Posted on 02/10/2016 4:17:12 AM PST by detective
Despite Donald Trump's victory in New Hampshire, what is the chance that Republicans will nominate Ted Cruz and that he will go on to win the presidency?
The website ElectionBettingOdds gives Cruz a 14.5 percent chance of winning the nomination - his victory in the Iowa caucuses and what looks like a third place showing in New Hampshire notwithstanding. It puts his chances of actually winning the presidency at 4.3 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
so what do you think of his funding Mitch for re-election?
Do you remember all the whopla about defeating Mitch.? Questions here on Free Republic as to WHO would want MITCH re-elected but the GOP-e. GOP-E , GOP-E... that’s all we heard... then Mitch was re-elected.
Who did we blame? GOP-e... when your candidate TRUMP paid good $$ to have him put back in office ? WHY?? HE says he is GOOD!! TRUMP LOVES MITCH!
...Masterful.
The statute which stripped Bellei of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Bellei
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 requires an alien to apply for a petition for naturalization.
This form may be obtained from any office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a division of the Department of Justice, or from any court authorized to naturalize aliens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
We can be pretty certain that Ted wasn’t an alien because to the best of our knowledge, He hasn’t applied for naturalization, nor has he been required to- He was a citizen ‘at birth’ under 1401 g)- Those arguing that the removal of ‘natural born citizen’ from the 1709 by the 1795 act somehow disqualifies Ted overlook the fact that recent 1409 states that in order to be a citizen ‘at birth’ one simply must be born to a US citizen, either on soil or off
[[Section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the Act), grants citizenship at birth to persons born abroad having one alien parent and one parent who is a United States citizen. Section 301(b) of the Act, however, states that said citizens shall lose citizenship unless they live in the United States for at least five consecutive years between the ages of 14 and 28
Holding and Rule (Blackmun)
Yes. Congress has the power to revoke the citizenship of a non-naturalized citizen of the United States by imposing conditions subsequent regarding residency.
Dissent (Black)
The Court today holds that Congress can indeed rob a citizen of his citizenship just so long as five members of this Court can satisfy themselves that the congressional action was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. This test does not appear in the Constitution.
The Court today is overruling its holding in Afroyim that no one can be deprived of citizenship without his assent.]]
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/rogers-bellei.html
“...The diference between us is that unlike your unqualified opinion, which refers only to the 1790 act, my opinion refers to SCOTUS case law that reads the 1790 act, and applies it to a fact pattern the same as Cruz’s...”
Well then, since your opinion as one of FR’s resident Constitutional Scholars is to be so highly revered, then are we to presume you will be disqualifying Cruz personally or what? How do we get your opinion to matter one whit beyond my opinion (which we both agree is of no impact in the matter), or a stray dog’s opinion?
Or should I presume that your opinion (and mine) until vetted in a court of appropriate authority, pertaining specifically to presidential qualifications as per judicial restraint (I’m sure you can explain judicial restraint better than this lowly lay person) - both are worth diddly squat?
Simply as a matter of academic curiosity, we can't both be right. Your opinion is unqualified, you admit you are clueless on the subject.
The GOP elites are LYING about his electability. They said the EXACT same thing about Gingrich. Then they gave us Romney, and their prediction came true for Romney. Only after his loss that conservatives saw coming a mile away did some of the GOPe admit he was a bad candidate. Of course many were trying to push him to run AGAIN in this primary. The GOPe know NOTHING about electability. Karl Rove’s strategy is a disaster.
The idea that Cruz tries to further his own career is NONSENSE. We had to push the GOPe for 6 years just to get them to send an Obamacare repeal bill to Obama’s desk for him to veto. That’s a “losing” strategy in one sense, but not in the sense of delivering on your campaign promises. That’s what Cruz did. The GOPe said his shutdown would lead to huge electoral losses a year later. The opposite happened and Republicans had a massive mid-term victory.
Trump is the sure election loser. He performs terribly in favorability. See Gallup poll below. Cruz is THE most popular Republican in the field, bar none.
Oh, on the question of judicial restraint, I come down on the side of protecting ballot integrity. It is immoral to knowingly mislead the public, and put an unqualified name on a ballot. Although I do agree, the constitution anticipates the possibility of the electors (not the same things as voters) choosing an unqualified president-elect, in modern times, the vetting of qualifications is not, but should be done at both primary and general election contests. It used to be that nominees were selected in smokey backrooms, there were no primary elections; and people voted for a party, not a person (still technically true). But if the people are going to be asked to weigh in, then it is the public's interest to have qualifications established before voting. Seeing as how the public is gullible, it should be up to the secretary of state.
