Posted on 10/04/2014 12:10:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Depends on whether they really are the “smartest guy in the room” or a poseur and fake like Mr. Obama. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Lincoln were obviously bright, as were Wilson, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and Rhodes scholar Clinton.
You're right, they are involved in a lot of corruption.
However, for me, I think that the NBC-qualification is the bigger issue; since he was born in Canada to a father who became a US citizen only in 2005, it seems that could well be an issue.
(If we want the Constitution to be respected as supreme law, we need to treat it as such — especially when it is inconvenient.)
Other than the cut in income the Cruz family will take when he's sworn in as President I don't see anything to be concerned about.
Well I think you have the right instinct about anything to do with GS but it is a big organization and it can be taken over in time.
As an analogy I live in Seattle and I don’t like Microsoft BECAUSE of what Bill Gates III has come to represent in his political perspective (although he is subdued compared to the head homo at Apple). But now Microsoft has a family guy in charge who worked himself up through the ranks and the company appears to be turning a corner. I am willing to give them a chance at capturing my consumer decisions. Samething with Apple if they can manage to get rid of their perverse rotten core.
Hell, I’d even read the NY Times if they could purge the perverse elements of their editorial staff and start reporting objectively.
“Heidi and I have not made any decisions about political plans past the mid-term elections,” Cruz posted on Facebook, referring to his wife. “Clearly we have an overzealous supporter out there making freelance comments, but to be clear, no decision has been made. Whoever this ‘anonymous advisor’ was, he or she had no authority to speak, and doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”
I pointed this issue of NBC out concerning TC a couple of years back and thought that maybe his place was on the Supreme Court. Since then it is obvious he MUST be President and I will explain why.
First, the US Senate passed a resolution on John McCain and Obama was present. Secondly, Congress, the Courts and the Political Parties have allowed Obama to occupy the White House. So a precedent is set, unfortunately. Congress by way of representing the citizenry and not just the oligarchs must examine the purpose of the NBC requirement and amend the Constitution to ensure its core purpose.
When we examine the original motive and intent behind the NBC requirement we find that John Jay advised in a letter to General George Washington that the eligibility requirements for the Presidency be more strict than other elective offices because the President would be the Commander of the Armed Forces.
The obvious requirements were that a President be loyal to the United States with no other allegiances or loyalties except to the United States.
This led to a question of how to ensure this requirement. The answer was that presidential candidates must be born of two citizen parents in a place of American jurisdiction. As Madison clarified it was not necessary that a birth be American soil, it could be abroad or on a ship. But the parents must be domiciled in the United States.
There is a difference between residence and domicile. For example, an American Ambassador could reside in France yet be domiciled in New York. Obviously an American abroad could be questioned as to their domicile if they had stayed a long time abroad or had accepted a second citizenship abroad.
But the essential issue is not who a person is born to or on what soil they were born BUT on the ALLEGIANCE and LOYALTY of that person to the United States. This is the essence behind the NBC requirement.
Obama appears to me as someone who is not loyal or having allegiance to the United States. He looks to me as someone who would harm the United States whenever an opportunity presented itself that would enable him to escape justice. So far he has been brazen but stops just before the tipping point.
Obviously the Oath of Office has not stopped Obama.
How to amend the Constitution to deal with disloyal and dangerous Presidents? There is the impeachment clause but it is impotent in the hands of a Congress that has sold out or is controlled by oligarchical interests.
I think an Amendment for Recall is in order for not only the Presidency but also for US Senators. And I don’t care if such a recall would cause turmoil with perpetual elections because the angst that would be created would ensure people are not careless with their votes!
Area Managing Director and Company Managing Director are two very different echelons. What sort of company do you work for?
His mother was well over 18 at the time and was and is an American Citizen. If Mrs. Obama/Dunham had been of age she would have conferred her NBC to Mr. Obama, had he actually been born in Kenya.
I already described why he must be President in #4. The post you responded to was to explain why he can be President. Sorry if it was confusing.
And that, IIRC, is from a statute passed by congress which means that the citizenship would not have been NBC, but naturalization.
Let me reiterate: the only form of citizenship that the congress can define by normal legislative acts (that is, methods other than constitutional amendment) is naturalization — they cannot alter the definition of Natural Born Citizen, nor confer it upon others, without amending the Constitution.
From Marbury v. Madison:
The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited [p177] and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. [p178]
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
I'll go back and re-read it.
The post you responded to was to explain why he can be President. Sorry if it was confusing.
I'm sorry but a precedent is set
is utter crap when talking about constitutionality.
See the excerpt of Marbury v. Madison in Post 32.
I’m not going to argue with you on it further, because it doesn’t matter. Mr. Obama was elected and re-elected. It’s all moot.
I disagree that it's moot: if we want the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land then we need to act like it's the supreme law of the land. (i.e. precedent means absolutely jack shit WRT constitutionality.)
I am very familiar with Marbury and Madision. That case should be revisited because it leaves full interpretation powers over the Constitution with the Supreme Court.
When there is a problem with interpreting the Constitution, the US Senate will often pass a resolution weighing in on one side or the other.
To fight Senate resolutions requires a lawsuit. In the case of McCain it has not happened and IMO it will not happen. The McCain Resolution allows for Cruz to run for President and it will not be overturned.
A legal wrangling over NBC could take decades to sort out. You and I and others are here today and gone tomorrow. When we look at history of people like us complaining about these kinds of issues, the statistics show a near zero chance of changing the process.
And I remind myself that the other side of the dispute uses powerful 14th Amendment arguments which I believe are wrong but which a large segment of active politicians believe is germane.
So it’s not easy.
It’s better to go to the core of the issue and to the electorate with simple and clear messages that this is about ALLEGIANCE AND LOYALTY. Everyone understands those two characteristics.
Bypass the NBC arguments and go straight for an Amendment to allow the electorate to petition for RECALL at federal and state levels. This is a populist approach that gives people the right to vote again. People like having rights, they like having control. It will be popular. All the legal wrangling and the political pundits will raise Cain for months with warnings and scare tactics. But in the end people will understand they have the right to vote again and that’s all that matters.
Use if necessary the process named in my tagline.
Hoover was also a very bright man, as were the Adamses, but the problem with very bright people (or people who think they are very bright) is that they think they're smarter than they are and don't always adjust very well to changing circumstances and new information, or listen to good advice when it's offered.
I don't know what category Ted Cruz fits into, but good grades don't always make good presidents.
How about successes at the Supreme Court?
Finding out that law clerks did the the lion's share of the justices' work for them really soured me on the high court. There's a pre-modern, almost medieval aspect to all this waiting around for nine kings to pronounce on every issue that affects our lives (even though our system has inspired countries all around the world to set up a supreme court as part of their modernization).
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.