Posted on 07/24/2013 2:03:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A Marist poll released Wednesday indicates that Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2016, and that there is a very crowded and tight field among Republicans. Yahoo asked voters: Which candidate are you backing and why? Here's one perspective.
COMMENTARY | The latest Marist poll of potential presidential candidates shows a couple of interesting results. First, Hillary Clinton is blowing away other Democrats. Second, the Republicans appear to be bunched up with no clear front runner.
Turning one's attention to the Republican field, one looks upon Ted Cruz, the junior senator from Texas. Hot Air, relying on a piece by Byron York, has a pretty good run down on why Cruz is appealing to conservatives. Writing, though, from this conservative's perspective, the one thing most appealing about Cruz is his lack of nuance, especially on the issues.
Illegal immigration? He's against it. Gun control. He's against that as well. What to do about Obamacare? Repeal it. Taxes? Cut them. Spending? Cut it.
To be sure, there are some details that show that Cruz has a more subtle grasp of the issues. When fighting against the Senate version of the immigration reform bill, Cruz proposed a host of amendments that would loosen legal immigration, both to make illegal immigration less appealing and to attract the sort of immigrants who would benefit the United States.
Cruz was a champion debater at Princeton and is a graduate of Harvard Law, which means that unlike every other Republican from Ronald Reagan to Sarah Palin, he can't be accused of being stupid. He is like fire when on the stump, with the capability of bringing people to their feet without effort, much like Reagan and Palin.....
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Although Cruz looks pretty good right now, isn’t it a bit early to decide who to give the nomination to? I’m waiting for the GOP Establishment and MSM to tell me who is most electable first.
There is no way the rats wouldn’t filibuster nominations like that... oh wait, didn’t they just remove the teeth from the filibuster? I can’t wait to hear Harry do a 180 (though by this point, he’ll likely be on his deathbed).
Well, it’s either Jeb Bush or Krispy Kreme. Because they’re so conservative, and they’ll appeal to Democrats, you see.
/sarc
I dunno. By SCOTUS remaining silent on hundreds of lower court rulings,
i could go for that too
You called?
Yes, I've got deep concerns about Ted's constitutional eligibility to hold the office, despite the fact that he's the finest American I've seen rise to the Senate in too many years to count.
In my heart, I know that he's exactly the kind of American the Framers intended to hold that office. They wrote Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 the way they did, as a protection against those with divided loyalties holding the office.
But it was only ever intended as a preventative measure. There's no way to look into anyone's heart and know for a fact how loyal they'll be to the people and to the Constitution.
If they were here today, I think they'd examine Ted Cruz and judge him to be cut from the right sort of cloth to be our CIC.
I wouldn't say he's 'qualified' (constitutionally speaking), but after Obama, I'd say he'd probably be allowed.
That won't stop the left from making a stink over his place of birth, though. Watch them go into full blown birther mode if he becomes our nominee.
Can't fault your logic, GG. Can't fault it at all.
Arthurus, ignorance of the law is no defense. Ridicule is an obvious Alinsky tactic, now being used by people to suppress the law, along with the truth. Congress does not have the authority to interpret the Constitution. If we have already sufficiently depreciated the Constitution that it is whatever the media decides it should be, then let's make Prince Alwaleed bin-Talal president. He went to school here (in Menlo Park California), and funded Obama’s education, exercises control of editorial policy for News Corp’s WSJ and FOX news, and was a major beneficiary of TARP through his enormous investments in Citibank, AIG, Twitter, .... That should be enough to render him eligible, and that way he can work with his brother in the Muslim Brotherhood, John Brennan, converted to Wahhabi Islam while CIA Station Chief in Riyadh, now our CIA director, and with Muslim brotherhood members and supporters positioned throughout our government, like CPAC Executives Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, Grover who hasn't admitted to having joined his Muslim wife, and Khan whose father is a founder of ISNA, Muslim Brotherhood and sworn to Jihad to impose Sharia replacing our Constitution, and to work for the resurgent Caliphate.
