Share This Article with a Friend!


CHQ 2016 GOP Presidential Straw Poll: Week 10

It's never too early to start thinking about the 2016 presidential election. While you may change your mind later, tell us who you'd like to see as the GOP nominee this week. ConservativeHQ.com's Weekly GOP Presidential Straw Poll is available exclusively to registered CHQ members. To register, click here. If you are already a member, please log-in by clicking here. You may vote once a week. Review the choices FIRST before adding a write-in candidate as we made additions.

GOP Candidates for Presidential Poll 
MY CHOICE FOR THE 2016 REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT
THIS WEEK IS:
Choices

Login to vote in this poll.

Republican Presidential Nominee

First choice: Ted Cruz

Sarah Palin

Beyond any doubt, Sarah has already proven her high character and ability to fight. If only the low information Republicans would wake up and recognize that she is our salvation in 2016! Faint-hearted doubting Americans!

I would not be in the Senate if it wasn't for Sarah Palin

It appears we have another poll where Palin and Cruz is in a dead heat. I have a question for the folks voting for Cruz over Palin. At CPAC Cruz stated "I would not be in the Senate if it wasn't for Sarah Palin." He was correct. Why then, would you want a person who admits he couldn't win a Senate election with out Palin and expect that he could win the White House with out Sarah Palin if the two are running in the same race?
While I like Cruz, this man is UNKNOWN to the public at large. He is only well known to a small percentage of the politicophiles who follow this stuff night and day. If people want to claim that Pain, who is a national figure and the strongest conservative politician we have, cannot build a campaign, then you must also say that Cruz, a complete nobody on the national stage will not be able to either.
I wouldn't be shocked if those GOP establishment people have flooded this poll to vote for Cruz over Palin. It would be perfect for them to have to conservatives who are popular with the base fighting it out while someone like Christie could coast to the nomination and lose in the general like Romney did.

Cruz meets citizenship requirements

Other comments posted on this subject aside, Ted Cruz easily qualifies as a legal candidate for President. His mother was a natural born U.S. citizen and his parents were only in Canada at the time of his birth because of temporary work they were doing there. She certainly did not renounce her U.S. citizenship at any time and her children are by every accepted, modern legal definition natural born citizens themselves.
Primary documents consulted by individual members of the Constitutional convention may provide some insight into their thinking but they do not define the final product approved by all the founders. The delegates could have easily included the more restrictive language in their definitions and chose not to do so. Cruz's status is no different from that of a John McCain, who was born to American citizens living in the Panama Canal Zone, or from that of Barry Goldwater, who was born to U.S. citizens living in Arizona Territory before it became a state.
The left ludicrously attempted to attack both McCain's and Goldwater's citizenship status and got nowhere. To the extent there have been legitimate questions about Obama's status, they come down to only two linked questions -- whether or not he was actually born in Hawaii or outside of the United States and, if born outside the U.S., whether or not his parents renounced his U.S. citizenship in order to claim certain educational benefits and rights in Indonesia. Otherwise, his mother's U.S. citizenship is all he ever needed, and it is all that Cruz requires. Certainly, he is an ideal standard bearer in every other respect.

RE: Cruz meets citizenship requirements

If merely being a US citizen was enough to qualify him to become president, your argument might hold water....BUT mere citizenship is NOT enough. Just as Obama should never have been allowed to run for office, Cruz is likewise not qualified. He is NOT a NBC, with NBC citizenship being recognized by the courts as much different than mere citizenship. Yes, McCain was qualified to run because BOTH of his parents were American citizens and they were in Panama at the direction of their government as active duty members of our military AND McCain was born in an area that does not automatically give birth right citizenship to children born to foreign visitors.

Cruz, while inheriting America citizen through his mother, also inherited Cuba citizenship via his father, at birth. It does not matter whether or not he ever claimed that citizenship, set foot in Cuba or even recognized his own duel citizenship, he has it.

