Trump: Ted Cruz is a nasty guy whom no one likes — and I might sue him myself over his eligibility

posted at 1:21 pm on January 18, 2016 by Allahpundit

Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean, that really got out of hand fast.

The day before last week’s debate, Trump told us it was Democrats we needed to worry about when it came to Cruz’s eligibility. Why, he had only raised the issue because he feared that his good friend Ted would have a cloud over him as nominee if he didn’t seek a declaratory judgment about his “natural-born” status. That’s just the kind of thoughtful pal he is. Three days later, after the punch-up at the debate, a New York Times reporter asked him whether he might sue Cruz himself. Response: “I’ll think about it. t’s not something that I would want to do. It’s certainly something I would have standing to do.” Twenty-four hours later, after Cruz spent a day on the trail in South Carolina savaging Trump as a fake conservative, Trump had moved a bit further. Here’s what he told Stephanopoulos yesterday on “This Week”:

Stephanopoulos told Trump that some legal scholars have suggested Trump himself would have standing to sue Cruz.

“Oh, that’s an interesting case. Wow, that sounds like a very good case. I’d do the public a big favor,” Trump responded, but he would not say whether he’d actually file such a suit. “It’s a good idea– maybe I’ll talk to them about it. I’d like to talk to Ted about it, see how he’d feel about it. ‘Cause you know, when I file suits, I file real suits.”

Back in September, at the height of the Trump/Cruz alliance, Trump now famously said of Cruz’s eligibility, “I hear it was checked out by every attorney and every which way and I understand Ted is in fine shape.” Oddly enough, not only have his feelings about suing Cruz changed since then, his feelings about Cruz personally have too. At the December debate, he declared that Cruz had a “wonderful” temperament after calling him a “maniac” in Congress a few days later and catching flak for it on conservative talk radio. Watch below and you’ll find him dismissing Cruz as a nasty guy whom no one likes. What changed? I need to believe that true bromance is possible.

Here’s what Cruz said in SC, by the way. I thought that, if and when the war with Trump came, Cruz would pull his punches at first, not wanting to alienate Trump fans any more than is necessary. Nope. He’s throwing roundhouses:

“That has got to drive him nuts, and I imagine it sent him out of bed this morning tweeting and tweeting and tweeting,” Cruz said. “I think in terms of a commander in chief, we ought to have someone who isn’t springing out of bed to tweet in a frantic response to the latest polls.”…

Cruz also wondered aloud why Trump had reacted angrily to comments Cruz made a day earlier blasting the policies of New York Democrats. The two candidates have been tangled over Cruz’s use of the phrase “New York values.”

“It does raise the question of, ‘OK, if you are offended at my pointing out how much the failed policies of Hillary Clinton and Andrew Cuomo and Bill de Blasio have hurt New Yorkers, then which of those policies do you agree with?” Cruz said. “Given the fact that for much of his life, Donald was financially supporting those politicians, writing checks to Hillary Clinton, writing checks to Andrew Cuomo, it’s a fair inference that he supports their policies.”…

Cruz continued to sketch a number of other contrasts with Trump, bringing up gun and property rights when pressed to detail policy differences with the billionaire. Asked to say where he differs with Trump on national security, Cruz flatly replied, “To be honest, I don’t know what Trump’s position is.”

In case that was too subtle, last night before the Democratic debate Cruz tweeted, “As the #DemDebate begins, Republicans have to wonder which team @realDonaldTrump would play for,” along with a link to a YouTube video of Trump praising his old friend Hillary. Watch the second clip below and you’ll see what one of Cruz’s Super PACs is doing with an old bromantic Trump soundbite. Maybe the only proper way for this trainwreck of a primary to end, after month upon month of Trump and Cruz gladhanding each other in the most cynically unctuous, sickmaking way possible, is with a Trump v. Cruz lawsuit before the Supreme Court over Cruz’s eligibility. With Cruz representing himself.

The irony is, if Cruz decides he wants to settle the eligibility issue in court, where he’ll almost certainly win, he actually might need Trump to sue him. Popehat, who’s a lawyer by trade, wondered this morning who Cruz might sue if he followed Trump’s earlier advice and sought a declaratory judgment on his “natural-born” judgment. Who would the defendant be in a suit like that? I suggested the 50 individual secretaries of state, each of whom would be required by law to either certify a Cruz win on primary day or disqualify him as constitutionally ineligible, but Popehat notes that they’re not the final arbiters of victory in our system. The electors of the electoral college are. (In some states, an elector could legally vote for Cruz for president even if he didn’t win that state’s election or refuse to vote for him if he did.) Could Cruz sue all 538 electors? Have those electors even been named yet? Even if they have, could Cruz claim standing in a lawsuit against them before a single ballot has been cast?