There are no definitions in the Constitution but there are dozens of Supreme Court Cases, including the often misrepresented Wong Kim Ark, Wong Kim having the same citizenship status as Obama, and as Obama himself attested, a naturalized citizen. Wong Kim was born in San Francisco to “domiciled” parents, parents whose established home was San Francisco.
Obama was born a British Subject. There can be no argument. He told us so, and that is the law. His father was a British subject. Cruz’ father was a Canadian citizen when Ted was born. Rubio’s father was a Cuban citizen. Jindal’s parents were Indian when he was born. Why do you think the Republican “mainstream” is floating naturalized citizens? They want to silence the backlash when the historical truth is finally absorbed by enough citizens with the patience to read a bit and realize they have been conned by Republicans, complicit with Democrats who had too good an opportunity with the photogenic leftist teleprompter reader.
From the April 2008 hearing on Senate Resolution 511, to pretend that McCain was a natural born citizen:
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”
The Resolution to cloud the issue of McCain's ineligibility the Democrats first tried to pass a law, Senate Bill 2678, the ‘‘Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act’’ Clearly McCain was born to citizen parents, and SB 2678 inaccurately claimed to amend the precedent established in Minor v. Happersett, to make McCain a Natural Born Citizen. Why was this important? Because the bill, sponsored by Obama and his campaign co-chair Senator Clare McCaskill, would have silenced the lawyers in the Senate who, had they an attractive candidate, should have challenged Obama’s eligibility, just as Democrats promised to challenge Charles Evans Hughes’ eligibility, form justice of the Supreme Court running against Woodrow Wilson.
This is the law, nothing to do with birth certificates, as decided by Chief Justice Morrison Waite:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
The apparently tortured mention of “aliens or foreigners” has to do with the objective of the case. Before the 14th Amendment the Constitution didn't define who were citizens, just natural born citizens, because of differences between states in their naturalization laws. Black people were made citizens in some states and residents in others. American Indians, “not taxed” were not made citizens, though certainly born on our soil.
For anyone who claims that that the 14th Amendment, the “naturalization amendment”, changed all that, here are the words of the principal author of the 14th Amendment, Congressman and judge John Bingham:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….
Ted Cruz has chosen to play the game being managed by power brokers from both parties. He knows the truth and avoids it. He cannot be trusted to preserve and protect the Constitution. If you don't think Hillary will challenge his eligibility were he to be the candidate, you don't understand hardball politics. Trust our framers and custodians of the law. No court besides the Supreme Court can reject the interpretations, including the positive law - because the definition was essential to the decision regarding Virginia Minor's case - enshrined in Minor v. Happersett.
Most citizens are natural born citizens. Ask yourself why our “leaders” parade only naturalized citizens as saviors of the Republican party. We have Susanne Martinez, Michelle Bachman, Alan West, John Thune, ... The obscurity of the intent of framers, of original interpretation, of Supreme Court cases mangled to prevent searches on Minor v. Happersett by operatives of The Center for American Progress with help from Google, Tim Stanley, the CEO of Justia.com and Karl Malamud, CIO for Soros’ Center for American Progress, corrupted on line versions of twenty six supreme court cases containing citations to Minor v. Happersett during the Summer of 2008, only returning to the correct versions after they were discovered in 2010.
A look at the corruption in the IRS shows why our supposed pundits have remained silent. The few who stuck their necks out, Congressman Nathan Deal, who had his tax records perused when he wrote a letter asking for confirmation of Obama’s eligibility, and was charged with ethics violation. Lou Dobbs honestly asked questions and was quickly removed from CNN. Mark Levin won't sacrifice his family's security by even discussing our history. Hillsdale College assiduously avoids John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, Minor v. Happersett, Dr. David Ramsay, our first congressional historian and president during the Continental Congress, Wong Kim Ark's decision, written by the justice, Horace Gray, appointed by our only other ineligible resident of the White House, Chester Arthur.
If Sarah Palin starts a third party, count me in. I would rather be governed by honest leftists, as Obama has never claimed to be a natural born citizen and openly described his disdain for the Constitution. Then we citizens, if we assume voting still has any relevance, can make choices. Cruz, Rubio and Jindal have all evaded the discussion, and the Obama appointees have refused to recuse themselves when cases are assessed for suitability for hearing by the full court. In our lifetimes the Supreme Court will not clarify the definition. But the record is clear that this government is illegitimate, and Cruz’ willingness to lie makes him less trustworthy than Obama’s comrades.
