Posted on 04/19/2016 4:39:10 AM PDT by Biggirl
Monday on Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani explained why he is voting for Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump over Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in Tuesday’s New York State Republican presidential primary.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Learn to spell soccer mom
Sorry you do not like court decisions, but other than guns and anarchy, or electing representatives to change the Constitution, what did you have in mind?
Sawing of DC and floating it down the Potomac, and out to sea?
Please, what is a Trump Trump mole sign on.
Is that like “wax on, wax off?”
I love it. If one respects the rule of law, as opposed to the Political Flavor of the Month, one is a “mole.”
Sorry, but I only accept predictions about the future from Certified Gypsy Women at the County Fair.
PS, I would remind you about the actions of then Senate President Albert Gore when the BCC tried to prevent the House’s certification of George W.
You are both very right.
There is a small Constitutional problem/prohibition of both being from same state, but Bush/Cheney had same problem as both were legally Texas residents.
Cheney quickly moved his voting registration to Wyoming and problem was solved.
Trump has home and business in Florida. Problem is easily fixable with one quick signature.
P.S. What I think doesn’t matter.
What you think doesn’t matter.
What SCOTUS thinks matters, and they think U.S. Code 1401 is what is called “the law.”
Sorry ‘bout that.
Matter of fact, yes. Long long ago.
“What SCOTUS thinks matters, and they think U.S. Code 1401 is what is called “the law.’”
LOLOLOLOL You forgot.... the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. It TRUMPS all others. Even in the SCOTUS.
Cruz “a Conservative Constitutional Lawyer/Senator?”
I think NOT!
Like liberalism, Cruzism is a mental disease.
One of the reasons, and there are many, I switched preference to Trump is because I don’t think that’s true.
I don’t think Cruz can win, but I do think Trump can.
I also think it would be far better if they teamed up.
>I also think it would be far better if they teamed up.
I agree.
Sorry, but in ConLaw 101, one learns that the Constitution, AS INTERPRETED BY SCOTUS AND MADE OPERATIONAL THROUGH US CODES, is the law of the land.
For just one example. Why is Rush Limbaugh allowed make his comments without government censorship or why are you free to do so on FR? The Constitution makes no reference in the First Amendment to Freedom of Radio or Freedom of the Internet.
Think of all the laws that create a civil society today, one that was never envisioned by the Framers, nor could have been. For example, would you want anyone to fly an Airplane, drunk, crashing into someone’s house, with no regulation?
We regulate the Broadcast airways so radio and TV signals do not simply overlap and interfere with each other.
What about Credit Cards and the laws that allow you to protest improper charges thereon? Did Hamilton, Madison and John Jay legislate and legalize this “alternate currency” in the Constitution?
That’s A, B, and C, just for openers.
So tell me how has US Code changed Article II and its eligibility requirements?
Cruz is ineligible, in fact he is EXACTLY the person the Founders wanted to keep from the presidency.
Course you, an Obama enabler, wouldn’t know that!
I will vote for anyone over H, including Trump. I don't hate the man. Unlike many (most?) Trump supporters vociferously hate Cruz.
Sorry, but you still don’t get it.
If you miss it again, you’ll have to repeat ConLaw again next semester.
Herewith begins the 2d Lesson:
USC, Art II, Section 1 defines the requirements to serve as POTUS. They include among other things that the President must be a Natural Born Citizen.
No definition of a NBC is given.
Since then, the US Code and the Courts (and every loudmouth) have defined and described such eligibility requirements.
The USC did not, and could not have addressed all the realities of the modern world. For example, what about a person born aboard a US registered aircraft, in flight over international waters, a person born overseas to one or two US citizen parents, or on a US military base overseas, or the child of a pregnant US soldier not on a US base, but afield under legal orders, and so many other possible scenarios.
That’s where the US Code comes in, and it does not change Art II, it simply further defines the terms and conditions therein.
The problem with the “citizenship crybabys” is that each has their own definition of what a NBC should be.... and of course, they think only they could be right.
Some ideas advanced are:
1: Must be Native born to 2 citizen parents is one claim
2: Must be Native born to at least 1 citizen born parent is another.
3: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 2 citizen parents.
4: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parents
5: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 2 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship rights must be renounced at birth
6: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship must be renounced at birth.
7: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 2 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship rights must be renounced before 18.
8: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parent and any foreign citizenship must be renounced before 18.
9: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parent, with some sort of future US residency and/or oath of allegiance requirements.
10: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 2 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship rights must be renounced at birth with some sort of future US residency and/or oath of allegiance requirements.
11: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship must be renounced at birth with some sort of future US residency and/or oath of allegiance requirements.
12: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 2 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship rights must be renounced before 18 with some sort of future US residency and/or oath of allegiance requirements.
13: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship must be renounced before 18 with some sort of future US residency and/or oath of allegiance requirements.
14: Doesn’t have to be native born, but must be born to 1 citizen parents and any foreign citizenship must be renounced before 18 with some sort of future US residency and/or oath of allegiance requirements, must be left handed and must know the Table of Elements, including Atomic Weights, from memory.
etc.
Every non-lawyer, bartender, taxi driver and hairdresser has their own idea on Presidential eligibility. All the conflicting opinions are just that, legally meaningless opinions. It’s like the Infield Fly Rule. Everyone knows it exists, but very few can actually define it’s current status.
As a Republic, we have all agreed to live under the laws of that Republic. Those laws are called the US Code. SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and that law. Sorry you don’t like that.