Trump suing Cruz could solve this problem by sidestepping the problem with electors. In this case, it’d be Trump, not Cruz, who’s the plaintiff. He’d have standing, in theory, because as one of the candidates challenging Cruz for an office for which Cruz may be constitutionally ineligible, he’d suffer a concrete injury if Cruz was permitted to run and won despite not qualifying under Article II. (I’ll never understand why any random American couldn’t make the same argument. Haven’t we all suffered an injury as citizens if we’re being governed by someone who’s barred by the Constitution from holding those governing powers?) If anyone has legal grounds to drag Cruz before a judge on this question, you’d think it’d be one of the other contenders for the presidency. The question for Trump is whether suing would backfire. If Cruz wins, as he probably will, perennial winner Donald Trump will look like a loser and he won’t have the eligibility argument to hold over Cruz’s head anymore. On the other hand, we’re months away from a final ruling on appeal even if the courts fast-track the suit. Suing now would successfully place a cloud over Cruz’s head before voting begins in Iowa and New Hampshire. The real calculus for Trump is how many voters would be pissed off at him for trying to get Cruz thrown off the ballot versus how many voters would run scared from Cruz for fear that he won’t be able to hold the office if they vote for him.

Who knows? If Trump doesn’t sue Cruz, maybe Huckabee will. No one seems to hate Cruz more than Huck does. Exit question: Any of Cruz’s friends in Congress want to try floating a constitutional amendment in the meantime repealing the “natural-born” clause from Article II? Anyone? Bueller?



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

TRUMP is calling for repealing ObamaCare AND REPLACED….he just doesn’t tell you he is totally for SINGLE PAYER….

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 3:25 PM

now we just have to wait for Cruz and his cronies to hike up their skirts and run crying to the press that the big bad Trump hit him too hard

dio55 on January 18, 2016 at 2:05 PM

Hit too hard? It was a childish remark. Nobody likes Cruz? You need to be around when my extended family talks about Trump.

At any rate, Trump is fading for me. Whatever popularity he’s garnering now, doesn’t make him any more presidential. In fact, the more I look at him, the less I like.

hawkdriver on January 18, 2016 at 3:27 PM

We’ve already seen a six month effort to destroy Trump by the GOP and the MSM/Democrats. The media has turned into Captain Ahab at this point.

Doomberg on January 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM

But hillary is the great white whale.

IDontCair on January 18, 2016 at 3:28 PM

I was not following politics nearly as intently so I can’t really claim to know what the dynamics of the Bush/McCain race was.

If you’re referring to 2004, Kerry was the Democrat version of Romney and tried to run as an ultra-bland moderate. Neither Hillary nor Sanders are going to make this error.

Doomberg on January 18, 2016 at 3:19 PM

Point is that in that election the republicans came out in greater numbers than democrats, because they liked Bush, unlike McCain & Romney when half the base hated, (they still voted, but with no interest in convincing friends & family to vote as well)

If the base loves you they turn out in greater numbers, And work to convince family to do the same. which is why i actually believe Rubio is not a strong nominee because grassroots conservatives dislike him,

Trump is a different story because he might attract some democrats, but its a theory, not a proven fact,

Another thing about Bush, he talked about social issues all the time, i remember every pastor in America urging their members that it is a a duty to go vote, that wasn’t the case with McCain & Romney who refused to talk about social issues

The thing is that democrats run on social issues against us anyway, at least by actually talking about them you excite part of the republican base

OrthodoxJew on January 18, 2016 at 3:29 PM

Trump! More like Perot every day, with twice as many twits who think he is their Messiah.

CoolHandLuke on January 18, 2016 at 3:30 PM

I think Cruz’s situation is hopeless, myself. A good chunk of his support is coming from anti-Trumpers who prefer Rubio but have made a tactical decision to jump on board with Cruz, hoping Cruz will destroy Trump for them. These folks have little attachment to Cruz except as a tool and will flock back to Rubio at the first opportunity.

And even if Cruz somehow gets the general I don’t see how he is going to exceed Romney’s performance. He brings nothing new to the table, and arguably brings less.