If what you claim were true, then two illegal aliens could come here, obtain American citizenship for a child via our (idiotic) birth right citizenship statute, immediately return to their home country with their child, raise the child there for at least 21 years, return to the US for 14 years and then run for the presidency at age 35. And based on Obama winning the presidency with no experience and no qualifications other than his race, you know they would win! If this really something we want to open door to?

Our founders set aside Natural Born status, meaning TWO American citizen parents (no matter how they might have obtained that citizenship, they can be Natural/native born or naturalized)

In Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) – The Court “equates a ‘native born’ citizen with a “natural born” citizen under Article II – and, again, recognizes only two types of citizenship: natural/native-born(native born defined as born on American soil), and naturalized.” The court then goes on to define the one difference between natural and native born citizenship, “The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. ”
In fact, the court is careful to point out that the terms Native born and Natural born, while both mean citizen, are obtained through very different processes and therefor hold different Constitutional meaning.

The court mentions native born and naturalized many times but specifically points out that the requirement to be eligible to be president requires ‘natural born’ citizenship, distinguishing between native and natural born while recognizing that both give citizenship to the individual.

And in our founding documents there are many references to the reason behind allotting Natural Born status ONLY to the positions of president and vice president...they had just fought a very hard won war from those who held no allegiance to their newly created country or government and they wanted to ensure that at no time in the future could anyone who held even a hint of allegiance to a foreign government be allowed to become president and possibly desire to change the newly founded government and freedoms
they had fought so hard to obtain.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Cruz and admire his determination to stand up and recognize his love for this country, BUT he is NOT constitutionally eligible to become president any more than Obama was. We must stop allowing the meaning of the words of our founders to be twisted no matter how good the intentions of those doing the twisting!

Cruz requirements

After legally electing Barack Hussein Obama, with his checkered citizenship pedigree, are you kidding me?b Cr A9W

Cruz requirements

Who says Hussein Obama was legally elected? He should never have been allowed on the ballot. Nancy Pelosi sent out two separate and different statements of his alleged eligibility. (Pelosi was raised by a man who had mob connections and whose gubernatorial campaign was cut short by federal indictment on corruption charges--she learned at his knee.) Obama was not properly vetted, and there is evidence of widespread voter fraud. That doesn't sound like a "legal" election to me.

Never mind that most of those who supported Obama would fall into the class of Low Information Voters or those who are totally ignorant of the Constitutional requirements and voted on emotional grounds only.

The natural born Citizen

In order to know the definition of “natural born Citizen,” one can only know it by looking back to the Founding Fathers.

In the opening paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, they make specific reference to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

In paragraph two, they build on that reference with this affirmation of God given "natural" rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Clearly, the Founders saw natural born Citizenship as something defined by the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," and NOT by ANY man made law. So what is the source they saw as authoritative in defining a natural born Citizen? The work known as The Law of Nations, by Emerich de Vattel.

Article I, Section VIII, Clause X of the US Constitution states, "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations."

The Founders citation of this work in our Constitution meant that upon it's ratification, The Law of Nations became the authoritative source for defining offences against said Law of Nations.

In Book One, Chapter 19, Sections 212, 215, 216 and 217 of the Law of Nations, Vattel makes it crystal clear that natural born Citizen status is determined solely by the citizenship of the fathers. Place of birth and citizenship of the mothers are IRRELEVANT!

Not only did the Founders adhere to the Natural Law definition of “natural born Citizen,” they used Vattel’s Law of Nations extensively. Google “Vattel and the Founders.” Also visit the website of Natural Law Scholar and Constitutional Analyst, Jedi Pauly. www.jedipauly.com

Obama is not the first to usurp the office of POTUS, but we must make sure he is the last.