That is not an “interpretation.” Any act that purports to be in accordance with the Constitution by the COngress or by the Courts or by the Executive does, in fact, imply and necessitate INTERPRETATION. The relevant provision for the citizenship requirement is simply that the president must be a “Natural Born Citizen.” It does not define that. The Constitution does NOT say who is authorized to interpret it. The country has accepted that the USSC has the final right of interpretation but that original claim by JC Marshall could just as easily be seen as a usurpation and was so seen by the many at the time,including the president. Until Congress defines the “Natural Born Citizen” there is no hard and fast meaning to it.
Arthurus, you don’t cite your authority, but try Article III Secton 2. “In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court Shall have original jurisdiction.” As Justice Waite clearly states, the definition comes from the common-law familiar to its framers, as does every other definition used in the Constitution.
Chief Justice Marshall’s explanation was “Dictum”, undoubtedly true, as Judge Bingham asserted, and used in over twenty repetitions of Marshall’s definition used in other cases before 1785, drawn from Vattel’s Law of Nations, our nation’s first law book at our first law school, created in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson at William and Mary.
There certainly is “hard and fast meaning to it”, as hard and fast as any definition recognized as precedent, as was Chief Justice Waite’s decision in Minor v. Happersett. That is why Obama supporters corrupted the public record of Supreme Court cases citing Minor v. Happersett.
There is not a single mention of natural born citizenship in the tens of thousands of pages of US Code, law written by congress to define naturalization requirements. As Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes explained in Perkins v. Elg, man - the Congress - cannot alter law granted by God, Natural Law, so Marie Elg, born to naturalized immigrants in New York, but taken back to be raised in Sweden, cannot be denied her natural born citizenship, and is eligible to run for president once she satisfies the age and residency requirements.
One time in our history, in the 1st Congress, a law was asserted, and almost immediately retracted, in 1795,making the foreign born children of citizen parents “reputed natural born citizens.” Both the original and the retraction were signed by President Washington. After 1795, and in spite of close to thirty attempts to amend Article II section 1, the requirement for natural born citizenship for our president, there has never having been disagreement in a Supreme Court case or the 14th Amendment with the definition of natural born citizen. The famous Wong Kim Ark decision cites and quotes Chief Justice Waite’s “never doubted” precedential definition of natural born citizenship.
The last seven amendment attempts, between 2001 and 2007, four of them apparently aimed at allowing Obama to be eligible, though Orin Hatch clearly intended to make Schwarzenegger eligible with his attempt, failed. All thirty attempts over two hundred years failed, and never reached the states for ratification by three fourths of them.
Nothing Marshall said in The Venus was “seen as usurpation.” though some considered his Marbury v. Madison decision giving the court the enormous power of “judicial review”, a challenge to separation of powers. I’m beginning to wonder whether you have objectives other than truth, throwing around such nonsense. If terms aren’t defined there can be no decision based upon legal reasoning. Since terms aren’t defined in the Constitution, the Supreme Court clarifies the common law and language understood by our framers. That is “interpretation” and both separation of powers and Article II Section II assign that power to the Supreme Court, including both original and appellate jurisdiction. Cite any document that says otherwise, and while you’re at it, cite any statement from US Code interpreting who are natural born citizens. The Constitution left no doubt, Article 1 Section 8, that congress was to "Establish an Uniform Rule for Naturalization". But it also left no doubt that the president, and only the president, must be "natural born", not naturalized. Congress makes the naturalization rules, entirely based upon the 14th Amendment, the "Naturalization Amendment", which never mentions natural born citizenship.
Sorry if I confused anyone. My second paragraph should have read “”Marshall’s definition used in other cases before 1875.” My fingers are become dyslexic!
Well that pretty much limits what the court can do, no? Where does it say that the court has sole authority to determine the Constitutionality of a law?
Our track record with people who have been US Senators for five minutes before deciding to run has not been good.
Show me his birth certificate.
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.