And too, it is a violation of statute for a person to submit a false certificate of eligibility. If that statute is to have any effect, eligibility has to be tested.
“...Would Ted Cruz type citizenship apply to Immigration and Naturalization Laws?...”
Does the study indicated by the picture include at least one proven, court-defensible, definition of NBC *specifically* addressing presidential qualifications so that we can put the matter of Cruz’s qualifications to rest?
It may well include cases that *could* be argued in a matter specifically addressing Cruz’s (or any candidate’s) presidential qualifications and may very well succeed. But until that happens, Cruz is still on the ballot and can still be sworn in as President of the United States, if he wins the election. In that regard, you may have some breathing room.
Well, it didn’t make sense then. Whatever.
Did you not assert that your opinion, “...refers to SCOTUS case law that reads the 1790 act, and applies it to a fact pattern the same as Cruz’s...”
And then you assert you, “...come down on the side of protecting ballot integrity. It is immoral to knowingly mislead the public, and put an unqualified name on a ballot...”
Well, you are presenting yourself as on the side of right and with the right opinion.
Are you going to disqualify Cruz or not? As you present it, there’s nothing between you and kicking Cruz off the ballots but “air & opportunity”. Well heck, let’s get you before either the RNC leadership in each state, SCOTUS or something so you can convince them. Am I right?
Now I know you can’t. You know you can’t. And we both know the reason why. Your point of view may one day win the argument in an appropriate case and if so (that’s a BIG “if”), you will rightfully have bragging rights. But until that happens, we’re both just flapping gums and neither of us can or will make *any* difference in the matter of Cruz’s qualification to hold the office of POTUS. Other than with our individual votes, of course.
Diddly-Squat.
Well, unless you actually *can* disqualify Cruz. Can you?
“...nothing-burger...”
Yes you have a picture of some legislation. Very nice. But show me you have the slightest understanding of the picture you posted — has any of it been argued successfully in a court case specifically pertaining to defining NBC for the purpose of Presidential Qualifications?
If so - Hey! You may have something!
If not - You have nothing *yet*. Why do you have nothing *yet*? Google “judicial restraint”.
“...Your opinion is unqualified, you admit you are clueless on the subject...”
There you go, putting words in my mouth. What sort of lawyer did you say you were? Regardless, I did not admit or characterize my opinion as “clueless”. I do have *some* idea of many things. I would definitely qualify my opinion on this particular matter as of no consequence towards ultimately deciding if Cruz is qualified or not. I would bet your opinion will not impact Cruz’s eligibility either. Possible, but I wouldn’t bet on it (if I were a gambling man). You’ve gone from jumping a perfectly reasonable comment, to having to be seen as holding the only valid point of view - and you don’t. One day you might, but not today.
At this point, it is not a question of who is right or wrong. My point all along has been in response to the sudden appearance on FR of “Constitutional Scholars” who state opinion as *undeniable* fact with no foundation other than, “they read it on a blog” or something, to wit:
Aria said, “...Astonishing to me how many on FR don’t care about Cruz’s eligibility problem...”
And I replied, “It’s astonishing to me how many folks on FR suddenly turned into “Constitutional Scholars” and “Solicitor Generals” without legal bonafides, but instead just by trying to comprehend headlines, random blogs and various snippets of text from articles off web pages with zero sense of context. It’s like the TrumpleThinSkin logic some on FR espouse who are convinced he will “make America great again” because it says so on his hat...”
Am I to presume you disagree?
