Posted on 02/04/2016 5:20:20 PM PST by conservativejoy
The Iowa caucus results left me with some dark thoughts. While Ted Cruz won, second-place Donald Trump and third-place Marco Rubio are clearly the media's two favorite candidates, albeit in very different ways.
Trump and Rubio. Just what the Republican Party needs: a choice between insulting Muslims at home and using military force against them abroad.
This may be the most powerful case for conservatives to support Cruz: At least he would save us from Rubio and Trump.
Hyperbolic, I know, especially since I do agree that assimilation has been a challenge in Western countries that have accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants, and that there is a legitimate military component to the war on terrorism. But Trump's blunderbuss approach to Muslim immigration and Rubio's force-friendly foreign policy are overreactions at best and entirely counterproductive at worst. They are also illustrative of the dilemma a Trump-Rubio race for the GOP nomination would pose, and why Cruz may well be our best option.
I know that on the surface, there is a lot to like about Rubio's candidacy. The freshman senator from Florida seems like a nice guy and his supporters are generally nice too. Moreover, as a relatively young Latino candidate, Rubio presents a fresh face for a party in which too many Americans feel unwelcome. While Trump's appeal to struggling working-class whites and disaffected Republicans who believe their party leaders ignore them is important, he also clearly compounds some of the GOP's problems reaching out beyond its traditional demographic core. The billionaire does one form of outreach at the expense of the other.
Rubio is different. In his person and campaign pitch, he offers voters something new. That's especially important in a campaign where the Republican nominee is likely to face an older Democratic nominee who is a throwback to the 1990s and is already experiencing problems recreating the Obama coalition, especially its appeal to younger Democrats. (The alternative, who is appealing to those younger Democrats, is a septuagenarian socialist.)
Yet for all Rubio's exhortations for eschewing the politics of yesterday, he doesn't seem to have learned many lessons from George W. Bush's presidency. Yes, he is tougher on domestic spending, though one worries that what his entitlement reforms will save his military adventurism will wind up spending. And he has admirably partnered with Mike Lee on some interesting legislative initiatives. But on big questions like war and immigration, he sounds like Bush 2.0. His campaign announcement knocked Democratic decrepitude but contained few policy prescriptions that would have been out of place in a conservative politician's speech in the 1980's.
And what of Trump? He is not only a blowhard and a bit of an arrogant jerk, but his campaign has attracted some real nasty pieces of work to boot. Yes, there are well-meaning Trump enthusiasts. And as someone who voted for Ron Paul twice I understand the peril of judging a candidate or political movement by its most unhinged internet followers. But as Trump's favorite book tells us, by their fruits ye shall know them (Matthew, not Two Corinthians).
Trump does seem to understand that the Bush way of dealing with the Middle East and the American homeland, especially as it pertains to Iraq and immigration, went horribly wrong. And while some of his alternatives may be equally flawed in the opposite direction, it does add some needed perspective to the conservative movement's consternation about Trump's pre-Iowa poll numbers. Indeed, while I agree with virtually every word of National Review's anti-Trump symposium, it's hard to suppress the sense that conservatives who mostly thought the Bush administration was wonderful are getting a taste of the dismay I felt during those years.
"Where was this unified conservative outrage over the bank bailout in 2008?" asked the columnist Charlie Hurt. "Where is the unified conservative outrage over launching a trillion-plus dollar war paid for with nothing but debt, where is the outrage over Republican politicians who come along and supported amnesty?"
Where indeed. As it happens, Rubio was a bit better on that bank bailout than Trump. But on the other two issues? When Jeb Bush was getting beaten up for refusing to concede the Iraq war was a mistake, Rubio said he wouldn't have invaded knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction. But he's made more public statements suggesting he thinks withdrawing from Iraq was a bigger error than invading in the first place and he's been supportive of repeating the regime change experiment in Libya and Syria.
