Why Ted Cruz' candidacy is a
radical liberalist subversion of the Constitution
Conservatives support the constitution of the United States.
“
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5
Ted Cruz was born in Calgary Alberta. Electing Cruz would thus be a direct subversion of the constitution; something liberals enamored of Wall Street globalism love as it gives the planetary plutocrats more power to use the U.S.A. as a tool for itself.
The heritage foundation has an article on the topic;
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility
Quoting from the Heritage Foundation article; “Undivided loyalty to the United States was a prime concern. During the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote to George Washington, urging "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." Justice Story later noted that the natural-born–citizenship requirement "cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office."
This requirement hasn't changed and the sentiment is even more important today in the age of instant global communications and fast jet travel. Plainly innumerable people seek to terminate the requirement quite possibly including the Republican and Democrat parties.
The Ted Cruz candidacy is a kind of poison pill that attracts conservative evangelical voters if they just overlook the tiny little problem concerning the ineligibility of Cruz. Real conservatives acknowledge that the constitution could have been written in support of any form of government that the founders preferred (unless of course one appeals to divine purpose of God in electing people to write it so it would appear in history in a timely way). It is possible to interpret the constitution in whatsoever way the powers that be desire.
Fudging on the terms for eligibility is not the only potential fudgy. The first and second amendments too could be readily fudged. In fact one could I suppose prove that abortion is an inalienable right and that homosexual marriage is too. A trouble with constructionism, or better, constitutional drift is that it definitely proves that God is no longer an active author of its revision.
The founders revolted against the British Empire including Canada. In a decadent phase of its history the leading parties just wouldn't give a damn about electing a fellow that has technically been a subject of the Queen via Canadian citizenship all of his life.
Conservatives support the constitution of the United States.
“
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5
Ted Cruz was born in Calgary Alberta. Electing Cruz would thus be a direct subversion of the constitution; something liberals enamored of Wall Street globalism love as it gives the planetary plutocrats more power to use the U.S.A. as a tool for itself.
The heritage foundation has an article on the topic;
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility
Quoting from the Heritage Foundation article; “Undivided loyalty to the United States was a prime concern. During the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote to George Washington, urging "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." Justice Story later noted that the natural-born–citizenship requirement "cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office."
This requirement hasn't changed and the sentiment is even more important today in the age of instant global communications and fast jet travel. Plainly innumerable people seek to terminate the requirement quite possibly including the Republican and Democrat parties.
The Ted Cruz candidacy is a kind of poison pill that attracts conservative evangelical voters if they just overlook the tiny little problem concerning the ineligibility of Cruz. Real conservatives acknowledge that the constitution could have been written in support of any form of government that the founders preferred (unless of course one appeals to divine purpose of God in electing people to write it so it would appear in history in a timely way). It is possible to interpret the constitution in whatsoever way the powers that be desire.
Fudging on the terms for eligibility is not the only potential fudgy. The first and second amendments too could be readily fudged. In fact one could I suppose prove that abortion is an inalienable right and that homosexual marriage is too. A trouble with constructionism, or better, constitutional drift is that it definitely proves that God is no longer an active author of its revision.
The founders revolted against the British Empire including Canada. In a decadent phase of its history the leading parties just wouldn't give a damn about electing a fellow that has technically been a subject of the Queen via Canadian citizenship all of his life.
No comments:
Post a Comment