Ted Cruz goes "birther" on Donald Trump's citizenship status

Ted Cruz counter-attacked Donald Trump on the "birther" issue Thursday, arguing that under some theories, Trump would be ineligible to serve in the White House because his mother was born in Scotland.

In a long back-and-forth between the GOP’s top two contenders for the GOP presidential nomination, Cruz accused Trump of focusing on his birth in Canada because of his strong poll numbers.

“The Constitution hasn't changed, Donald's poll numbers have,” he said early on in Thursday night’s debate from North Charleston, S.C.
The Texas senator noted that Trump had previously said there was “nothing to this birther issue” until Cruz started beating him at the polls in Iowa.

“The legal issue is quite straightforward, but I would note that the birther theories that Donald has been relying on, some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil,” Cruz continued.

“Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified, and interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified because Donald's mother was born in Scotland,” Cruz said, referring to two other GOP presidential contenders.

Cruz added that he wouldn't use Trump's mother's birth against him and called for candidates to focus on bigger issues.

Trump interjected that Cruz wasn’t doing so because it wouldn’t work.

Trump has argued that Democrats could bring a lawsuit against Cruz serving in the White House because of his birth in Canada to an American mother.

When asked by Fox Business Network moderator Neil Cavuto why he wanted to bring the issue up now, Trump was open about the fact that it was because of Cruz's rising poll numbers.

"Because now he's doing a little bit better. No, I didn't care before, it's true," Trump said to boos from the audience.

Eilzel wrote:Even you don't mean that didge- The Republicans, especially Trump, would undo any and all recovery the world has seen since the crisis that started with Bush.

Didge wrote:Even though I hate the Repiblicans, lets hope they win so theb left wing regressives suffer at least four years of hell as ikt is nothing more than they truly deserve

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:Even though I hate the Repiblicans, lets hope they win so theb left wing regressives suffer at least four years of hell as ikt is nothing more than they truly deserve

that's funny
the LW were not perfect so the USA should be punished by having a RW government  

Even you admit that RW is punishing the people

Eilzel wrote:Even you don't mean that didge- The Republicans, especially Trump, would undo any and all recovery the world has seen since the crisis that started with Bush.

sassy wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Even you don't mean that didge- The Republicans, especially Trump, would undo any and all recovery the world has seen since the crisis that started with Bush.

I'm fully convinced that if Trump got in we would have WWIII quite quickly.

And do I think Didge means what he says, yes I do, he's that mental.

sassy wrote:Help is at hand if you only ask for it Didge.

sassy wrote:My illness is in my body, yours is in your head.  I'll keep mine thanks, in comparison to yours it is mild.

Eilzel wrote:Didge there is no question if Trump got in the reprecussions would be global. And that said, most the Americans I know are wonderful people (most of them Sanders supporters, though that is not why I consider them wonderful). I hope for only the best for America as I would the people of any country.

Eilzel wrote:Regressives come from the Right and Left, didge. Though generally people here from the Left are concerned with global situations.

The only time there seems to a problem is when the weak willed don't want to take action against evil. But that is not comparable to the US election as I see it.

Eilzel wrote:Well, Trump also wants to build a wall across the continent, and villifies every Muslim in the world- not just stop a murderous beheading terrorist militia.

Eilzel wrote:Regressives come from the Right and Left, didge. Though generally people here from the Left are concerned with global situations.

The only time there seems to a problem is when the weak willed don't want to take action against evil. But that is not comparable to the US election as I see it.

Eilzel wrote:Are you joking?

Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, supporting the 1%- these are all the things the Republicans are about.

The Democrats are no angels but they are saints besides the GOP.

Eilzel wrote:Are you joking?

Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, supporting the 1%- these are all the things the Republicans are about.

The Democrats are no angels but they are saints besides the GOP.

sassy wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Are you joking?

Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, supporting the 1%- these are all the things the Republicans are about.

The Democrats are no angels but they are saints besides the GOP.

Les, he isn't joking, he's lost the plot completely.

Eilzel wrote:It is hardly extreme didge, if you actually listen to what the Republican candidates are saying- and the previous administration was simply disastrous, economically and more so on foreign policy.

Btw sass, I had to check that Trump quote lol
Sadly it seems to be a fake.

Eilzel wrote:It is hardly extreme didge, if you actually listen to what the Republican candidates are saying- and the previous administration was simply disastrous, economically and more so on foreign policy.

Btw sass, I had to check that Trump quote lol
Sadly it seems to be a fake.

Eilzel wrote:So we just ignore the fact the Republicans currently want to reverse gay marriage and Trump wants to build a continental wall, along with all the other rhetoric? Right didge...

Eilzel wrote:Didge don't be petty, I also mentioned the wall Trump wants to build. Stop looking for a fight

Eds, I disagree, to an extent, Obama has been a far better President that any other America has had in the last 20 years.