Doomberg on January 18, 2016 at 3:17 PM

Your premise is flawed. To an outsider, Cruz’s only real shot at the nomination is Trump finding the precise combination necessary to defeat himself. You can’t force that, although a really clever person might bait Trump into it, assuming they knew what the combination was. Not smart money on that. I think Cruz wants to be prepared for that scenario, but focus on making himself the right choice for Vice President, which means not so much winning over Trump supporters, but maintaining his hold on conservatives that Trump will need in the general.

As to you second point of electability, I disagree with you but I also think the argument is moot. We’ve been arguing here on HotAir for a decade about people’s electability, and I have come to the conclusion that those types of concerns are what gave us McCain and Romney. Congenial losers are still losers. Trump is Mr. Unelectable, but he’s going to win the general anyway. Let’s stop getting our knickers in a twist about who others will or won’t vote for. Vote for the best person for the job in the primary and in the general.

Immolate on January 18, 2016 at 3:30 PM

Cruz has “negatives” but he scores some of the highest in favorbility…

right2bright on January 18, 2016 at 2:42 PM

Not true.

Most importantly, it’s that the people don’t know Cruz’s policy positions, and so in the future the negatives will rise sharply for Cruz, while that won’t happen with Trump as the negatives on Trump have been fully plastered all through the media over the last six months.

Yes, it’s going to be a HUGE negative when it’s widely known that Cruz holds a no exceptions for rape or the life of the mother position. And yes, Cruz’s 16% national sales tax plan (VAT) is going to be a huge negative among seniors and the working class.

Btw, Cruz again has … been dishonest … in saying during the debate that his tax isn’t a VAT tax. Cruz is at best splitting hair with semantics, but from Forbes:

Ted Cruz’s ‘Business Flat Tax’ is a VAT:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/01/15/ted-cruzs-business-flat-tax-is-a-vat

anotherJoe on January 18, 2016 at 3:31 PM

Luke: I’m just standin’ in the rain talkin’ to myself.

IDontCair on January 18, 2016 at 3:34 PM

So what’s to stop Trump from again switching sides after he’s elected?

Crickets.

libfreesMom on January 18, 2016 at 2:32 PM

So your only argument is that he might be like all the other candidates?

Hold on… BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ok, that was funny!

dominigan on January 18, 2016 at 3:35 PM

Ted Cruz’s ‘Business Flat Tax’ is a VAT:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/01/15/ted-cruzs-business-flat-tax-is-a-vat

anotherJoe on January 18, 2016 at 3:31 PM

Hey, nobody cares about taxes immigration is the only issue that matters. Right?

Brian1972 on January 18, 2016 at 3:36 PM

I think Cruz’s situation is hopeless, myself. A good chunk of his support is coming from anti-Trumpers who prefer Rubio but have made a tactical decision to jump on board with Cruz, hoping Cruz will destroy Trump…

Doomberg on January 18, 2016 at 3:17 PM

True. That’s why I say that we should consolidate our support behind Trump to hand the GOPe a clear defeat.

anotherJoe on January 18, 2016 at 3:38 PM

Trump is the first POTUS candidate ever to be banned from other countries.

Don’t ever remember seeing hatred on this level directed at any POTUS candidate.

Moesart on January 18, 2016 at 2:26 PM

Coming from a MUSLIM member of parliament, it should be a BADGE OF HONOR!

Good! About time someone stood up to them!

dominigan on January 18, 2016 at 3:38 PM

So TRUMP opposed the war during W. Bush…..then supported Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi getting their leadership positions at that time…..NEW YORK VALUES

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 3:38 PM

Trump is the first POTUS candidate ever to be banned from other countries.

Don’t ever remember seeing hatred on this level directed at any POTUS candidate.

Moesart on January 18, 2016 at 2:26 PM

Oh, and you might want to read this article…

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/18/trump-wins-uk-parliament-debate-on-banning-donald-trump-without-even-being-there/

It’s written by a man, who was born into a Muslim British family, who takes offense to the whole sham. This was an especially good paragraph…

In the debate we heard from Tulip Siddiq, who the electorate of Hampstead sent to Westminster just last year – calling for Mr. Trump to be blocked from entering the UK.

I can’t help but feel that Ms. Siddiq has a few vested interests she didn’t disclose. Her aunt is the Prime Minister of Bangladesh – a 90 per cent Muslim country. And she herself campaigned for U.S. President Barack Obama, who has been notoriously soft on radical Islam – because that’s what the Left do for votes.

