Posted on 01/21/2016 7:39:08 AM PST by ScottWalkerForPresident2016
53% of GOP primary voters say someone born in another country should not be allowed to serve as President, to only 28% who say they're alright with that.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
This issue is going to damage the party. The party can deal with it too. Courts are not the only game in town.
This is AMERICA after all...
Military families have children overseas every day. Are we to exclude these children?
This crap needs to stop now.
Your headline is false.
Once Mr. Trump wins, he is the head of the Republican party.
Totally.
Of course. The loyalty of children born to warriors overseas is suspect. They get it from Daddy.
I’m tired of hearing what the “public” perceives to believe, it’s what the Constitution says that matters. We’re getting away from that and it’s scary-—mob rule never works. BTW, the media and GOP Rinos despise Cruz, that’s good enough for me to vote for him!
Yeah but you also think abortion is between a woman and her God.
I’ll bet at least 53% would also get other provisions of the Constitution wrong if you polled them. Just because they’re Republicans doesn’t make them a whole lot more educated in civics; they were educated by the same public school system as the other clueless masses.
Polls like this show why we have a written Constitution to provide a construct for governance. Making decisions by polls is like passing laws via American Idol like call-ins (although I fear we’re about to elect a President based somewhat on his reality-TV persona_.
It's good to know the words the Founders included to prevent divided loyalties still aren't that hard to understand.
It’s as if the RNC is dirty, like the DEMs.
The body text came straight from PPP. See for yourself:
Well, whether they should “be allowed to” is still up in the air somewhat.
Whether it’s a good idea to put someone in that position is entirely another story.
Well I am one of those lawyers who has actually argued the Constitution before SCOTUS and other Courts, bot Federal and State, that believes that the Constitution CLEARLY is meant to “live and breath” over time. (A long discussion for another day). If it didn’t, we’d be a “Nation” of warlords, quite simply.
My point is that to use a “strict construction” of the Constitution, (the wrng way to do it) Cruz is ineligible. Congress would not get to define “what a citizen is” for purposes of that provision.
That provision was to keep England (and others) from rigging elections and planting one of their own in our Presidency. That was it’s SOUL purpose. That is no longer relevant. A more expansive interpretation of the Constitution would be that Congress DOES get to define what a citizen is and, it seems with just a little concern, that Cruz is eligible. I don’t even like him and I think without question he is. Same for O’Dimwit
Would love to see SCOTUS resolve this once and for all but “Standing” is such a problem I don’t quite see how we get there without a potential Constitutional crisis.
SO? You have ideas I don’t like, are you standing on a pedestal to think you look better?
So, scenario....mom takes a vacation, she’za U.S. citizen, so happens to be pregnant and drops the kid on foreign soil...the baby’s not an American?
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.