Similarly, Rubio has disavowed his Gang of Eight immigration plan, arguing that the threat of ISIS entering the United States has changed everything. But the immigration system's national security implications were evident long before he took his earlier position in 2013. And when he says we have been trying to solve our country's immigration problem for 30 years, he omits the fact that amnesty passed 30 years ago.
Neither Rubio nor Trump is the champion of true conservatives. Fortunately, there is a third top-tier candidate in the race, the one who actually won Iowa. I have my misgivings about him too, especially since we no longer have Rand Paul in the race to keep him honest on libertarian issues.
I'm not sure I will vote for him. But avoiding a Trump versus Rubio race is about as powerful a case for Cruz as I can imagine.
“I believe it states the obvious in paragraph 5-that anyone born in Canada or on a Canadian ship is a NBC of Canada. It does not create a law, it simply clarifies natural law. Part II of the act deals with citizens that are not natural born.”
You are mistaken, because the usage of the terminology is misleading you. Look up Calvin’s Case 1608 and read what Sir Edward Coke had to say about datus versus natus. Then take note of how the usage of the terminology got distorted due to the way Blackstone’s Commentaries adapting the terminology to the changing customs of England and unique to British subjects versus Continental citizens of Europe under the Law of Nations. Take special care to note what has to be done to reconcile the shifting usages of the terminology in England to the actual events taking place as defined by Sir Edward Coke, the Naturalization Act of 1541, and earlier English acts concerning English subjects.
You also need to note the British American Colonies developed an independent American common law in parallel to English common law. The rarity and cost of paper and books meant that the English common law was learned at meals in the Inn of London, because the cases were not published until the early 19th Century. Consequently, aside form the occasional papers and books obtained from Britain, France, and elsewhere, the Colonial Americans wee on their own to develop their own divergent forms of common law peculiar to the colonies. This means there was also a divergence in the usage of some legal terminologies. This has a direct effect upon the definitions of the terminologies being used here.
There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances; the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta pura, et indefinite, and this originally is due by nature and birth-right, and is called alta ligeantia, and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.
1. An alien is a subject that is born out of the ligeance of the King, and under the ligeance of another;
I believe you are suggesting that the Canadian legislature has no authority to confer Natural born citizenship status.
I agree with that and I found this previously with regard to that subject:
It is the very essence of the condition of a natural born citizen, of one who is a member of the state by birth within and under it, that his rights are not derived from the mere will of the state.
The New Englander, Vol. III, pg. 434 (1845)
The problem is that the Canadian, British, and English usages of the terminology became misleading at an early stage because of the unique way in which England and Blackstone’s Commentaries looked at the relationships and dropped the normal word modifiers thinking they would remain implied. Instead, the distinction was forgotten by all but some of the scholars of the subject in the later generations. To make sense of this requires some diligent reading of these key sources to see how the terminology came to be misused over time. The American colonies and the subsequent United States tended to retain some of the original usages of the terminology, due to their independent parallel development of American common law and the advent of the United States which deliberately distanced itself from British common law with respect to mattes of citizenship in particular. This resulted in the United States taking their experience with English, Dutch (New Amsterdam/new York), French, Natural Law, and Continental (Europe) common law into consideration as they retained certain aspects of citizenship and the related terminology from which England/Britain had departed into their own unique usages. The end result is that the same phrases in use today do not arise from and mean the same thing, but they do serve to confuse present day generations who on both sides of the border who erroneously assume they are essentially the same.
I forgot to mention, give yourself more than minutes or hours to study Blackstone’s Commentaries, and don’t fall into the trap of trying to take shortcuts by letting someone else tell you what Blackstone has to say. Most commentators get it wrong. You have to really work at tracing through the arguments Blackstone is making, and then you have to step back and look at the same topic from the point of view of non-English scholars on the subject to gain an understanding of how Blackstone diverges on some definitions and converges on other definitions.
