Posted on 02/04/2017 9:49:50 AM PST by Enterprise
We are at the threshhold of appointing a Judge to the Supreme Court who will replace the late Justice Scalia. This will give the court, once again, a 5-4 conservative advantage.
I have, and unlike you, I do.
They could have just said citizen if you were correct.
Not if they meant natural-born citizen, or one having citizenship from birth. Isn't that your whole argument?
They did not, they meant it to be restrictive, that’s why the used natural born citizen.
But they didn't qualify it to be anything more than citizenship at birth, the dictionary definition and the only one extant for two hundred years prior. They would have specified further constraints if they had intended them for the most powerful single public office they built into the government.
The “Laws of Nations” that George Washington borrowed from the NY library is where they got their definition.
Presumably you mean Vattel's "The Law of Nations", which is one of the sources I mentioned earlier that are not founding documents and incidentally do not say what you claim they say. So George Washington read a book from the library. What other books did he read from the library? Should we incorporate those as de facto Constitutional amendments? Thomas Jefferson read the Koran. Should we implement Sharia Law now? That's a pretty inane argument to refute the fact that the Founders chose not to include additional specific restrictions on who could become President.
The reason is explained in John Jay’s letter to George Washington.
And yet, it still failed to be included in the actual Constitution. Maybe you should post a quote from that document (Jay's letter) and explain how you derive that imaginary part of the Constitution from it without it actually being in there, rather than a hand-waving argument to support those claims.
Read some history of the founders.
You should follow your own advice rather than repeating confirmation-bias-based claims you have heard wherever.
I know it is wasted on her. I don't argue with liberals to convince them; I do it to convince the uncommitted and to limit the damage that liberals do with their BS.
Plus I'm procrastinating on a school writing assignment. ;) And thank you for your compliment.
They chose their words carefully, they did not use citizen at birth, they used natural born citizen as it has a different meaning.
In the 2018 elections, the Dems are defending 25 Senate seats. The Republicans are defending 8.
Wonder how that will turn out?
No, it does not. That is the whole failure of your argument. You cannot prove that it ever had another meaning. And that includes in your reference texts, which, unlike you apparently, I actually have read.
Er, why? When you are winning, you don't extend the "game". We need a restored Court. Solid conservative Constitutionalist justices. No games. Garland is smack-dab in the middle of the liberal pack, which is all clustered at the extreme liberal end of the spectrum. We elected Trump almost entirely on his promise to appoint conservative justices. That's where we need to be.
If you were right it would read citizen at birth. It doesn’t.
Your argument is self-refuting.
“It isn’t a conservative advantage that we want.
We want a Constitutional advantage.”
Conservativism is supposed to defend the way things are. By saying “No” to -every- new law.
I’m still a conservative, regardless of what those traitors and RINOs attempt to do in DC.
“But even here on Free Republic, the most conservative site on the Web, there are many who won’t protect the Constitution because it says that their favorite politician can’t be President.”
you noticed that too, eh ?
If the president isn’t Calvin Coolidge, I’m not happy. I love Trump, and I think he’ll do well but we must all remember what the constitution is and how it works.
He may need EA to undo the unconstitutional crap that Obama did - but he still needs to submit bills to Congress just like we all do. I hope FR keeps him on target.
A list and explanation of the 19 Executive Orders, Actions and/or Memorandums that he has signed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/03/list-trumps-executive-orders.html
I’m good with his executive actions right now. Everything that Clinton and Obama have done, as well as a lot done by the Bushes should be dismantled post-haste.
Nothing new should be brought to the table without constitutional authority. I’m afraid that Trump has a tough battle ahead of him to get anything of his passed.
It should be clear that since 1988 we have a president who will not betray us. Now it’s up to us - the people who run this country - to help him.
We should be keeping an eye on legislation both national and local to keep the eye on the prize. Trump can’t do much of his agenda alone, and as president it’s not his responsibility to pursue our agenda.
It is his duty to “preside” over the congress and keep them inline. Coolidge.
Congratulations on fighting that beast to a standstill. Hugs to you both.
I want to see a river of tears from the Democrats not seen since the Biblical flood.
Kennedy does tend to go the wrong way at times, but for now there is a 4/4 split, and he tends to hang with the conservative voting.
I would favor the retirement of Kennedy. I would want Thomas to stay as long as he is healthy and could do the job.
I know that Kennedy can be a squish, but he generally sides with the conservatives. It would be helpful if he decides to retire soon.
For the moment, pretty much all anti 2nd Amendment laws passed by the legislative bullies in California will stand because the 9th Circuit will uphold them, and the present 4/4 split cannot reverse.
For that matter, it is unknown how it will turn out now that a West Coast Federal Judge has ruled against President Trump regarding the travel ban. The appeal goes to a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit. If they should rule for President Trump, the full court can hear it, and would possibly rule against President Trump. And appeal might not be reversed. If the 3 judge panel rules against President Trump, and the full court doesn't take up the case, again, it then goes to the USSC, which might not reverse because of the present configuration.
To the point of Freeper alternatives?, people like Ginsburg are leftist hacks and party becomes before self. In this instance, she failed to put the party first, and thankfully, it may now backfire against her. She might not go down in history now as a hero of the left, not because she didn't try her best to advance the leftist agenda, but because she had a chance to step aside and guarantee that the left could hold on to what they had so that in time, when another Obama came into power, they would be able to regain the ability to seize complete control of the USSC. She will get more of the blame than Breyer because Obama wanted her to retire, and she failed to heed him.
There was one account I read which posed the theory that the White House knew that Roberts was not a fighter, and that if enough pressure were applied, he would buckle. If that was true then, I hope it’s true now.
The daily meltdowns of leftists underscores that miracle!
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.