Sounds like Trump is on the correct side of the argument. And you aren’t.

dominigan on January 18, 2016 at 3:41 PM

Maybe not always nasty, but lawyerly:

Reporter asks Ted Cruz four times: “How do you define amnesty?”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/01/reporter-asks-ted-cruz-four-times-how-do-you-define-amnesty/

anotherJoe on January 18, 2016 at 3:43 PM

Ivanka does the LIBERAL AIR KISSES…..NEW YORK VALUES

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 3:48 PM

Most importantly, it’s that the people don’t know Cruz’s policy positions,

anotherJoe on January 18, 2016 at 3:31 PM

Of course it’s true, he has much higher favorbility than Trump.

But the funny part of the post was what I quoted…Trump’s positions, on federal subsidies, raising taxes, tariff’s, are not as well known, but they are out there.

Trump talks very little policy, because he doesn’t know any…but as soon as he learns what “triad” means, I am sure he will be more than happy to explain his policy.

No one has come into this came with less knowledge than Trump…and it shows.

But he is for deporting…no wait, his website doesn’t say that…he is for lowering taxes, wait his policy states otherwise…he is for overturning Obamacare, wait, he has said ObamaCare doesn’t go far enough, he wants to replace it…

From bad to worse…that is Trumps policy…in fact here is his new ad campaign…

From bad to worse…Trump/Bloomberg–2016

right2bright on January 18, 2016 at 3:49 PM

Reporter asks Ted Cruz four times: “How do you define amnesty?”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/01/reporter-asks-ted-cruz-four-times-how-do-you-define-amnesty/

anotherJoe on January 18, 2016 at 3:43 PM

Yeah, that was bad…he should have said, “Go on to Donald Trumps website, his policies define it, and embrace it”

right2bright on January 18, 2016 at 3:50 PM

Yes, it’s going to be a HUGE negative when it’s widely known that Cruz holds a no exceptions for rape or the life of the mother position. And yes, Cruz’s 16% national sales tax plan (VAT) is going to be a huge negative among seniors and the working class.

As a Christian, I’m glad that my preferred candidate doesn’t think that having a rapist father or having a mother who is willing to shop around for the “right” doctor is a capital offense. “Life of the mother” is a camel’s nose and nothing else. No licensed physician is going to debate whether to save the mother or risk losing both mother and child in a situation where that is a real threat. The standard that is applied is whether the doctor made a sound decision, and the mechanism for holding physicians accountable for their medical decisions is already in place.

Btw, Cruz again has … been dishonest … in saying during the debate that his tax isn’t a VAT tax. Cruz is at best splitting hair with semantics, but from Forbes:

Ted Cruz’s ‘Business Flat Tax’ is a VAT:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/01/15/ted-cruzs-business-flat-tax-is-a-vat

anotherJoe on January 18, 2016 at 3:31 PM

More hair-splitting about nomenclature on a topic that has always been political masturbation. Omnibus legislation necessary to support a massive tax reform operation will never pass because too many oxen get gored. It is also legislative malpractice, but of course that never stopped anyone.

Real reform of tax policy will happen through distinct and limited strokes, which happens to be the right philosophy toward governance in any case. Small changes that can be more more-accurately forecast, simpler to implement, easier to measure, and if necessary more-easily reverted. I know candidates like to talk about fabulous end-state solutions, but that’s because they’re sexy and the real world is mostly boring.

Immolate on January 18, 2016 at 3:51 PM

Voters are going to make choices soon. They’ll have to choose between CRUZ…..and the remaining NEW YORK VALUES RINOS

Good luck

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 3:54 PM

TRUMP discontinuing the attacks on CRUZ? Especially after he got his head handed to him when CRUZ slammed and destroyed him during the debate last week?

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 3:58 PM

Absolute nonsense if it’s Clinton vs. Trump.

More likely it’ll be Bernie.

Baggi on January 18, 2016 at 3:58 PM

CLINTON and TRUMP are looking OLD and TIRED…..Very OLD and TIRED

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 4:01 PM

And Trump is a fascist who goes against everything the United States was founded to protect. So there’s that.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 4:01 PM

CLINTON has had so much plastic surgery she can’t even move her eyebrows…..

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 4:03 PM

CRUZ will be the real AGENT OF CHANGE in Washington.

TRUMP will be simply a continuation of working around the edges of BIG GOVERNMENT.