Despite what Rush said, Rubio is Mr. amnesty and that is a huge anchor around the neck of this country we can not also bear.
That’s right.
Bwwahahaha!
I think I understand the disconnect now - lu lu voted for crazy Paul not once but twice, and yet, flocked to Ted.
Weird
We should not be insulting Muslims at home; we should be REMOVING THEM FROM HOME!
That question asks if a natural born citizen is an alien to the 14th Amendment. Without additional status, I'd have to say yes. In fact, how could it be otherwise? You admit natural born status is not bestowed by the government, but naturalized status is in fact bestowed by the government, right? Then how could those two statuses be equal? They are literally the difference between natural rights and subject status. So how are they not innately alien to each other?
Currently the Courts PRESUME naturalized status UPON natural born Americans, thereby depriving them of their rights, and replacing those rights with government granted privileges, subject status and liability to the statutory system. While that transfer of status is legally possible, as it involves the loss of rights I believe it is wrong to allow it as a mere unspoken presumption. It should be front and center and explicated in full for a citizen to clearly understand what they are choosing to accept - and to lose. But that is most certainly not the case, nor do I ever see it becoming one.
The issue is really the existence, the nagging existence, of negative rights. Everyone says they exist, but no one can point to their existence under the law, because the statutory system does not include them. Acting, therefore, as if they don't actually exist is the common tactic. But it is not the truth.
And I'll prove it. Here's my questions back to you: 1. Do negative rights exist? 2. Where are they under statutory law?
Neither exist in law, they are both your own red herrings.
Natrual families do not exist in law? Nations do not exist in law? ROTFL. Ok, -plonk- for you. derp
Go away, child. Stop trying to trash the thread with idiocy.
You aren't my boss. You are just a dime-store idiot and lying weasel. Says you, "the law doens't know 'family'" Ha! Says you, "the law doesn't know 'nation'" HA!
I suggest you hit ABUSE on all my posts, show us what a MAN you are.
Step 1. A natural born citizen cannot be naturalized as a naturalized citizen, because a natural born citizen is already a citizen and you can only naturalize a person who is an alien. True or False?
The required response is either
A. True
or
B. False
Which one is your response?
I gave my response, and you’ll find what you seek very plainly in my second sentence. It seems you can’t understand the complexity of your own question. And BTW, where are your answers to my questions? You’ve got a nice huge stack of federal statutes, thousands of them. Show me where, in all of that law, a single specific negative right resides - or explain why it doesn’t.
I’ll wait.
No, you are simply posting gibberish in an attempt to change the subject and avoid answering questions whose truthful answers you dare not acknowledge. The correct answer to the Step 1 question is True.
Step 1. A natural born citizen cannot be naturalized as a naturalized citizen, because a natural born citizen is already a citizen and you can only naturalize a person who is an alien. True or False? Correct answer = True.
Step 2. Ted Cruz acquired Canadian citizenship at birth. True or False?
"Gibberish"? I gave very reasoned and considered answers that you, in fact, have completely avoided answering. I think we're at an end here, it's obvious what you've been tasked to hide. I'm not following you into personal insults and juvenile namecalling. You just jumped the shark. Not that I'm surprised - what else could you do?
You know, of course, that once Americans completely forget their freedom, it will bring about a thousand years of darkness? That's what you're a part of achieving. Enjoy your karma.
Nowhere in your evasive posts does it answer the question with the required word: True or False.
As expected you are now putting on a big show of faux outrage and stomping off in a huff when you don’ get to derail the conversation by changing the subject. If you choose to dispute that observation, the way of demonstrating otherwise would be to simply answer the questions with a simple and uncomplicated True or False response.
Step 1. A natural born citizen cannot be naturalized as a naturalized citizen, because a natural born citizen is already a citizen and you can only naturalize a person who is an alien. True or False? Correct answer = True.
Step 2. Ted Cruz acquired Canadian citizenship at birth. True or False?
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.