The natural born citizen

WJ, while I agree with most of what you write, I have to take issue with your assertion that the use of the three words "Law of Nations" in Article I, Section 8, refers to Vattel's book. If you look throughout the Constitution, you will note that almost all nouns have initial capital letters (a couple were missed, which would be "typos" in today's technology). This is consistent with writing styles of the era and particularly in the German language. In fact, German usage still capitalizes all nouns--although in the late 70s when I was in Germany to study the language, the custom was starting to fall away. The title of Vattel's book contains two nouns, "law" and "nations." Pursuant to that custom of initial capping the nouns, they would be capped, but there is absolutely nothing else to link that phrase to Vattel's book. Further, the correct book title is The Law of Nations, with the definite article as part of the title. Good writing usage capitalizes the first word of a title, so if the book were indeed referenced in Article I, Section 8, that would would also be capitalized and likely set off with underscore or other distinguishing attribute as I have done here with Italics. That the Founders likely relied upon Vattel's book for their understanding is quite evident.  It is known that Franklin had a copy, as 3 were sent to him by a Swiss editor.  A few years back, the New York Library Society conducted an audit of its books and determined that two volumes had been missing since 1789---borrowed by none other than G. Washington!  One was a book of transcripts of speeches in Parliament; the other was a copy of The Law of Nations.  This unreturned book was replaced by the ladies of the Mt. Vernon Society. Thus there is strong evidence that the Founders relied upon Vattel's work in crafting their concept of natural born citizenship, but it doesn't hold that the book is specifically referenced in the Constitution.  Nor does it make logical sense to include it in a section discussing the legitimate powers granted to Congress.  If that section were being written today, the 3-word phrase would more likely be rendered as "international law."

Ted Cruz is Still Not a "Natural Born Citizen"

How can a person born in Canada of a foreign father be a natural born citizen? This is simply preposterous.Are you saying that the Supreme Court was wrong in Minor v. Happersett? Are you a constitutional scholar or a constitutional attorney? What is so difficult to grasp about "born in the country of parents who are citizens"? John McCain and Barry Goldwater having nothing to do with the language of the Constitution and the rule of law. What did Congress know about 'natural-born citizen'? Eight tries at eliminating requirement suggests organized strategy in place If all that is required to be a natural born citizen is to have a mother who is a U.S. citizen, why were there no less than eight attempts by members of Congress, during the years Barack Obama was developing a power base and running for president, to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy, according to a new video.The video documentary was produced by Carl Gallups, the senior pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church for more than 24 years with a long history of community and law enforcement involvement. Documentation for his video comes from a variety of congressional records showing that beginning June 11, 2003, and continuing through the most recent effort, Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight proposals targeting that constitutional requirement.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.wnd.com/2011/07/317705/Why were all references to the Supreme Court language in Minor v. Happersett defining "natural born citizen" removed from the legal research web site Justia.com prior to the 2008 presidential election? JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/U.S. Supreme Court Defines "Natural Born Citizen" "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162Here is what constitutional attorney Mario Apuzzo has to say about this matter: Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth Preserving It was the fear of foreign influence invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the military that prompted John Jay, our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, to write to George Washington the following letter dated July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (underlying "born" in the original). Jay’s recommendation did make it into the Constitution. Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .” In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen." Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” the President must be a "natural born Citizen." Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans.The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this. That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born Citizen." This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in, _The Law of Nations_ (1758), Vol.1, Section 212, Des Citoyens et Naturels, a "citizen" is a member of the civil society. To become a "citizen" is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, Vattel wrote that a native or indigenes (written in French as /les naturels/ or /indigenes/) or “natural born Citizen” as the term later became translated from French into English, is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) to cite just two.) With the presidential qualification question never being involved, neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only "citizens" who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This amendment and laws have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a "citizen." The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is.Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a "natural born Citizen" prevails today. We can also see from these definitions that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America (soil and parents are all united in one nation). http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.htmlTo the list of those whose names should be removed from this and any other presidential poll is the name Marco Rubio. This man is not a natural born citizen and he knows it, but he carefully evades and avoids any substantive discussion of the cold hard fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens when he was born. Therefore he is not and never can be eligible for the office of president of the United States

Ted Cruz is still not a "natural born citizen"

