Posted on 05/07/2024 5:35:11 PM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
Tucker Carlson @TuckerCarlson
Will foreigners be able to choose our next president? As it turns out, yes, maybe even legally. Catherine Engelbrecht has discovered a federal law you may not have heard of.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
Tucker Carlson is not against foreigners choosing the president, he just disagrees with which foreigner. Not impressed with a man who voted for Obama and Hillary.
I’ve been very critical of Tucker in the past.
But I think something in his mind did a little flip. Back then he came across as another cia-trained, controlled opposition journalists.
But lately he’s showing signs of clear and patriotic thinking.
When? I thought it was the opposite. In the last six months he’s gone in the opposite direction.
In the past, Tucker was criticizing Trump in ways that would help the America Last crowd. And years before that, in the pre-Trump era, I posted on this website that he seemed to be one of these cia moles.
But in the past year or maybe more, Tucker is pro-Trump, pro-MAGA and sounds almost like a Christian evangelist.
I think he was made to flip as part of the covert military operation under way.
Supreme Court of the United States of America
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The rule must be discharged.
Source: 1 Cranch 137 (1803).
this was expressly prohibited by the Founders
obviously
otherwise, England could’ve flooded the country with English and voted whoever they wanted into power
"Mr. Govr. MORRIS. The lesson we are taught is that we should be governed as much by our reason, and as little by our feelings as possible. What is the language of Reason on this subject? That we should not be polite at the expence of prudence. There was a moderation in all things. It is said that some tribes of Indians, carried their hospitality so far as to offer to strangers their wives & daughters. Was this a proper model for us? He would admit them to his house, he would invite them to his table, would provide for them confortable lodgings; but would not carry the complaisance so far as, to bed them with his wife. He would let them worship at the same altar, but did not choose to make Priests of them. He ran over the privileges which emigrants would enjoy among us, though they should be deprived of that of being eligible to the great offices of Government; observing that they exceeded the privileges allowed to foreigners in any part of the world; and that as every Society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted, there could be no room for complaint. As to those philosophical gentlemen, those Citizens of the World as they call themselves, He owned he did not wish to see any of them in our public Councils. He would not trust them. The men who can shake off their attachments to their own Country can never love any other. These attachments are the wholesome prejudices which uphold all Governments, Admit a Frenchman into your Senate, and he will study to increase the commerce of France: an Englishman, he will feel an equal biass in favor of that of England."
Madison Debates - August 9 (1787)
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.