Here's an irony for you. When you add all the facts up, the odds are overwhelming that Obama was born in Canada.
Posted on 01/25/2016 7:13:33 PM PST by Citizen Zed
No, but you can read as well as I can.
I suspect the GOPe WANTS this to fester and not be resolved, because if they can draw it out, and Cruz wins, the power to appoint a nominee falls right into their hands, thus ensuring their boy Bush is the nominee.
I really believe this is what they are thinking because I can’t think of any other scenario that would cause them to be so confident (arrogant) about who will NOT be the nominee.
I don’t know any other word, maybe arrogant, to describe their tone when they simply announce that Trump will NOT be the candidate. I guess it’s really just a guessing game trying to figure out their strategies.
The Court said (following the Keyes case) that the Secretary has no affirmative duty to undertake an investigation to ascertain eligibility (read: the secretary doesn't have to ask for birth certificates or figure out whether Sen. McCain was born within the Canal Zone or not).
The Court notes the Lindsay case where it was established the Secretary has the authoriity to keep off the ballot a known ineligible candidate. Whether the Secretary has the further affirmative duty (under California statutes) to remove a known ineligible candidate is a question that I don't see the Dummett court addressing.
Whether a federal or state court could (or would) order the secretary to remove the name of a presidential candidate upon a judicial determination of ineligibility is, of course, the Big Question.
The Secretary of State's decision is conclusive.
That's an over-read of Dummett. I think the Secretary would be bound to a court determination and directive that a candidate is ineligible and should be removed.
Exit polls lack methodological controls. And in any event, winning versus losing was so razor thin in Ohio that the difference was within any margin of error that could be calculated.
There have to be actual damages for a court to rule on, not predicted ones.
Wrong. Courts routinely issue injunctions based on reasonably forecast allegations of (irreparable) damages. After the election is held, it would be outside the power of the court to fashion effective relief when the allegation is an ineligible candidate was on the ballot. The Court can't re-do the election.
Those who scorned people like us as “kook birthers” are now stuck in a small box. They can’t go back and say “wow we were wrong, 0bolo wasn’t eligible after all and I was wrong to scorn you all as birther kooks”.
Well, people could, but so few people want to admit they were wrong. That is too bad, since one of the best qualities of human beings - if not the very best -is a thirst for truth, and follow it where ever it leads, even if it means having to admit “I was wrong”, or “I didn’t know”. There is nothing to compare with Truth.
I don’t think you are reading the case that you cite. The person in that case resided his whole life in the country he was born in and wanted to retain his US citizenship. If you read the case you cite you will see Cruz came to the US when he was 4 years old and maintained residence here until the present time which showed that he fulfilled all the statutes to retain his natural born citizenship.
-- you will see Cruz came to the US when he was 4 years old and maintained residence here until the present time which showed that he fulfilled all the statutes to retain his natural born citizenship. --
Please directly quote the language from Rogers v. Bellei that says Bellei had natural born citizenship, and explain how that passage overrides:
... in the light of the conceded fact that citizenship to this plaintiff was fully deniable [at birth too]. The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place. ...The way I read the case, all nine justices find Bellei to be naturalized. There is no difference between them on that point. If Bellei had been natural born, his citizenship would not have attached solely by dint of an Act of Congress, which is where the post-birth residency requirement is (was) stated.Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, S: 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen. The first congressional exercise of this power, entitled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," was passed in 1790 at the Second Session of the First Congress. ...
As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization, when used in its constitutional sense, is a generic term describing and including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American citizenship other than birth in this country. All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent upon a congressional enactment are forms of naturalization. ...
one can become a citizen of this country by being born within it or by being naturalized into it. ...
Bellei, as a naturalized American, is entitled to all the rights and privileges of American citizenship, including the right to keep his citizenship until he voluntarily renounces or relinquishes it.
5. The plaintiff has come to the United States five different times. He was physically present here during the following periods:April 27 to July 31, 1948
July 10 to October 5, 1951
June to October 1955
December 18, 1962 to February 13, 1963
May 26 to June 13, 1965.
Irrelevant trivia, in light of the question being the nature of his citizenship at birth on December 22, 1939. The technical term is "acquired citizenship," a particular form or naturalization in the eyes of the law.
obama could care less.
Here's an irony for you. When you add all the facts up, the odds are overwhelming that Obama was born in Canada.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3388523/posts?page=101#101
Bravo! That is precisely what is at risk if we seek the "opinion" of any court, let alone a USSC that is one vote from castrating the 2dA.
Neither NBC or the 2dA needs to be "tested" or "decided".
I would prefer that an apolitical U.S. History professor explain the terms to any who fail to understand the context in which they were used and the purpose for which they were used. Such is plain to most that are not politically bent on misconstruing the Constitution.
Also, the exception is with the dads.
Cruz’ dad was a legal resident/asylee of the US before going to Canada.
0’s dad was here on a student visa that got revoked when he went to harvard; reason being he was fooling around with the ladies.
The young man Lucas alas “Inspector Smith” outsmarted everybody including Jerry Corsi long before by bribing Security at the Mombasa hospital and he got a stamped copy of the real birth certificate !!!
Probably not correct. This is big boy football--Trump will do what he perceives to be in his interest at the time he does it.
They both get to the Convention each with less than 50% of the delegate votes but together over the top. Trump will make whatever deal it takes to get the Cruz delegates including putting Cruz on the ticket as VP nominee.
He is throwing rocks at Cruz at the moment because they are in competition and the rocks may be effective. As soon as the competition is over, they will be allies again.
And at that point, Cruz eligibility doesn't matter. They win the election--Cruz ineligibility is irrelevant; maybe he has to be replaced.
I have thought for some time the real reason Trump raised the issue in the first place is to try to force Cruz to get it resolved before the convention.
I really believe this is what they are thinking because I can’t think of any other scenario that would cause them to be so confident (arrogant) about who will NOT be the nominee.
There is more to that analysis than you set out. In fact, some of the state parties are talking to prospective delegates who might be qualified to serve on National Convention Credentials and Rules Committees with a view to putting the fix on credentials and rules issues in the event Cruz is the nominee.
They don't do anything with that now for the reason that if Trump gets to the convention with less than 50%, the assumption is that if Cruz is kicked out, Trump gets his delegates and the nomination.
But, if they can get Trump out before the Convention, that is how they plan to handle Cruz.
I don’t know, Cruz has burned a whole lot of bridges with Trump.
The lying eminent domain ad Cruz is running sealed his fate. Have you seen it? It’s beyond disgusting.
Yes, it is disgusting. Cruz is now pandering in Nevada. Having people call everyone to tell us he will give federal land back to us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.