These are your choices…..Good luck

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 4:09 PM

TRUMP is not a fascist…..he is however a NEW YORK VALUES BIG GOVERNMENT TOTALITARIAN LIBERAL RINO….that’s what he is. So be it

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 4:13 PM

Everyone questioning Cruz’s legibility to run, what about Rubio?

It is my understanding his parents were not citizens when he was born. Basically an anchor baby.

Why isn’t anyone questioning this?

Barred on January 18, 2016 at 4:14 PM

TRUMP is not a fascist…..he is however a NEW YORK VALUES BIG GOVERNMENT TOTALITARIAN LIBERAL RINO….that’s what he is. So be it

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 4:13 PM

We’re splitting hairs here.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 4:16 PM

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 4:13 PM

I think your Nom explains your comments.

Barred on January 18, 2016 at 4:17 PM

The only thing as tiresome as virulent anti-Cruzers is virulent anti-Trumpers. I mean, seriously, you can anti-Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Paul, Fiorino, Carson all you want and nobody will be much bothered. You have my permission.

Immolate on January 18, 2016 at 4:28 PM

TRUMP is not a fascist…..he is however a NEW YORK VALUES BIG GOVERNMENT TOTALITARIAN LIBERAL RINO….that’s what he is. So be it

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 4:13 PM

How could that be? If not for Trump, not a SINGLE R would bring up immigration & open borders.
Trump is a nationalist, & I do believe he’s the only one that would define America by its borders.

Belle on January 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM

“It’s a good idea– maybe I’ll talk to them about it. I’d like to talk to Ted about it, see how he’d feel about it. ‘Cause you know, when I file suits, I file real suits.”

For bankruptcy?

Trump: Cruz is a Nasty Hypocrite

Pot, kettle, black, on steroids.

Translation: tRump is losing.

Steve Z on January 18, 2016 at 4:34 PM

How could that be? If not for Trump, not a SINGLE R would bring up immigration & open borders.
Trump is a nationalist, & I do believe he’s the only one that would define America by its borders.

Belle on January 18, 2016 at 4:33 PM

And Rand Paul is the only candidate on the Republican side who would define America by its founding principles.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 4:35 PM

Belle….you’re entitled to your opinion. NEW YORK VALUES are OPEN BORDERS VALUES.

So when a candidate says he’ll deport Illegal Aliens but THEY CAN COME RIGHT BACK IN…..LEGALLY….just what does that mean to you?

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 4:37 PM

Belle….you’re entitled to your opinion. NEW YORK VALUES are OPEN BORDERS VALUES.

So when a candidate says he’ll deport Illegal Aliens but THEY CAN COME RIGHT BACK IN…..LEGALLY….just what does that mean to you?

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 4:37 PM

Come on now…don’t try to out-bigot Trump. Illegal immigrants are people, just like you and me. They just want to make a life here, just like you and me.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 4:48 PM

Yes indeed, Illegal Aliens are people, and should be held accountable for their actions. Illegal Aliens are not just like you and me. No such thing as an Illegal Immigrant…..what is that?

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 4:53 PM

Yes indeed, Illegal Aliens are people, and should be held accountable for their actions. Illegal Aliens are not just like you and me. No such thing as an Illegal Immigrant…..what is that?

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 4:53 PM

Illegal immigrants are immigrants who were screwed by big government’s attempts to regulate immigration and population.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 5:01 PM

The only thing as tiresome as virulent anti-Cruzers is virulent anti-Trumpers. I mean, seriously, you can anti-Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Paul, Fiorino, Carson all you want and nobody will be much bothered. You have my permission.

Immolate on January 18, 2016 at 4:28 PM

I second this…

…no, wait a minute.

By proclamation, Immolate’s position stated above is hereby deemed to be passed.

Thanks for the parliamentary tricksies, Nancy P.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, if Oboozle and Congress played rock – paper – scissors, wouldn’t a gavel beat a pen and a phone? Inquiring minds want to know.

My guess to the answer is only if the gavel-holder actually uses it properly.

hillbillyjim on January 18, 2016 at 5:08 PM

TBS, nobody here in America, forced Illegal Aliens to come here and break our laws while doing it. And yes, we as America, just like every other country, has the right to regulate immigration into our/their country…..To say otherwise is simply NEW YORK VALUES doing the talking.

That’s your choice….I appear to just disagree with you

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 5:09 PM

Hey, all you anti-Trump. Yes, you’re entitled to your opinion as well.

Listening to Michael Savage.

He said Cruz is unelectable. & the rinos who are bashing Trump know this.

