God Bless, you have a great day.
Posted on 07/21/2013 5:34:04 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Since Canadian born Ted Cruz has emerged on the scene in Washington as a future presidential candidate for 2016, attention has turned to whether he is Constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1, the presidential qualification clause. This is what we know. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Many say that disqualifies him to be eligible for the presidency. Enter former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. She was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I came across an interview she did with Fox News's Chris Wallace in February of 2010. During the interview Wallace brought up the fact that since she was born in Canada, she wasn't eligible to be president. Here is the transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/21/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-future-gop/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529
"GRANHOLM: No, I’m totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment. December 31st at midnight is when I’ll stop. So I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.
WALLACE: Yes, that’s true. We should point out Governor Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president.
GRANHOLM: I’m American. I’ve got dual citizenship.”
With that said, I went to the biography of Jennifer Granholm and found that she was born to one American citizen and is indeed a dual Citizen who became 'NATURALIZED' as a U.S. Citizen in 1980 at the age of 21. Now this raises a question. How can a naturalized U.S. Citizen become president of the United States?
Continued below.
God Bless, you have a great day.
If a president vetoes a bill and writes in his veto message that he is vetoing the bill because he believes the bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court does not have the power to overrule that veto even if the Supreme Court believes that the bill is constitutional and that the president is mistaken in thinking it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot overrule that veto because our Constitution provides that veto decisions are to be made by the president.
If the House of Representatives impeaches a president and the Senate fails to convict because it doesn't feel that the president's conduct amounted to a "high crime and misdemeanor," the Supreme Court does not have the power to overrule the Senate's decision even if the Senate's reasoning was clearly incorrect. The Supreme Court cannot overrule that decision because our Constitution provides that the decision regarding conviction following impeachment is to be made by the Senate.
With any question under the sun, you can find two litigants, prepare a complaint and answer, pay the filing fees and get the clerk to put your papers into a case file. That doesn't mean that you will convince the court that it can or must decide the case. Research the justiciability and political question doctrines.
The Constitution provides the eligibility requirements in the language that the founders chose to use. You have no right to assume that any lack of specificity or definition was an accident for you to correct. What we do know is that they committed to electors the job of selecting the president, electors who are quite capable of reading the Constitution's provisions. You should not be surprised that the Supreme Court does not just jump right into the middle of that process substitute it's judgment for that of the electors.
I have found this to be true on many subjects.
Ted Cruz is just the latest tool they use to try and foist misdirection and deception upon readers who have not been following the debate for a few years.
The Liberals and their Media will use anything for a tool. Ted Cruz just happens to have some unfortunate technicalities surrounding his birth. I personally regard him as far more American than Barack Obama, or for that matter, Ted Kennedy.
The only danger I fear from a Ted Cruz candidacy is the possibility of enshrining a false understanding of the Natural born citizen requirement in History. (I mean enshrine it more. Thanks to ignorance and deliberate misleading, we're pretty much there.)
Yes, I think it was a legitimate attempt to insure sole Loyalty in the Executive office, but not everything the founders did worked out as well as they had hoped. I think this is one of them.
I no longer feel any compunction about requiring our side to follow the rules. If we can beat them with Ted Cruz, and if he turns out to be the choice, I'm going to put my objections aside and help pull that wagon.
Nothing but rhetoric.
If you dispute a point do so specifically.
In short, the Supreme Court has no power to disqualify a presidential candidate just because a majority of its members believe that the candidate is ineligible.
If you will note, I said "Congress attempted to address the issue in 1790", not that they did or could.
Producing a status that is LIKE "natural born citizen" is perfectly useable for every purpose but one.
You want to add requirements that don't exist in the constitution or in law.
In America, the Constitution IS the law. All other law derives it's power from that document. I am not wanting to add anything to the Constitution, I am saying that those requirements are already in there. Most of us have just forgotten them.
And you as well.
If you dispute a point made here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3045713/posts?page=375#375 do so specifically.
Already asked and answered.
One more time: an ineligible CANDIDATE for the presidency can be judicially removed from ballots. That’s what the 50 ballot challenges to Obama’s eligibility were about for the 2012 election cycle.
