Posted on 03/23/2015 3:41:11 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
PFL
No offense was taken. When the media made a Big deal about Obozo being a "Constitutional Scholar" I was one of the people saying big fat hairy deal "Adjunct Constitutional Scholar" Not the same as a full professor.
In spades.
From the highest roof top.
At least we have seen Cruz in action, we have some of his background, more to come, he has not court ordered any of his college records or where he was born, etc to be closed like bambaboy has and did...
I like what I see with Cruz, and I want to see who else declares...I would like to see Paul, Walker before I make the final decision, but Cruz is good, no doubt about it.
Oh, and just because he doesn't match the demonRATS line of thinking and Cruz is not a RINO and says pretty much how it is, don't pick him apart...how would you like that if it was done to you!
I think the litmus test this election is dropping out of College, from the GOP.
And from the left they must worship Gaya. That about sums it up.
Our litmus test has always been the Constitution. He passes that one easily.
I don't smell it yet. Besides the sun is still out. They don't come out in the daylight.
I’m thrilled to see him announce.
Ted Cruz doesn’t need to hide behind a “present” vote. He doesn’t plan to fool anybody later. He’s completely OPEN and TRANSPARENT about what he believes. With the truth, there’s no need to hide or be ashamed. Those are the behaviors of liars like obama.
No, that is false.
In fact some of us are merely saying that your definition of Natural Born Citizen is incorrect.
I know it must hurt to see that even fellow conservatives see this issue differently, but failure to agree with your idiosyncratic views does not constitute defaming the Constitution, as you claim. In fact that is a rude and libelous claim, that I utterly reject, along with many other Freeper Patriots.
Specifically we are saying that the Constitution does not define "Natural Born Citizen", nor is it explicitly defined in the US Code. There are at least as many, if not more, arguments for understanding it as "citizen at birth" as there are for the many, many other interpretations that you and others hold.
And, yes, one must add to that at this point not only Obama's two terms as President, but the rejection of NBC arguments by court after court, including SCOTUS.
I don't always agree with his positions, and I think the criticism of him changing with the wind has some validity to it.
Still he will, on occassion, go places that Cruz will not. His infamous interview with Rachel Maddow where he was closely questioned on his support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 saw him articulating a position that few will support these days, that it went to far in limiting the rights of people to associate as they please.
I've not heard Cruz opine on this issue, but I doubt he would go where Rand did. (And, in fairness to Cruz, Rand got beaten with it by the LibTard press.)
It's that "public accomodations" law that is now being used to take bakeries aways from owners who won't make cakes celebrating sodomy.
The rabid anti-Rand crap that is endlessly spewed by a few people here is tiresome. In the end it doesn't help Cruz. Like it or not a huge percent of young Republicans are attracted by Paul's (both) message.
I saw this at our local (Vancouver, WA) caucus in both 2008 and 2012 - almost all the attendees under 30 were Paul supporters. (And this was a wide spread trend in Washington, as we've discussed on the State board and elsewhere on Free Republic at length.)
We don't have to give in to their views, but ridiculing and marginalizing them is uncalled for.
Thank you for posting this.
I believe that when the Constitution in Article II definitely calls out for ‘natural born citizen’ for POTUSA as compared to ‘citizen’ only in Article I for legislators the Framers and Founders being very erudite men meant/intended a difference in the meaning. If it is idiosyncratic to point out the explicit difference of wording it is just as and even more so to neglect or even ignore the actual words and the proceedings that brought forth the words. I have no recall in memory or my records that the SCOTUS ever rejected the wording of the Constitution. I do have recall over many years going back before WWII that court rulings have clouded if not obfuscated the role of the Founders in forming and wording the Constitution. It still goes on today in such split decisions as what Congress intends or should have intended with/as to laws being passed.
BTTT!
This is quite logical and I agree with it. However that does not require the tortuous "three types of citizens" definitions of the birthers. The two simple categories that the founders may have intended may be:
So if we equate NBC with the first then your supposition that the framers intended a difference is correct and maintained.
Senators and Representatives can be naturalized citizens.
The President can not be.
This is how most people understand this clause. No one argues that Arnold Schwarzenegger can be POTUS. But no one would argue he can not be a Senator. Tom Lantos served in the US House for many years and was born in Hungary. But could not be President.
If it is idiosyncratic to point out the explicit difference of wording it is just as and even more so to neglect or even ignore the actual words and the proceedings that brought forth the words.
As I believe I have explained above it does not require ignoring the explicit appearance of two terms "citizen" and "natural born citizen" to define them in the simplest and most common way. It does not harm the integrity of the text.
If the Constitution contained three terms "citizen" "citizen at birth" and "natural born citizen" then, clearly, the founders would have had three separate categories in mind. However, it does not contain three terms, but only two. Thus I think it is quite logical to believe that they only saw two types of citizens, as most of us do today.
I suspect that almost everyone can, and do, sort their friends and acquaintances into the categories of "born American" and "immigrated (and took citizenship, or is applying, or is a green card ... ).
I've never thought to myself: "Well, Joe is an American Citizen by Birth, but he's not a Natural Born American citizen." Which is one reason why I think the birther arguments had so little traction. They were contra common use and typical ways we think about things.
That doesn't mean they were necessarily wrong, but just that it would take a clear and definitive counter example to carry the day. And that has never been forth coming from the birthers.
I have no recall in memory or my records that the SCOTUS ever rejected the wording of the Constitution. I do have recall over many years going back before WWII that court rulings have clouded if not obfuscated the role of the Founders in forming and wording the Constitution. It still goes on today in such split decisions as what Congress intends or should have intended with/as to laws being passed.
SCOTUS has not rejected the existence of the Natural Born Citizen clause in the Constitution, they have simply allowed it to be interpreted as I've explained it. Congress has had over 200 years to clarify it, and has not. There are a few court rulings that touch on it tangentially, but they are not really germaine or compelling in support of the "three forms of citizenshp" theories that all forms of the birther argument rely upon.
Bookmark
Looks like you dialed the wrong number and meant that reply for someone else. I didn’t write the quoted text.
Better luck next time!
“...The framers wanted at least one complete generation of both American born parents to ward against this subversion. Dumb idea?...”
No, great idea!! But to implement that great idea, you’d need to amend the constitution to clearly define NBC -OR- legislate the definition of NBC and pass a law -OR- get the SCOTUS to review and set the definition via a majority decision or something along those lines. Until one of those things happens, the current precedent-setting President has established that you only need one minor parent to be a citizen to confer the required US citizenship and eligibility to run for POTUS.
That’s the way things stand right at this moment. It might change before the elections if the Dems and the lib supremes decide to (ahem) “settle the issue” now that 0Bama is safe...
Ping. Can’t lose this one.
Ha! Match that, Hillary!
Oh, wait... you CAN’T!
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.