Posted on 01/11/2016 9:51:07 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
For some of us who followed and participated in the Obama eligibility question, the last eight years have been more than a little frustrating on that front. Despite dozens of attempts by lawyers and others of varying degrees of competence to win a fair and impartial hearing of the issue, the court system closed its doors to us. The issue of the constitutional eligibility of the President of the United States would not be resolved by a neutral arbiter applying long-established principles of law to facts established pursuant to the rules of evidence (if you believe courts ever actually do this!), but instead would be fought in the court of public opinion, where all manner of misrepresentations, blatant falsehoods, calculated obfuscations, accusations of ill-intent and racist/partisan motives, etc., would dominate the discussion.
Now we have the same question being raised with respect to Ted Cruz, and Trump has suggested that Cruz seek a declaratory judgment that he is eligible. It's hard to say whether he could do so: courts could call that an "advisory opinion" or might also call it a "political question". But if I learned one thing from the Obama eligibility saga, and really the entire Roberts Court in the Obama era, it's that no matter how important the issue is, it's the political process that often is ultimately controlling in situations like this (unless of course you happen to want to get married to someone of the same gender . . .).
With that in mind, anyone who tries to wave off the question as a "settled matter" should be dismissed as a partisan hack obfuscating the truth for the benefit of a candidate. It's not settled legally, and, likely, it won't ever be. But it is a question that the courts have left to the voters, and therefore it is up to us as voters to deliberate and discuss how we want to apply that clause to today's circumstances.
In my book, the answer is pretty clear. Congress can decide to grant this or that group citizenship based on whatever the current needs or opinions are, and that citizenship is good for everything that you might want to do up to and including the highest levels of government, except for the Presidency. That one solitary position in our society should continue to be reserved for one of the over 300 million of us who were born with no other allegiance other than to these great United States of America.
Yup. In the eye of any given (liberal) judge on any given day...
Correct. This IS a political issue. Not a legal matter.
What Trump (and the dems) are doing is simply playing political games. Trying to make points over a non-issue.
Everything interaction between humans is political.
There is a correct legal answer as a matter of reality, but that answer isn't relevant. On this issue, Congress can amend the constitution by finding an unqualified president-elect to be qualified, and there is no recourse.
If the public believes a candidate is qualified, then the candidate is qualified. Period. Click your heels three times. All you have to do is believe.
Not sure that that number is not too high anymore. When looking up the total population for the United States, it brings up a number of 318.9 million (2014), so I'm thinking the number may be closer to 200 million. Perhaps even less.
Very well thought out and very well written.
I a siding with the firewall provided by the genius of the Founders. With loose and fast “citizenship’ being thrown around even by those who want to destroy the west, I think it is more important than ever to have a high bar for this office.
Yes, you might be right. Maybe it little high, but still there are plenty of perfectly capable Americans without a shred of possible allegiance to another country from which we should be able to identify a leader for our country.
If we continue to abandon the Constitution because it is politically expedient to do so, we have no country left . . . certainly not the country of the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”
Wilson would be very happy with the enlargement of his progressive 14 points to the continuing destruction of America and submission to the New World Order!
“Use it or lose it” applies to the constitution as much as any other “thing.”
What nonsense! There wasn’t anyone here who said it was a political issue when it came to Obama’s eligibility.
“Presidential Eligibility is a Political Question”
BS! Presidential eligibility is entirely a Constitutional question! A matter of LAW!
No "non-partisan" court is going to take the case on the merits, for various and mostly good reasons.
The entity that has a stake in this is the party,k because the party is the entity that sends electoral votes, and it would be the electoral votes that name an unqualified candidate, if Cruz is unqualified.
Get the GOP to go formally on the record that it finds Cruz to be an NBC. Obviously this is not legally binding on Congress when it counts the electoral votes, but it puts pressure on the DEM party to either accept the statement, or rebut/challenge it.
I know this approach doesn't produce a conclusive answer, but at least it commits the GOP to sending Cruz electoral votes to Congress.
I think it would be better (for Cruz) to have this position letter issue before the convention, but if Cruz is nominated, this position certainly out to be formally stated by then.
Having a Canadian birth certificate just makes Cruz too easy of a target.
What nonsense! There wasn’t anyone here who said it was a political issue when it came to Obama’s eligibility.
___________________________________
You’re absolutely right. Me included. I was (and still am) a proud birther.
However. Over 50 court cases and State A/G decisions later (All Lost) we now know:
Any US citizen is a NBC.
(See tagline)
It can be both a legal issue and a political issue. Labeling it a political issue is just another way of saying that courts won't render a binding opinion on the question. They didn't, for Obama. Plaintiffs didn't have standing, or the issue was a political issue. The Constitution give Congress the power to decide if a president-elect is qualified. That is not the court's job.
BS! Presidential eligibility is entirely a Constitutional question! A matter of LAW!
___________________________________________
Yes. And it’s Settled Law.
So anyone questioning Ted’s citizenship therefore is playing political games.
“You’re absolutely right. Me included. I was (and still am) a proud birther.
However. Over 50 court cases and State A/G decisions later (All Lost) we now know:
Any US citizen is a NBC.”
Here is where that leads:
Ollie Ackbar: Born September 11, 2001, Sana’a, Yemen
Father: Mohammed Ackbar, Born Sana’a, Yemen; Citizenship: Yemen
Mother: Betsy Johnson, Born: Bethesda, MD; Citizenship: USA
September 11, 2037 Ollie Ackbar arrives in New York, USA
Status: Natural born citizen of the United States
Qualifies for the Office of the President of the Unites States: Certainly / sarc
Is that what anyone here wants?
That sort of scenario is EXACTLY what our founders were intent on preventing!
That sort of scenario is EXACTLY what our founders were intent on preventing!
________________________________________________
I agree. But since no one vetted Obama, and any and all legal challenges were FUBARd, we are SOL.
Which is as it should be since that was the entire purpose of the provisions inclusion.
Nicely said, BTW.
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.