[[It’s astonishing to me how many folks on FR suddenly turned into “Constitutional Scholars†and “Solicitor Generals†without legal bonafides,]]
Well, I think It’s not so astonishing that people want answers and or to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt whether someone like Ted is eligible or not- this is a big deal- and people don’t want to throw their vote away if they think he might not eligible-
At best- all we can do is look for past cases, look to the wording and to intent etc in cases like this and try to come to some reasonable conclusion- The issue has languished unresolved for 200 years really, with the SC reluctant to take it up, and courts struggling with the issue and coming to wrong conclusions or conclusion based on evidence that is no longer in play
FR is made up of people that want to be informed- they don’t just take the news stories on CNN, CBS Fox etc as gospel truth- and the people that come to FR for the most part show that they want to make informed decision on issues such as this-
We’re certainly not going ot decide on FR something even legal scholars can’t agree on, but we may be able to find information that points us in the right direction regarding whether we should vote for him or not-
We should strive to hash out both sides because in so doing, points come up that we hadn’t thought of before, and may help to inform our opinion one way or the other- and had we not hashed out the points, we wouldn’t ever know- It should be like a good boxing match, with one side gaining the advantage, then the other, until eventually one side takes the advantage- but BOTH sides should argue vigorously and passionately and hopefully civily
Havign said that, I ran across this fact below:
[[the term was not defined until the adoption (1868) of the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave citizenship to former black slaves. As this amendment indicates, the United States generally follows the jus soli. However, Congress has also recognized, subject to strict rules, the principle of jus sanguinis so that children born of American parents abroad are citizens during their minority and can retain this citizenship at majority if they meet certain conditions. In addition, in 2000, Congress granted automatic citizenship to most minor children of American parents who were adopted from abroad; previously such adopted children needed to be naturalized.]]
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/citizen.aspx#2
The fact that children adopted overseas are citizens speaks to the fact that natural children born abroad of a us citizen should have the same privilege or greater perhaps-
[[the term was not defined until the adoption (1868) of the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave citizenship to former black slaves. As this amendment indicates, the United States generally follows the jus soli. However, Congress has also recognized, subject to strict rules, the principle of jus sanguinis so that children born of American parents abroad are citizens during their minority and can retain this citizenship at majority if they meet certain conditions. In addition, in 2000, Congress granted automatic citizenship to most minor children of American parents who were adopted from abroad; previously such adopted children needed to be naturalized.]]
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/citizen.aspx#2
The fact that children adopted overseas are citizens speaks to the fact that natural children of a us citizen born abroad should have the same privilege or greater perhaps-
woops disregard that last post-
Regarding the issue concerning the CRBA and the htoguht that this makes a person a ‘citizen through statute’, according to the official uscis website, they clearly states that a child born abroad does not need to file an ‘Application for Certificate of Citizenship’ if they don’t want to, and if they do it’s only for documentation purposes- The process of Application for Certificate of Citizenship is simply to ‘serve as evidence of his or her U.S. citizenship​’ should they wish for documentation
[[ D. Application for Certificate of Citizenship (​Form N-600​)​
​A person ​born abroad ​who ​acquires​ ​U.S. ​citizenship ​at birth ​is not required to file an Application for Certificate of Citizenship (​Form N-600​). A person who seeks documentation of such status, however, must submit an application to obtain a Certificate of Citizenship from USCIS.]]
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html
Not quite.
Children adopted overseas get automatic citizenship ONLY when BOTH American parents leave the country to secure the adoption.
The facto f the matter is that someone who wishes a CRBA must go through a process, but a CRBAQ isn’t necessary, nor does it undermine the fact that a person is a citizen as stated by the uscis website above concerning whether the person wishes to apply for an Application for Certificate of Citizenship’ or not- they are a citizen even if they don’t-
Sorry about the characters- I’ll repost the quote here without the characters
[[ D. Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600)
A person born abroad who acquires U.S. citizenship at birth is not required to file an Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600). A person who seeks documentation of such status, however, must submit an application to obtain a Certificate of Citizenship from USCIS.]]
We poor souls, not even worthy of an opinion....how on earth can anyone make any sort of decision without orders from our betters? How does the jury system even work - people are supposed to think for themselves, who knew? Why does anyone even advertise when all we need are instructions from those who know oh so much more. Yeah, you sound like a real conserative. Silly me for “trying to comprehend headlines, random blogs, and various snippets...”..as if you know me.
You sound more like a nazi than a conservative. You represent your candidate.
You really are toxic...and remember, you attacked and ridiculed me, whom you don’t even know. And don’t expect me to reply to anything you pop off with...life is too short.
“...We poor souls, not even worthy of an opinion...”
I never said that. You were “astonished” people didn’t agree with your opinion on Cruz. You stated it as *fact* that he’s not qualified. I merely replied I was astonished at all the self-proclaimed constitutional scholars on FR - which you presented yourself as by stating your opinion as *fact*.
You TrumpleThinSkins *truly* do have thin skin. Your logic isn’t all that admirable either. And you call me toxic? Pot? Meet Kettle!
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.