Posted on 12/10/2012 10:18:24 PM PST by nickcarraway
In the immediate wake of the election, Republicans felt so stunned — in no small part because they had deluded themselves into expecting victory — that it seemed momentarily possible that the party’s long march to the right may halt or even reverse. But the future of the party is already taking shape, and that future will be, in some form or fashion, a conservative reaction against the Republican leadership that has sold them out. The smarter Republicans have already shaken off the trauma of electoral defeat and begun positioning themselves to capitalize.
One important indication comes from National Review Washington editor Robert Costa, who writes today about Tom Price. You may not have heard of Price, but the conservative House member is conferring with Grover Norquist and right-wing members of the House, and setting himself up to challenge John Boehner in the event of a budget deal. Boehner earlier this year offered Price a leadership position on the condition that he offer full support to Boehner, a condition Price tellingly rejected. Costa quotes a Price ally, who hilariously tells him Price “is hoping for the best, hoping taxes don’t go up with any fiscal-cliff deal.” This is hilarious because this is tantamount to saying Price is hopeful the sun won’t rise tomorrow morning, but if it does, he may have to challenge Boehner.
But the truest indicator of the future of the party is Marco Rubio. The most unabashed of the 2016 candidates, Rubio is extremely skilled at discerning what his party wants and positioning himself as the man to give it to them. Last week, Rubio spoke at a party event in New York Washington, a speech that prompted New York Times columnists David Brooks and Ross Douthat, whose defining trait is to always see a Republican moderate around the corner that never arrives, confidently predicted a Republican moderation yet again. Each cited Rubio’s speech, a paean to the party’s future as the shining beacon of hope for Latinos, the poor, and other problematic constituencies.
As always, there were caveats. Both columnists noted in passing that the great new moderation they foresaw was as yet entirely confined to rhetoric. (Douthat: “The speech didn’t offer the kinds of policy breakthroughs the party ultimately requires.” Brooks: “Some of the policies he mentioned were pretty conventional.”)
Well, yes, the fact that Rubio was merely wrapping party dogma in pleasant-sounding rhetoric is a wee problem in the analysis. And over the last few days, Rubio’s approach has grown more clear. On the budget, Rubio delivered the Republican weekly radio address, and his message was more of the old-timey religion: We must get the national debt under control. Tax increases will not solve our $16 trillion debt. Only economic growth and a reform of entitlement programs will help control the debt.
This is the classic Republican metaphysical dodge, which not only argues for keeping taxes as low as possible but refuses to acknowledge that revenue bears any relationship at all to deficits. Deficits equal spending! Two legs bad, Reagan good! On immigration, meanwhile, Rubio is carefully positioning himself to oppose any potential deal. He is not coming out and immediately throwing his body in front of the legislative train. Rather, he pleads that we must not try to do everything at once and should instead try to reform immigration “step by step.” Of course, “step by step” is exactly the catchphrase Republicans used to oppose health-care reform. It’s a way of associating yourself with the broadly popular goal of reform while giving yourself cover to oppose any particular bill that has a chance to pass. You’re not against reform, you’re against this reform. It’s too much, too fast.
It’s not coincidental that Rubio is speaking out on these two issues. They’re the two most plausible issue areas where President Obama is likely to sign major bills — and, as a result, the two areas where conservatives are nearly certain to conclude that their party’s leadership betrayed them. The anger of the base may or may not be strong enough to prevent Republicans in Congress from striking a deal. But it will surely be strong enough to shape the party’s internal decisions — no Republican who acquiesces on the budget or immigration will be eligible to lead the party in the future. Price and Rubio see that already, and others will surely follow.
I am defending the Constitution as written.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at the moment of birth and nothing else.
There are only two forms of citizenship in the USA:
Natural Born
Naturalized
You are NOT a conservative as you wish to construct false meanings for the words in our Constitution.
Name ONE legal expert who agrees with you idiot birthers?
You can't!
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at the moment of birth.
A Naturalized Citizen can not become President.
This is all the Constitution has to say on the matter.
YOU and other foolish Birthers have not made YOUR case.
I do not have to make my case, as I have the overwhelming authority of every elected official, every judge, and every immigration attorney and historian on my side.
You have noone on your side but tin-foil-hat kooks who do not understand English, or logic, let alone the law.
EVERY member of Congress could side with me (And YES, on this issue, Congress has more authority than the Courts)
and still -—
You would cling to your foolish birther drivel.