Hey, TBSchemer, illegal immigrants are just that…illegal. They broke the law. One of them killed Kate Steinle. Marilyn Pharis, 64, was raped & murdered with a hammer by an illegal.

Liberal response: This rarely happens. They’re here to work jobs Americans won’t do & are peaceful, family loving people. They never drive while intoxicated. They embrace American values, learn English quickly, & have studied the Constitution. They’re not takers. They don’t, as a whole, use food stamps, welfare or free health care. Its a myth they clog up the E.R.’s.

Belle on January 18, 2016 at 5:15 PM

They embrace American values.

Belle on January 18, 2016 at 5:15 PM

Just embrace, LOL. They do much worse with European values.

Rix on January 18, 2016 at 5:24 PM

TBS, nobody here in America, forced Illegal Aliens to come here and break our laws while doing it. And yes, we as America, just like every other country, has the right to regulate immigration into our/their country…..To say otherwise is simply NEW YORK VALUES doing the talking.

That’s your choice….I appear to just disagree with you

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 5:09 PM

They don’t have to justify their freedom to immigrate here, just as we don’t have to justify our freedom to own a gun or speak our minds. In a free country, nobody gets to regulate any of that “just because.” A government that respects liberty only provides enforcement of liberty, and does absolutely nothing else.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 5:35 PM

Hey, TBSchemer, illegal immigrants are just that…illegal. They broke the law. One of them killed Kate Steinle. Marilyn Pharis, 64, was raped & murdered with a hammer by an illegal.

Belle on January 18, 2016 at 5:15 PM

Did ALL illegal immigrants kill Kate Steinle? No? Then there’s no reason to bring that up except to justify bigotry. We already have laws against rape and murder. We don’t need laws against immigration to make those things illegal.

Thomas Jefferson broke the law when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Slaves fleeing their plantations were also breaking the law. Rosa Parks broke the law when she sat at the front of the bus. Edward Snowden broke the law when he revealed the massive and illegal surveillance state Bush and Obama have had in place.

So tell me, should all of them ended up in jail? Which is more sacred, laws or liberty?

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 5:40 PM

TBS, what is the maximum amount of people you would allow to immigrate into our country…..or should I ask, to the North American Continent?

And should I be allowed to prohibit them from entering MY HOUSE if I choose to?

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 5:52 PM

Ironic that Cruz will only be ruled eligible if the Justices reject his supposed original intent view of the Const.

cimbri on January 18, 2016 at 5:52 PM

Ivanka does the LIBERAL AIR KISSES…..NEW YORK VALUES

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 3:48 PM

Shouldn’t you be on a Dem website pushing Hillary? You’re only helping Trump.

cimbri on January 18, 2016 at 5:56 PM

Hey, TBS, if illegals weren’t allowed in because America is an open border nation, Kate Steinle & Marilyn Pharis would still be alive. Surely you can understand that. Its not about bigotry. Its about letting everyone in, unvetted.

..criminal and illegal aliens commit murder at much higher rates than all inhabitants of the U.S. – at least 3 to 10 times higher.

Comparing slaves to illegal immigrants? Chanell Temple, an African American woman says this comparison is “very offensive.”

Black slaves did not break into this country, OK? They were brought here against their will. Also, black slaves are not immigrants. Immigrants are people with a choice. They come here by choice. Slaves did not have a choice.
“My people commit a crime, they go to jail. You people commit a crime, you get amnesty.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416643/meet-ted-cruzs-billionaire-donors-eliana-johnson

http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-when-someone-compared-illegal-immigrants-to-slaves-this-woman-stood-up-with-an-epic-message/

Belle on January 18, 2016 at 6:07 PM

TBS, what is the maximum amount of people you would allow to immigrate into our country…..or should I ask, to the North American Continent?

And should I be allowed to prohibit them from entering MY HOUSE if I choose to?

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 5:52 PM

OF COURSE you should be allowed to prohibit people from entering your own private property. But you don’t OWN the country. It’s not your personal private property. If someone from another country (who has never committed harm against anyone else) fairly and freely buys or rents private property in the United States, that person has every right to immigrate to and live on the private property they have purchased or leased.

The maximum that should be allowed is whatever is favored by the free market.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 6:10 PM

Hey, TBS, if illegals weren’t allowed in because America is an open border nation, Kate Steinle & Marilyn Pharis would still be alive. Surely you can understand that. Its not about bigotry. Its about letting everyone in, unvetted.

