Posted on 10/23/2011 5:01:35 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Great...another blood before country sort
Just what we need
What about the attacks here on Bachmann and Perry earlier?
Dont think for a moment that if the zealots thought Palin was in this race they would not hesitate to butcher Rubio too if he announc
Worse that WashPo or Miami Herald
You people do know Rubio opposes Alabama and Arizona laws?
Primary politics here are worse than Fellini
And yes count me too as very disappointed in Sarah Palin...that was a ridiculous ride
Thanks finally some sanity on the thread
This forum’s love for any minority candidate and instant cult of personality jump up over the next Reagan-Palin...is just plain silly
Like high school girl fawning and cackles
“Primary politics here are worse than Fellini”
LOL!
I love that someone other than me has noticed that. ;o)
Yes, and I say it again.
Be thankful no court will remove a Presidential candidate from a state ballot.
Yes. Some of the worst attacks on decent (but not perfect!) conservatives can be found right here on FR.
And I knew that about Rubio.
He definitely falls short on some specific issues, but is light years ahead of what we had before.
You are either born with total allegiance to one country or split allegiance to two countries depending upon the citizenship status of your parents. This One or the other, not a wild card. One of these categories was what the founders were protecting us from with the eligibility requirements.
"A candidate's possible dual citizenship is irrelevant unless he renounced his US citizenship or failed the 14-year residency requirement.
You cannot erase the term "natural born" from the eligibility requirements nor can you change that terms meaning to those who inserted it. Irrelevant? The founders certainly didn't agree with you as they saw to it to include this provision as a requirement for President. They wrote the constitution. If you disagree, pass an amendment, but don't pretend that the requirement doesn't exist or is "irrelevant".
Finally, the full and complete definition of the term “Ludicrous.”
anyone is light years ahead of Obama
but if you fall short on immigration wee will be killed by demographics
Yep. Somehow Cain, West and Rubio are all instant presidential or VP material, and the usual rules of at least some executive (or legislative!) political experience don’t apply.
I am in agreement with you about demographics.
It’s the black fly in Rubio’s Chardonnay.
You want to explain why? Otherwise I will just put it up there with wailing the sky is falling...
I did. Post #96.
You didn’t answer why the Judicial branch is a lesser branch and not a part of checks and balances.
Why are you pushing an unconstitutional meme? The Judicial Branch SHOULD be able to say - oops, no, you aren’t qualified legally to run. Want to justify why you believe that the Judicial Branch should NOT uphold our laws?
Ever heard of the words "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence? It refers to Natural Law.
You don't believe you have a natural right to things like life, liberty and self-defense? You believe that only laws made by man "grant" you those rights? Rights granted by man made law can also be revoked.
I was lucky to receive an education that taught me about concepts such as natural law. I'm sorry that everyone hasn't had the same opportunity. One more reason we need to destroy government control of education.
Which has nothing to do with the candidate’s parents.
Show me a chapter IN LAW or in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that mentions parents.
Show me in the 2nd where it says individuals may keep and bear arms. It doesn't, yet we know it means just that. Why? Because of the writings of the founders. The same applies to NBC. The Federalist Papers being the source of the writings.
First, search my posts to this thread. I do not intend to repeat myself for you any further.
Back to business. With one exception, the framers carefully kept the supreme court out of politics. They considered and rejected the council of revision, as well as impeachment trials by the supreme court. The exception is having the Chief Justice preside over the Senate trial. Recall the Clinton impeachment trial? Rehnquist might as well not have been there. The pols ran the political tribunal.
In Article I Section 5 they gave each House the sole power to judge the elections, returns and qualifications of their members. It is therefore unconstitutional for Scotus to interfere and boot Congressional candidates off a ballot.
As for the President, I explained in the post you gaffed off. The means exist for the political branches to keep a foreign born immigrant out of the White House. That they do not do so is no reason to punt this issue, like so many others, to the courts. The branch most isolated from the people have no business telling us whom we cannot vote for.
It is essential to keep Scotus out of this because the Left builds on any foothold you give them. I don't fear a panel of judges will select a President in my lifetime, but given the chance, I know the left will eventually take over the process, say in some phony emergency and decide who is to be El Presidente.
If that is too far fetched, think what the Left has done with the simple commerce clause, which is among the most innocuous, innocent enumerated powers in our Constitution. This power to regulate trade and the movement of goods has morphed into a Marxist club. It is currently being used to beat us into Obamacare.
So that is what I fear. To get Scotus involved will only further decay our representative republic into an oligarchical tyranny of nine justices, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, and El Supremo Presidente.
The choices are awful. I prefer, based on the efforts and logic of our Framers to keep Scotus entirely out of the Presidential election business.
Blow it out your ass.
Sweetie.
Fight’s on.
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.