Admit it!
Who the eff is this twit?
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. That is a fact you have not disputed.
You can’t change history. You can pretend it doesn’t exist, but you can’t change it. It doesn’t matter who you imagine agrees with you. Your whining is not winning any support. And please, whatever you do, don’t do as you have done in the past. Don’t puff yourself up and start screaming that everyone else is an idiot and that you are a legal expert, or whatever other industry expert you attempt to claim to be, because you think it will make your weak case appear more believable.
On this very thread proof has already been cited for you. If you refuse to believe them, I wouldn’t waste my time playing a name game with you.
Well yes they would,in fact they have already, but that would be Treason, not truth.
The fact you don't recognize it just proves my point.
The bloodless Coup d'état we had in 08 was the final nail in the coffin of the Republic. I can see no way that the Constitutional government will survive.
The velvet chains that the NWO binds you with, will all to soon become much harder to bear.
I will be long dead, but my children and grandchildren hopefully will pick up the standard, but I am not hopeful.
You mention “proof” but you have no proof.
You are not trained in these matters well enough to even recognize valid evidence.
Again, if what you say is so obvious, why do you have anyone of any importance who agrees with you?
You mention “proof” but you have no proof.
You are not trained in these matters well enough to even recognize valid evidence.
Again, if what you say is so obvious, why do you NOT have anyone, of any importance, who agrees with you?
So, only those who think exactly the way you do have the ability to recognize valid evidence?
I know one thing about you. You did not learn debate or logic in school. You are clueless.
Here's a book that might help you, Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. The equivalent of stomping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue is not working out for you.
“I am perfectly fine with seeing the GOP disappear altogether.”
That makes two of us. I figure the GOP has pretty much disappeared already. Sticking to conservative principles was the only thing to save the party, but they chose not to do that. Now we have two Democrat parties and I doubt if there’ll be a better time than now for a third party to rise up.
YOU have failed to influence anyone with any knowledge of the law, any authority under the law, or any power to enforce the law.
I don’t have a lot of hope for a third party forming, or if one does that it will be effective. Perhaps I am wrong on that, just don’t know.
I suspect that if a third party did form, it would be infiltrated by statists pretending to be people whom they are not. There would be a keen interest in destroying it, especially if it were effective. We would have to guard against the Charlie Crist types, the John Boehner types.
I believe that we are going to have to go down the road we are traveling now. This country has hard, hard lessons to learn. With regard to the GOP, I simply do not care what happens to them. They do not represent me, and they are liars. If they find other people to vote for them, then good for them I suppose, I’m not going to concern myself with their fortunes any longer, because it simply does not matter.
(1) I did not state that Vattel was any sort of “controlling” publication, I believe it was only one of many influences of the FFs.
(2) I believe one thing about Ob, you believe another, so be it.
(3) I made no mention of “conservatism” related to birtherism - you did.
(5)WRT “us” “attempting to corrupt our legal system to support your views” how do you explain/justify the shenanigans taking place daily wrt Taitz’s attempts to shed the light of our “judicial” system om the issue. After all, what has Ob to fear from a public discourse on the matter, him being the head of the “most transparent administration to ever be in charge”????? Spend just one hour on her site and read about the “loss” of Fedex delivered docs, malfeasance by the clerks, irrational behavior of the judges, etc ad nauseum. I don't begrudge the establishment prevailing, IF they can do it HONESTLY and prevail in an open and fair arena. So far, they haven;t even come close.
(4) I've lived under totalitarian rule - have you????
Also, there are many reasons for Obama not to want much scrutiny of his past.
For one, he might well be the biological son of Frank Marshal Davis. All of the birther stuff in the world, even if true, would not prevent Obama from being POTUS if FMD is his real father.
Except for the felony fraud with the bs birth narrative.
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
A Red Barn is red.
A Red Barn is a barn.
Not everything that is red is a barn.
Not every barn is red.
Your cases do NOT back up your argument. You do not know how to read, in general. You do not understand basic logic, and you are a babe in the woods when it comes to legal issues.
It is helpful to understand, for instance, that the Parents are both citizens at the time of birth, as this WOULD impact citizenship of one born on foreign soil.
To simply state that both parents are US citizens and that the child was born on US Soil does not, in ANY WAY, state, or enforce any REQUIREMENT that all of those conditions MUST be met in the case at issue.
You are making a fool of yourself.
You really do not know what you are talking about.
As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.'
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.