Belle on January 18, 2016 at 6:07 PM

And if blacks weren’t allowed to live, then Nicole Brown would still be alive. Your logic is full of fallacies.

You didn’t answer the question: Which is more sacred, laws or liberty?

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 6:12 PM

SP and AJ my best guess is an endorsement in IA from the Governor

I do not like the turn of the Trump/Cruz battle. I am not a Cruz birther and think Trump has stepped over the line.

nuclearoptional on January 18, 2016 at 6:17 PM

At least Trump can make an argument for having standing.

As a fellow candidate, his run suffers a particular injury if Cruz is running despite not being eligible to serve as President.

At this point, as far as I can determine, only fellow candidates would have standing to pursue legal action in this matter.

talkingpoints on January 18, 2016 at 6:17 PM

TBS, your logic is full of fallacies……you don’t fool anybody with a lick of sense.

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 6:34 PM

TBS, your logic is full of fallacies……you don’t fool anybody with a lick of sense.

Realdemocrat1 on January 18, 2016 at 6:34 PM

Don’t confuse your own authoritarian leanings with enlightenment. Liberty is my highest principle. If you don’t like my beliefs, you don’t like liberty.

TBSchemer on January 18, 2016 at 6:53 PM

Keep it up morons and Hillary walks right in.

IXXINY on January 18, 2016 at 7:24 PM

Interesting thread that doesn’t cover the issue the piece is about, but whatever.

If it’s a Trump vs Cruz thing it’s two sets of people talking past each other. One side is wedded only to the ideology, the other side is also looking for strength and leadership.

When it comes down to it, which candidate connects better with the voters?

On the birther issue, a few references to Randy Barnett (a constitutional rock star) who says Cruz wins because he was a natural-born citizen at birth.

He’s right in that Cruz would probably win…but that means he’d win because the conventional wisdom has changed over the years, not because it’s constitutional. Congress was never given the power to confer natural-born status on anyone. Citizenship definitely, but not natural-born citizenship.

The fact that it’s so easily accepted that ‘natural-born’ doesn’t mean what it means is proof America is governed by a Living Constitution.

Cruz wouldn’t like it, or so he has said.

MaggiePoo on January 18, 2016 at 7:24 PM

Ironic that Cruz will only be ruled eligible if the Justices reject his supposed original intent view of the Const.

cimbri on January 18, 2016 at 5:52 PM

Glad to see someone else has dug in and is paying attention to this aspect!

MaggiePoo on January 18, 2016 at 7:39 PM

now we just have to wait for Cruz and his cronies to hike up their skirts and run crying to the press that the big bad Trump hit him too hard

dio55 on January 18, 2016 at 2:05 PM

????

The fact that everyone in Washington DC hates Ted Cruz is a recommendation.

The only way it’s a negative, is that I thought Ted Cruz couldn’t win because of it. Looks like he can after all.

Sackett on January 18, 2016 at 8:20 PM

Y

es, it’s going to be a HUGE negative when it’s widely known that Cruz holds a no exceptions for rape or the life of the mother position

Let’s stop with the disinformation on conservative issues. There is NO EXCEPTION for the life of the mother. The Mother would still have to deliver the baby; the only difference is delivering a live baby and a dead one. And EVEN BEFORE Roe v. Wade, the standard was to save the mother. So let’s at least not be liberal like idiots and bring out attacks that aren’t even legit. You want to fight his no rape exception- go ahead. It isn’t like a President is going to touch Roe v. Wade, now Trumps sister has done wonders as a Judge on abortion.

melle1228 on January 18, 2016 at 8:42 PM

The fact that everyone in Washington DC hates Ted Cruz is a recommendation.

The only way it’s a negative, is that I thought Ted Cruz couldn’t win because of it. Looks like he can after all.

Sackett on January 18, 2016 at 8:20 PM

+1000

melle1228 on January 18, 2016 at 8:43 PM

now Trumps sister has done wonders as a Judge on abortion.

melle1228 on January 18, 2016 at 8:42 PM

She ruled that partial birth abortion is constitutional protected, and outlawing it “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” It made no difference where the fetus was when it “expired.”
h/t Ramesh Ponnuru

melle1228 on January 18, 2016 at 8:46 PM

MaggiePoo on January 18, 2016 at 7:24 PM

No, it isn’t proof of a living Constitutionalist. A Constitutionalist would look to the founders intentions. First, 7 Presidents (founders included) were not born on this soil. Second, the naturalization act (the only statute to include natural born citizen) addressed the situation of Americans born abroad to one American parent. If that parent lived in the US, then the child was a natural born citizen. 1790 is as about as close as you can get to the original intent of the Constitution. Saying Cruz WASN’T a natural born citizen would prove a living constitution.