And please, the Obama comment only makes it look like you don’t know what is right in the rest of your post, which we all now know is an apt description of the knowledge in your post....
Think about it. Do you not see my tagline? The original post of yours I responded to was rude and emotional. There are many subversive trolls on the forum and they are disruptors only here to stir up trouble. I take exception to that and when I see someone as “excited” as you posting 40 times in a day with little history of posting, you fit the MO of a subversive.
Lots of trolls are registered here but they don’t become active until certain events like presidential elections.
“You’re”
So you went 5 straight years working 12 to 14 hours a day?
“1: Must be Native born to 2 citizen parents is one claim.(sic)”........followed by a bunch of nonsense 2-n....
This is the definition given by the Court in Minor. In fact they state in the majority opinion that this is how the Founders understood and used the term. As you know it is also the definition put forth in Natural Law texts of the period (1700’s.) Texts that the Founders had on hand as references when writing the Constitution. see Law of Nations/Natural Law 1757 (De Vattel) (A text used in US Law Schools until the mid-late 1880’s..) Note that The Preamble of the Constitution states that it is based on “Natural Law.”
The Study Guide for Naturalization published by the US Government states that in order to be US President one must be born in the US of 2 citizen parents. Oh Noes!!!!!
You can look it up! (Yogi Berra)
It’s been well over a half century, but my 8th grade Civics class used the same definition of US birth to 2 citizen parents for NBC. Education ain’t what it used to be....but my memory is!
” No definition of a NBC is given.”
How Clintonesque. (what “is” is?..... Est??? Julius Caesar) BTW the Term NBC goes back to Roman Empire days......
If you are coining a new term it would be necessary to then define it. However, if you are using a term in common usage it would be unnecessary to do so. Such is the case with the Founders usage of the term Natural Born Citizen. They just never felt the need to define a common usage term. Imagine that, how economic of them!! see “Wealth of Nations” Adam Smith circa 1800.
If you read the Senate’s Resolution 511 concerning Sen. McCain’s eligibility to run for President in 2008, you’ll see they also used this self same definition. (Funny how they didn’t apply it to Obama isn’t it? McCain should have rammed 511 down Obama’s throat! That’s OK... you refuse to use it with Teddy either! How McCainesque!)
Obama’s strategy to circumvent the NBC requirement was to focus upon US birth as the requirement all the while insisting that the term NBC is “undefined.” (Boy have you ever glommed onto that one in your defense of ineligible Canadian born of a Cuban father Teddy Cruz.) You’ll note that Obama never claims to be a NBC (”I was born here, I’m a citizen!”) while Lying Ted has the nerve to claim he is a NBC.....they have two things in common....foreign citizen fathers and apparently worthless Harvard Law School JD degrees. Oh yeah, a 3rd, both have sealed their records from prying eyes....Lolololo....Law degrees are highly over-rated.
As for my knowledge, I know for certain that you are pursuing an agenda with the truth be damned.
Chaos is thy name. You’re a Hyena style hunter. Nothing new. Seen it before.
I changed in January, not because I disliked Cruz, but because I saw Trump displaying strengths that were far beyond what Cruz had. Like the tag line says, there are reasons, lots of them that I'll go into some other time perhaps.
While not hating Cruz like a lot of people here have come to, I have lost a bit of respect for him. That started when he went to the dark side about the Chicago shut down. He missed a golden opportunity to zing the left there. When he blamed Trump, it disturbed me a lot.
He's now mathematically out of it. I hope he stops his quest, it's now impossible to win after last night's thumping. If he thinks stopping Trump from the magic number is wise at this point, I feel sorry for him. Unless there is some actual deal with Trump under the table he should get out; for him to continue to do the bidding of the GOP elites is nothing but folly. If they actually succeed in stopping him, they will kill all chances of keeping house/senate majorities, tear the party asunder, assure a rat majority and supreme court for as far as the eye can see, and Cruz good name will be totally destroyed.
If he does that, I will join the haters. So far, I simply dislike his new alliance with the GOPE and his inability to form a sentence without trashing Trump.
The stakes are too high for him to continue, it will make him unelectable to any office including dog catcher if he continues. Send this along to CEW wherever he is, because you can bank on the following: If Cruz does not stop his campaign soon to unify the party, if he does not stop his alliance with the GOP cartel he claims to be against, and if they succeed, he will be the most hated man on the right, by the right, for a generation.
The name of Mudd will change to Cruz.
“As for my knowledge, I know for certain that you are pursuing an agenda with the truth be damned.”
Wow, bottom line all the Citizenship Crybabies avoid is no court has ever held that USC 1401 does not now define requirements to be President, nor has any final court of record ever held Mr. Cruz, Sen. McCain, Mr. Romney Sr, or Sen. Goldwater were ineligible.
You love to quote all sorts of extra-legal munbo jumbo, but avoid the fact that no court has held Mr. Cruz is not eligible to be POTUS.
You can relax, Mr. Cruz is losing the election to MY candidate, Mr. Trump, on his own accord, but not because of all the citizenship BS fools have put forth.
PS, if you need to rely on ad hominem attacks and avoid the law, and you are sure you can mind read my intent... what would I be really saying to you if the rules of decency on FR, or my mother’s teachings, did not prevent me from doing so?
No soup for you, and more replies to your legal foolishness. Bet you have a “convincing legal argument” why driver’s licenses, hunting and fishing licenses, license plates on newspaper delivery vehicles, income tax and PFDA are all illegal too.
As Laurence Tureaud would say; “______ ____ ______”
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.