Eilzel wrote:Didge don't be petty, I also mentioned the wall Trump wants to build. Stop looking for a fight

Eds, I disagree, to an extent, Obama has been a far better President that any other America has had in the last 20 years.

Eilzel wrote:Then he is a liar, or he is deliberately pandering to racists, or he really is racist. One of those is true.

Who says Clinton or Sanders won't be strong enough? Would Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush be strong?

And I'm fine with heated debate, but making out I'm only concerned about gay issues is petty.

Eilzel wrote:An independent is never gong to win the US election though didge, so your point is also moot.

Eilzel wrote:How am I being petty? Are you seriously suggesting an independent could win?

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Then he is a liar, or he is deliberately pandering to racists, or he really is racist. One of those is true.

Who says Clinton or Sanders won't be strong enough? Would Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush be strong?

And I'm fine with heated debate, but making out I'm only concerned about gay issues is petty.

None of the above are strong, in fact they are all very weak, again I want a strong independent, so no idea why you are going off other Republicans, when I have stated I want neither democrats or Republicans.

Well when you basically brought up two issues and one was gay, does make it very much seem that way, as to me many now would never aloow the law to be reversed in the states it has been apporved but you know that already, hence why your point was moot

On the last day of the fall legislative session, the Republican-dominated Wisconsin State Assembly spent more than 12 hours passing a spate of socially regressive laws that roll back voting rights, public access to land surrounding a proposed mining site, and authorize the state to fundraise for an anti-abortion group by issuing "Choose Life" license plates.

Lawmakers also passed two constitutional amendments: One that makes it more difficult to recall elected officials and another that changes the State Supreme Court's process around how the chief justice is selected.

Before the Assembly took up the agenda, a group of Democratic Party freshmen moved to suspend the rules and take up a measure that would change the legislative redistricting process. The effort comes in the wake of an extremely contentious, partially illegal redistricting process in 2011 where lawyers for Republicans drew up redistricting maps in secret and required legislators to sign secrecy oaths about the contours of the maps.

That process and the resulting maps have been challenged in court. During the proceedings Republicans and their lawyers refused to produce relevant documents until they were ordered to do so by the court. In that process, it was discovered that hundreds of thousands of files were deleted from the computers in question.

Rep. Stephen Smith (D-Shell Lake) summed up the group's view on the gerrymandered districts saying that democracy no longer exists "when politicians pick their voters rather than voters picking their representatives." The bill was tabled on a party line vote.

On the constitutional amendment to further restrict Wisconsin's already tough standards for recalling state elected officials, Rep. Chris Taylor (D-Madison) pushed back hard. "If you don't want to be recalled, represent your constituents!" she said. "I can understand why you're concerned about recalls given your records. It must be horrible to realize that you can only win elections when people don't vote."

Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) pointed out that historically, constitutions are amended to enhance and protect people's rights, not to restrict or remove them.

Rep. Gary Hebl (D-Sun Prairie) called the constitutional amendment to change the way a chief justice is selected for the Wisconsin Supreme Court from seniority to an election every 2 years by the seven justices a potentially unconstitutional abuse of power. "You're trying to take control of the judiciary," he said. Both measures have to be passed by both houses of the legislature in two consecutive sessions, and then they are put to a statewide referendum.

Republicans defended what Democrats called voter suppression bills by raising the spectre of "voter fraud," even though there have only been a handful of documented cases in the state.

A new abortion requirement is causing controversy in North Carolina. The law, which went into effect Jan. 1, requires doctors who perform abortions after the 16th week of pregnancy to send an ultrasound to state officials, reports the New York Times.

Women in North Carolina aren't legally allowed to get abortions after 20 weeks (with medical exceptions). Proponents of this new law say it will ensure doctors aren't performing illegal abortions after that 20-week mark by making them send the ultrasound along with an estimate of "probable gestational age" to the State Department of Health and Human Services. Critics say it's just another measure to intimidate women out of getting abortions. Hillary Clinton's camp spoke out against the law, introduced by Republican Governor Pat McCrory.

"It's shameful that Governor McCrory has decided to disregard the sanctity of a woman's relationship with her doctor by allowing this new law to go into effect requiring government review of women's personal medical information," Mini Timmaraju, Clinton's director of women's outreach, told the Times.

And Gerrick Brenner, the executive director of Progress NC Action, sent out an email obtained by the Times comparing the "creepy scheme" to "something out of George Orwell's '1984.'"

The state is the third to put into place the ultrasound requirement, following Louisiana and Oklahoma. And the North Carolina law says that all doctor and patient information will remain confidential.

Eilzel wrote:Oh you know, the history of US elections for the last 100 years...

Election 2016 Presidential Polls