melle1228 on January 18, 2016 at 8:53 PM

the naturalization act of 1790 (correction)

melle1228 on January 18, 2016 at 8:54 PM

Steffy asks Trump about the NY vs. Iowa thing – using Trump’s own words – asking, “So those were your words.” In response, the “strong” Trump can only say:

“A long time ago, and just so you understand, he’s taking money from people that are very much into the whole gay marriage situation, and he’s taking money from them and he’s raising funds from them.”

What a complete cop-out in dealing with the question! Ignore the question and accuse your adversary of having a mom who wears army boots!

Note too the gutless little admission by Trump in the interview that Cruz collateralized his loans – “personally guaranteeing it” in Trump’s words – yet he wishes to make borrowing some sort of sordid act worthy of disgust… and this from a skunk who’s left a legacy involving $Billions in unpaid loans.

Trump is a name-calling, insipid cretin. But I will say this for New York values: When it came time to rebuild the Twin Towers site, New York made darn sure Trump was not involved.

Jumpintimmy on January 18, 2016 at 10:49 PM

now we just have to wait for Cruz and his cronies to hike up their skirts and run crying to the press that the big bad Trump hit him too hard

dio55 on January 18, 2016 at 2:05 PM

You mean like Trump did on “New York values”? A cipher that everybody put every possible offense they could take on that.

This is why Donald decided that he didn’t know Ted Cruz was a “nice guy”. Somebody crying about somebody else not “being nice”?

I really think we are seeing a death knell of any kind of way back to conservatism, if everybody thinks that the way to operate is just move the herd to trample the guy they don’t like. With whatever shit that can stick and whatever Alinskyan “hypocrisy” games–or polarizing, freezing, and ridicule games–that might have a chance of success.

Just don’t think a citizenry that removed from deliberative thought is going to have any kind of control, though. Because it won’t.

Axeman on January 19, 2016 at 12:44 AM

1790 is as about as close as you can get to the original intent of the Constitution. Saying Cruz WASN’T a natural born citizen would prove a living constitution.

melle1228 on January 18, 2016 at 8:53 PM

The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, specifically had “natural born” struck from the 1795 Act, which erased the 1790 act. He knew the Congress didn’t have the authority to put natural born in a naturalization act designed for people like Cruz, ie., those born outside the States.

cimbri on January 19, 2016 at 2:06 AM

The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, specifically had “natural born” struck from the 1795 Act, which erased the 1790 act. He knew the Congress didn’t have the authority to put natural born in a naturalization act designed for people like Cruz, ie., those born outside the States.

cimbri on January 19, 2016 at 2:06 AM

1790 act refuted by 1795 act refuted by supreme court 1875 stating 1790 applies refuted by supreme court 1875 saying two parents need to be citizens.

NWConservative on January 19, 2016 at 3:18 AM

It’s taken all these months, but I’m finally starting to warm to the idea of a Trump candidacy, though I’m not sure if I will vote for him on March 1. I still do not like Cruz. There’s something smarmy about him.

Here is why it matters whether or not anyone in Washington likes Cruz — you have to be able to get stuff done. Cruz in the Senate has been nothing more than a stunt politician. A Cruz presidency would be a fun house image of the Obama presidency — a Republican president, following a Democrat president, constantly whining that Congress won’t kneel and kiss his behind.

Behind all of Trump’s theatrics is a smart man who can at least form strategic partnerships, negotiate, project strength, and get stuff done.

The Bringer on January 19, 2016 at 9:07 AM

Behind all of Trump’s theatrics is a smart man who can at least form strategic partnerships, negotiate, project strength, and get stuff done.

The Bringer on January 19, 2016 at 9:07 AM

Who is in debt to George Soros.. but says he isn’t owned by anyone.

Donald Trump has lined up three New York hedge funds, including money from billionaire George Soros, to invest $160 million in his Chicago skyscraper, a key piece in perhaps the largest construction financing in the city’s history, according to real estate sources and public documents.

Despite reports about the project’s record-breaking sales, most of them from Trump himself, many Chicago real estate developers and lenders have expressed doubts about whether the 90-story tower would ever be built.

melle1228 on January 19, 2016 at 9:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3