How can a person born in Canada of a foreign father be a natural born citizen? This is simply preposterous.Are you saying that the Supreme Court was wrong in Minor v. Happersett?Are you a constitutional scholar or a constitutional attorney?What is so difficult to grasp about "born in the country of parents who are citizens"? John McCain and Barry Goldwater having nothing to do with the language of the Constitution and the rule of law.What did Congress know about 'natural-born citizen'?8 tries at eliminating requirement suggests organized strategy in placeIf all that is required to be a natural born citizen is to have a mother who is a U.S. citizen, why were there no less than eight attempts by members of Congress during the years Barack Obama was developing a power base and running for president to remove the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen,” suggesting an organized strategy, according to a new video.The video documentary was produced by Carl Gallups, the senior pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church for more than 24 years with a long history of community and law enforcement involvement.Documentation for his video comes from a variety of congressional records showing that beginning June 11, 2003, and continuing through the most recent effort, Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight proposals targeting that constitutional requirement.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw&feature=player_embeddedhttp://www.wnd.com/2011/07/317705/Why were all references to the Supreme Court language in Minor v. Happersett defining "natural born citzen" removed from the legal research web site Justia.com prior to the 2008 presidential election?JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/U.S. Supreme Court Defines "Natural Born Citizen""The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168]   parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162Here is what constitutional attorney Mario Apuzzo has to say about this matter:Why the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of Our Constitution Is Important and Worth PreservingIt was the fear of foreign influence invading the Office of Commander in Chief of the military that prompted John Jay, our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, to write to George Washington the following letter dated July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen (underlying "born" in the original).Jay’s recommendation did make it into the Constitution. Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .” In this clause and in Articles I, III, and IV, the Founding Fathers distinguished between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen."Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” the President must be a "natural born Citizen." Through this clause, the Founders sought to guarantee that the ideals for which they fought would be faithfully preserved for future generations of Americans. The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder has sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this.That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born Citizen." This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in, _The Law of Nations_ (1758), Vol.1, Section 212, Des Citoyens et Naturels, a "citizen" is a member of the civil society. To become a "citizen" is to enter into society as a member thereof.On the other hand, Vattel wrote that a native or indigenes (written in French as /les naturels/ or /indigenes/) or “natural born Citizen” as the term later became translated from French into English, is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society.This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) to cite just two.)  With the presidential qualification question never being involved, neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only "citizens" who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This amendment and laws have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a "citizen." The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a "natural born Citizen" prevails today. We can also see from these definitions that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America (soil and parents are all united in one nation).http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html 

Ted Cruz not eligible

Ted Cruz is not a "natural born citizen" as is required by the U.S. Constitution to serve as president. He was born in Canada and his father was not a U.S. citizen. He insists that he is a U.S. citizen, but he evades the clear importance of the constitutional provision requiring the president ot be a "natural born citizen" - that is one who is "born in the country of parents who are citizens". This is the definition provided by Vattel in "The Law of Nations", one of the principal reference works used by the Founders of this nation at the Constitutional Convention, along with Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". Vattel: § 212. Of the citizens and natives.   The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. U.S. Supreme Court:"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168]   parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162Ted Cruz's name should not be included on any list of potential candidates for president due to his indisputable lack of eligiblity. Nor should the names Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, and Rick Santorum be included. None of these individuals are natural born citizens. Inclusion of the names of ineligible candidates is an insult to Americans who believe strongly that respect for the Constitution is an essential requirement for preservation of the rule of law in this nation. Moreover, inclusion of ineligible individuals in a presidential poll distorts the process and undemines the very purpose of conducting such a poll. 

2016 Presidential candidate - Sarah Palin

I remain adamant that Sarah Palin is our ONLY viable candidate for president. She has proven her high character.

Sarah Palin

me second the motion.

Sarah Palin

I am the vanguard in two areas:

1. Promoting a Hillsdale College style Charter School in Ann Arbor.

2. Promoting factual Electrical Science History.

I have never faltered in my belief/understanding that Sarah Palin must be our choice in 2016.

Please spread the word.