2:10 pm