Once a President-Elect has had their Electoral votes counted and certified by a Joint Session of Congress, the 12th Amendment says that they are The President, with the only remaining requirement being taking the Oath of Office. Once the President-Elect takes the Oath of Office, the only processes to remove a President from office are impeachment/trial/conviction, resignation or removal under the provisions of Section Four of the 25th Amendment:
SECTION 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Under separation of powers, the courts have no ability to remove a sittng president from office.
If a candidate wins a majority of the Electoral votes, has those votes certified by the Congress and takes the oath of office, they ARE the President even if they are later discovered to have been ineligible for the office. The time to uncover ineligibility is before the early December vote of the Electors and at the latest, at the early January Joint Session of Congress for the counting and certifying of the Electoral votes.
There's no case that Rogers v. Bellei means absolutely jack.
And that's all the time I'm going to waste on you.
No, it isn't. You'll dance when I say dance. You'll keep responding to my posts, because if you don't, it'll be completely obvious that all your stuff is just BS.
I mean, it's obvious anyway. But your only hope of keeping even a few people in the dark is to keep wasting your time and posting your BS.
. . .
A Judicial determination of eligibility is proper, indeed it is solely for the Judiciary to determine and for no other Branch.
It should be obvious that I disagree with that. See post 445: "In short, the Supreme Court has no power to disqualify a presidential candidate just because a majority of its members believe that the candidate is ineligible."
If you insist on segregating the decision-making universe into "political questions" and "legal questions" and insist on treating them as two completely distinct and separate fields (which you appear to do), then without departing from that structure I would say that either (1) the Supreme Court is not empowered to decide all "legal questions" or (2) the eligibility questions are not purely "legal questions." However, the dichotomy you propose is just not justified.
And, obviously, because I disagree with your analysis, I do not find myself forced into your conclusion that a Supreme Court can in effect remove an "ineligible" president because he really isn't a president if he wasn't eligible to begin with.
Sorry, a little too quick on the preview.
I should've said something more like: IT'S COMPLETELY OBVIOUS that Rogers v. Bellei means absolutely jack.
In the context of trying to prove your birther propaganda, of course. The case itself had a valid ruling.
Article II does not speak of “eligible to election” rather it speaks of “eligible to office”.
Article II does not differentiate between pre- or post- election, at all times an ineligible person shall not be President.
If you dispute a point made here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3045713/posts?page=375#375 do so specifically.
I understand that you disagree. You have not shown any basis for your disagreement, you have not refuted any point, you offer your opinion. An opinion without any substantiating fact is not persuasive.
Candidates run for office.
We’ve had close to one-hundred test cases between 2008 and today of attempts to remove from office an allegedly ineligible person who assumed the office of president.
The vast majority of those legal challenges were dismissed on grounds of standing (wrong Plaintiifs); failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted/non-justiciability (not the job of the courts); or political question (no real legal issue involved).
If you're interested in finding out about why the Supreme Court might feel unable to properly decide every question that you choose to label a "legal question," then just Google "political question doctrine," "justiciability," "judicial review" and "judicial restraint." It might be more productive for you to discard the "political question" vs. "legal question" dichotomy and begin thinking instead about "questions which the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to decide" and "questions which the Constitution empowers other constitutional actors to decide."
Obviously, it isn't very important that I disagree with you about the Supreme Court's powers. It is important that the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Watch and observe what the Court does and says and also what it doesn't do and doesn't say and adjust your assumptions accordingly.
Neither of you address any point but continue with rhetoric.
The Supreme Court has not ruled on any “Obama” case. Not one has been determined to be a “political question” contrary to your innuendo.
That's right. It's now 57-0. And, after 2016, it will be 58-0.
I detect a trend. ;-)
You offer nothing but rhetoric.
It is fact that a judicial determination of ineligibility is a removal from office.
I’m really ticked over the failure of conservatives to coalesce around ANY good conservative. I watched them tear apart Bachmann, Herman Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry. They magnified the flaws of each and what did we get??
We need to select drone who shares our core values on government, fiscal policy, abortion, Second Amendment, etc and support him/her unapologetically and cease knit picking over trivia. I first learned of Cruz through articles attacking him from the left. And it would be naive to not expect leftist clones operating here
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.