Your sole purpose on Free Republic is to continuously assert how legitimate he is.
Posted on 08/13/2013 3:12:38 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Via Mediaite and MFP, forget the legal niceties about what “natural born” might or should mean and look at this from a court’s perspective. Realistically, no judge is going to disqualify a national figure who stands a real chance of being the nominee of one of the two major parties unless the law leaves them no wiggle room to rule otherwise. Tens of millions of Americans would be willing to vote for Ted Cruz; to strike him from the ballot on a technicality in an ambiguous case would be momentously undemocratic. Against that backdrop, the Supreme Court would almost certainly end up reading “natural born” in the narrowest way, excluding anyone who was born abroad of two non-citizen parents but including everyone else. Cruz, who was born in Canada but whose mother was a U.S. citizen, would qualify, not only for the reason Ace gives here but more broadly because courts don’t want to be seen as hard-ass enforcers of what’s perceived by many to be an unusually archaic bit of the Constitution. They’ll dump a true foreigner because they have to. They don’t have to dump the son of an American citizen like Cruz, so they won’t. Take it to the bank.
But never mind that. Given the angst and ambiguity over the “natural born” clause in the last two cycles, why not pass an amendment to replace it with something like, say, a 25-year residency requirement? The point of the clause was to make sure that rich foreigners couldn’t cross the ocean and buy their way into the presidency, which wasn’t a baseless concern for a group of former British subjects who worried about loyalists to the throne subverting the revolution. In practice, though, it means that someone who’s born on U.S. soil but lives their entire life abroad, only to return and run for president decades later, is constitutionally more trustworthy than someone like Cruz who was born abroad but has lived his entire life here. Does anyone question whether Ted Cruz, decades later, might be more loyal to Canada than to the U.S.? Right at this moment, House Republicans are gearing up to pass a variation of the DREAM Act that would grant citizenship to illegals who were brought here at a young age by their parents on the theory that the place where you’re raised is more likely to shape your patriotic loyalty than the happenstance of your birth. If those kids are trustworthy enough to help decide at the polls who the president should be, why shouldn’t they be eligible for the presidency themselves? In a democracy, the president is, or should be, drawn from the citizenry. People who take certain draconian disqualifying actions, like committing felonies, are an exception, but what action has Cruz taken? Replace “natural born” with a residency requirement, which gives people the power to prove their loyalty, and you solve that problem.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
When it didn't serve her interest, it was. Now that it does, it isn't.
The founders couldn't have anticipated how low we would have sunk. Their method made sense for the first 200 years, but we've since lost our minds. We live in a world where there is mostly no penalty for being stupid.
Thanks - great information.
Your sole purpose on Free Republic is to continuously assert how legitimate he is.
I agree that the “natural born citizen” clause is no longer relevant.
I think much legislation and much mischief is decided on exactly this criteria. It is distinctly a problem with the fact that that northeastern corridor of power is it's own echo chamber, and it is out of touch with the rest of the country.
Krispy Kreme’s ex wife.
Well stated.
Krispy Kreme’s ex wife.
Well stated.
This theory certainly fits the facts of which I am aware.
No, he was born on the base. Reports to the contrary are false. I've debunked this issue so many times i'm tired of it.
Even if someone believed that, why In the world would any conservative spend so much time and effort trying to convince others?
And he just utterly WORSHIPS the Courts. Most of us have a low opinion of the Judicial system because we are all too aware of the many abuses of power perpetrated by this group, but this guy? Nooooooo! Everything a court does is a sacrosanct religious ceremony or something.
I have come around to the opinion that he is likely an opposition propaganda agent. He simply never misses an opportunity to defend the legitimacy of Barry.
Ankeny is the Godwin rule for this topic.
Obama is not a natural born citizen, and we haven't any real proof that he's EVEN a citizen. Hawaii speaks with forked tongue.
Everything a court does is a sacrosanct religious ceremony or something.
The folly of which was disproven by the Roberts Obamacare ruling....
Even if Roberts thought the electorate would show common sense and throw out the “ pretender” and the den of thieves , he was misguided in
giving them a lifeline.
When you see a deadly snake, cut it’s head off. That’s the only way you
know you are safe....
Those in power want what they want, and they have the social and political connections to GET what they want. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to respect or even note their kangaroo court opinions.
Once again, I have to note how STRANGE it is for a "conservative" to be so worshipful of the system we've been decrying since Roosevelt stacked the courts with kooks and idiots.
I agree the method made sense for the Founders, it just doesn’t make much today. It is thus pretty much a meaningless technicality.
We should, IMO, still obey even the meaningless technicalities in the Constitution, but shouldn’t deceive ourselves about what they actually are.
Do you not see how ridiculous is your statement when you assert that someone is "natural born" through the "naturalization" power of congress?
The sole realistic alternative to accepting legal decisions as final is force to overturn them.
American conservatism, if it means anything, stands for the right of the people to rule themselves.
Unfortunately, in our present country true conservatives are in a considerable minority.
So to effectively implement conservative principles would require armed overthrow of the government elected by the majority. And how can that possibly line up with the very conservatism it promotes? How can you overturn majority rule in the name of the right of the people to rule themselves?
I wish I could find the old post that discussed how many entities do not accept an Hawaii driver’s license or a Hawaii birth certificate as proof of citizenship, because of the way the Hawaii law was written at the time when Obama was born.
As I recall, a person could simply walk in to the office and announce the birth of a baby and swear they were born at such and such a place, and the record would be made and a birth certificate issued.
It made people consider flying to Hawaii to have their children registered as having been born in Hawaii.
Also, Sheriff Arpio’s department has some very interesting factual analysis that includes expert document examiners that have claimed under oath that the alleged birth certificate in Hawaii that has been posted on the web is a complete forgery.
They have some very detailed information publicly available that demonstrates how they reach that conclusion.
It is too bad law enforcement cannot find a prosecutor to pursue this - or even a Congressional committee to at least inquire and make a record.
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.