Judge Napolitano: "Rand Paul is more faithful to the Constitution" than Ted Cruz

[jct74]

Judge Napolitano, "Rand Paul is more faithful to The Constitution" than Cruz..... Agree with The Judge or not?

by DizziNY
March 26, 2015




Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz promised Monday to return to a government by the Constitution and "stand for liberty" as he officially announced his 2016 presidential bid.

As the first major presidential candidate to officially declare, Cruz told the crowd of students at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., what he sees for the future of the country.

But how does constitutional expert and Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano feel about Cruz's adherence to the Constitution?

Stuart Varney sat down with Napolitano to ask that question this morning.

The judge said he likes Cruz's views toward the Constitution overall, except when it comes to the senator's views on using U.S. military force overseas.

...

read more:
https://www.sodahead.com/united-sta...than-cruz-agree-with-the-ju/question-4761274/

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

Oh boy this is going on Breitbart and Fox News a couple hundred times....

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Oh boy this is going on Breitbart and Fox News a couple hundred times....

\\

Fox would never prime time this big story unless somehow Rand gets himself on Kelly's or Greta's show to toot his horn. Heck, he should get on Hannity's show and make him squirm a little over it since Hannyboy always likes to talk up Rubio.

 

[Vanguard101]

So TL;DR
Cruz: I like him. Hawkish. Still good guy
Rand: Better than Cruz


The Judge is slightly more of a hawk than Rand

 

[francisco]

\\

Fox would never prime time this big story unless somehow Rand gets himself on Kelly's or Greta's show to toot his horn. Heck, he should get on Hannity's show and make him squirm a little over it since Hannyboy always likes to talk up Rubio.

Not just Fox, all of MSM failed to make much of this important story, and it didn't get much traction in the blogosphere either. A shame. Deliberate? Drudge carried a brief mention in third column for only a short time. Opponents of Liberty over at DU didn't pick up on it all. Went right over the heads of the 'Murika! crowds at Free Republic, and Hot Air.

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

\\

Fox would never prime time this big story unless somehow Rand gets himself on Kelly's or Greta's show to toot his horn. Heck, he should get on Hannity's show and make him squirm a little over it since Hannyboy always likes to talk up Rubio.

I should have been more clear....I will post this on Fox News and Breitbart a couple hundred times.

 

[Millennial Conservatarian]

The Judge is slightly more of a hawk than Rand

I don't agree. The Judge seems to be closer to Ron than Rand on foreign issues

 

[William Tell]

I don't agree. The Judge seems to be closer to Ron than Rand on foreign issues

Yeah, the Judge said WWII was the only recent war he would have supported knowing what he knows. That's less hawkish than Rand, and arguably Ron too, since he voted for authorization of force. Although I imagine Ron wishes he had voted "No" on that.

 

[Vanguard101]

I don't agree. The Judge seems to be closer to Ron than Rand on foreign issues

He couldn't give a clear answer on Korea. "Probably not" isn't clear. He also views the issue more from a policy standpoint, rather than a philosophical standpoint. Policy, is more hawkish by nature.

 

[Valli6]

Judge Nap thinks Cruz now considered "natural born citizen"?

In this video, Judge Napolitiano stated that he believes Ted Cruz counts as a "natural born citizen" because the "present definition" of the term says that if one parent is a natural born citizen, who has lived in the United States for 10 years, then the offspring is a natural born citizen, even if born outside the country. I would think that this makes Cruz an American citizen, but not a "natural born citizen of the United States" (due to his possessing multiple citizenships at birth, etc.)

If Judge Napolitano is correct about this, how come senators were trying to pass resolutions like these, so recently? Such a statute would have made them unnecessary.

2/25/04
S.2128
(DEFINITION OF) `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ACT'
(excerpt) any person born outside the United States-
(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or
(B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(This was supposed to go to hearings - but then? Appears not to have become law?)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2128:

2/28/2008
S.2678 (Re McCain's eligibility, as McCain was born outside the U.S.)
Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act
(Excerpt) …includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.
(This implies that a child born outside the country, with only one parent who is a US citizen, would be given the status "natural born citizen" - if the parent is in the armed forces.)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S2678:

4/10/2008
S.RES.511 (Re McCain's eligibility)
A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
(4/30/2008) Passed/agreed to in Senate. ("agreed to"?)
Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen'' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SE00511:@@@D&summ1&

If anyone knows exactly what "statute" Judge Napolitano is referring to, please link to valid info regarding this statute's name, number, description, date it became legit, circumstances of vote, etc.

(Please don't waste space with "you're just wrong/stupid/xenophobic/it's-a-stupid-law-anyway" type answers.)

 

[MaxPower]

So TL;DR
Cruz: I like him. Hawkish. Still good guy
Rand: Better than Cruz


The Judge is slightly more of a hawk than Rand

Slightly more of a hawk than Rand?! Based on that segment, the only war he feels the US was justified in fighting within the last 100 years was World War II. Rand would certainly not adopt a position like that one.

 

[T.hill]

Slightly more of a hawk than Rand?! Based on that segment, the only war he feels the US was justified in fighting within the last 100 years was World War II. Rand would certainly not adopt a position like that one.

Yeah, but if anything the only difference is Rand probably would agree with The Judge with the exception of Afghanistan, which Rand probably would justify as a defensive war in relation to the 9/11 attacks. However, Rand also might be inclined to further argue that the attacks could have been responded to in a different manner if he was pressed in to talking about it, such as using the letter of marque and reprisal instead of an AUMF. I'm not sure Rand would get into that, but at the very least he probably would at least concede that the war should of at least been declared if there was need for one for defensive purposes.

Ron certainly takes the position that the 9/11 attacks could have been dealt with through letters of marque and reprisal as dictated by the constitution when dealing with non-conventional combatants not associated with a state government. I have a feeling if The Judge would have further elaborated on his position towards the war with Afghanistan he would probably have said something similar.

 

[LawnWake]

Self-described conservatives don't care much for the judge, do they? They seem to like him, but he's nowhere even near a figure to them like Beck or Levin or any of those. So sadly, what Napolitano has to say on this doesn't really matter a whole lot when it comes to reaching voters.