Posted on 09/19/2011 4:29:58 AM PDT by maggief
The battle for the Republican presidential nomination is just heating up. But the choice of running mate is as good as settled, at least if the Beltway buzz is to be believed.
Many party insiders feel that the attractions of Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) for the second spot on the ticket are irresistible.
“Right now, he is head and shouders above everybody else,” Florida-based GOP strategist Rick Wilson told The Hill. (Wilson supported Rubio during his 2010 Senate bid, but did not work for the campaign.)
Garlands have been hurled Rubio’s way with conspicuous frequency in the past few weeks.
“Rubio has the most important ingredient of any leader: vision,” conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote.
Former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen last week contrasted the “depressing” performance of the Republican presidential candidates on foreign policy with that of Rubio. The Floridian recently “stepped forward to do what the other candidates should have: lay out a clear foreign policy vision,” Thiessen wrote on his Washington Post blog.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
They DID NOT DISCUSS what did not apply to the case - and this was clearly stated by the Chief Justice.
I am not going to continue to discuss it. ANYONE who CLEARLY refuses to acknowlege what was said by the Chief Justice has an agenda.
There is one definition. It may not be the ONLY definition.
As for Naturalization versus birth you should be doing more reading on that...as in the transcript of the oral argument in Nguyen that discusses another SCOTUS case.
Fine.
But you should get a clearer view on what is meant by “birth and naturalization”.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services recognize:
- “citizenhip at birth - either native born OR born abroad to citizen parents”.
- “citizenship after birth - derived citzenship from U.S. citizen parent(s) OR naturalization.
All of the above are “citizens”. None of them are “natural born citizens” as that term is not a type of statutory citizenship. It is ONLY an eligibility requirement to be Presdient of the United States.
Go to: www.USCIS.gov and click on CITIZENSHIP
Again, read the transcript of the Nguyen case discussing Rogers V bellei.
Have you even read Rogers V Bellei??
You are throwing out red herrings, my dear.
No, you keep ignoring the point about Naturalization/ Nationalized.
You probably don’t even understand the Oral Arguments in Nguyen or Rogers V Bellei. I have been posting for over a year that anyone who posts on this topic should be required to listen to that oral argument.
Instead of actually listening and/or reading about the complex nature of this issue ..you just..
oh never mind..it just isn’t worth the time.
Naturalized can’t encompass natural born????
Think again.
If you are really interested in reality you should do more research. Like Read Rogers.
Or you can just keep on trying to flim flam.
How much is the Democratic Party paying you to come on here and insult people?
“The Chief Justice ADMITTED , in writing, that they were not going to resolve that issue. In essence, they punted because it wasn’t germaine to the case.”
Yes, that’s what they did on the 14th Amendment issue, but they did, in fact, define what natural born citizen means as part of their rationale for dodging the 14th Amendment resolution as I previously said.
JC
“But then again, you aren’t a Justice on the Supreme Court so maybe you can’t figure that out.”
I read and comprehend plain English just fine, thank you. AND you can scrap your “commas” excuse Ma’m; it’s getting repetitive and tiresome...
JC
You do take the prize for excess verbiage.
Actually, it was a single, short, plain-English question to you that you neglected to answer, resorting to a snide insult instead. (You might want to look up some of these big words!)
JC
More mush from the wimp.
Why not keep it to yourself ?
No one else is interested.
You invited the comeback with your asinine comments, and I can hear the chuckling in the backgroud already from everyone subjected to your self-serving BS! HAW
JC
You get the Gold Star in self-serving.
I think that’s called “projection” for when one runs out of lame excuses, eh? This reminds me of the admonition about “rasslin’” with pigs, so Adios!
JC
AGAIN, if you take it LITERALLY, as has been noted by a Justice on the Supreme Court the sentence reads that you must have been natural born at the time of the adoption of the United States.
And AGAIN - commas are everything. A misplaced comma can cost you millions or do you other irreparable harm.
Get a clue because you don’t seem to have one. If you are going to go around espousing legal defintions that you had better understand the relevance of commas.
AGAIN, if you take it LITERALLY, as has been noted by a Justice on the Supreme Court the sentence reads that you must have been natural born at the time of the adoption of the Constitution
And AGAIN - commas are everything. A misplaced comma can cost you millions or do you other irreparable harm.
Get a clue because you don’t seem to have one. If you are going to go around espousing legal defintions that you had better understand the relevance of commas.
Seriously, posts like yours make Conservatives look like fools.
The Chief Justice DECLINED to address the issue as to whether there is more than one definition.
HE PUNTED.
They often do that when it is NOT GERMANE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
I was THE FIRST on this site to try to bring the truth to light about this issue as it pertained to British Citizenship and bigamy.
I look for the truth..not a flim flam.
Conservatives who try to flim flam and refuse to acknowledge all aspects of this do the Conservative movement no favors.
That doesn’t mean the Dems pay me. There are Conservatives that believe in the truth... no matter which way it falls.
And as it pertains to Natural Born Citizenship - IT IS NOT SETTLED LAW.
Btw, The Founding Fathers didn’t want the VP as President...but look what has happened. It is possible that they thought that someone who was not natural born could be VP because they would never be President just by virtue of the office of VP.
Do you know the history surrounding all of this. Of course you don’t. Everyone carries on about the Founding Fathers.
Do you know the role John Jay played in this??? What about the belief that the Convention was considering having a Monarch. YES, a King.
People on this site carry on and on about how the Founding Fathers didn’t want this or that and that is why they fought the revolution BUT THEY CONSIDERED HAVING A KING!
And just around this time John Jay wrote a letter.
Or what about the use of native-born versus natural born and how those words played out as it related to Senators and Representatives and the role Madison played in it?
People who have tried to realistically educate themselves on this subject differ as to what they believe on the definition of natural born...but anyone who refuses to acknowledges that a Chief Justice DECLINED to resolve the issue just has no credibility because they have not sufficiently educated themselves.
People here carry on and on and one and don’t know a damn thing about what really went down during the writing of the Constitution
Just like a Democrat. You protest too much.
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.