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.
Good morning, SatinDoll.
This may interest you...I was born in the Canal Zone:
“statutory U.S. citizens”
“Before the passage of the Panama Canal Treaties in 1977, the Panama Canal Zone had been a U.S. possession, with some families of “natural born” American citizens permanently residing there for generations. In order to protect the “natural born,” status of anyone born in the Zone to at least one citizen-parent, Congress passed 8 USC 1403. Experts cite other legislation providing the same “protection” to the offspring of “natural born” American citizens in the U.S. territories.”
“8 USC 1403”
“(a)Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.
“(b)Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.”
+++++++++++++++++
As an aside, please remember McCain was born in Colón, Republic of Panama, which makes him a dual citizen.
By the way, I like reading your posts. Thank you.
Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen.
Read what I said.
Conservatives REFUSED to cooperate.
Romney was the fault of conservatives for our refusal to settle on, and back, ONE candidate in the primary.
Some group of insiders might find themselves a little less inside after 2016, and strictly due to TV visuals. How sad.
Maybe FedGov Left needs Ashley Judd, after all. :)
That problem seems due to your lack of understanding of the English language, and your lack of basic skills in logic.
For the legal and historical record, Blackstone was and is FAR more controlling than Vattel ever was, on the Founders and on current day Constitutional Scholars. Blackstone did NOT require that both Parents were citizens, for those born on United States Soil.
It is possible to become a Natural Born Citizen even if NOT born on United States Soil, if your parents ARE Citizens. (The exact rules, with residency requirements, have changed over the years.)
To mention that both parents WERE citizens, at the time of any birth on US Soil is not, in ANY way, to be confused with a legal REQUIREMENT that they had to both be US Citizens, in that example.
All Red Barns are red.
All Red Barns are barns.
However, not every barn is red, and not everything that is red is a barn!
Logic and reading comprehension would go a long way towards curing radical birthers of their false theories!
There is a reason why you can not point to a single legal expert who agrees with you.
Yes, we’ve chatted about this before.
People born of U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone and Puerto Rico are themselves U.S. citizens. That is a fact.
Wikipedia has a very concise explanation concerning “unincorporated U.S. territories”, the citizenship of said territories’ citizens, and why they are not considered ‘natural born Citizens.
Incorporated territories, like Arizona and Utah, met a different criteria. Senator Barry Goldwater was challenged on his eligibility because he was born in Arizona when it was still a territory, but as it was an incorporated territory, he was considered to be a natural born Citizen. All born there before statehood were considered U.S. citizens and became, if their parents were both U.S. citizens, natural born Citizens eligible to serve as President or Vice President.
My choice is Sarah. Rubio seems to be a RINO.
You do not have a single legal authority that agrees with you.
Radical birthers are a very, very small minority, and they can not point to a single living legal expert who agrees with the false notion that those born on United States Soil must have two US Citizen Parents to qualify as NBC.
You are simply WRONG!
The problem is that radical birthers lack training in logic, English, reading comprehension and have no understanding of law.
You are wrong.
You have absolutely no understanding of the law or of history.
Natural Born Citizen means Citizen at the moment of birth and nothing else.
Those who disagree with that position have no legal authority at all on their side.
They are wrong, and they are making stuff up.
The have no training in the law and they have no experts on their side.
I get so tired of people making things WAY more complicated than they really are, in order to justify their efforts in “analyzing” and “investigating” issues to death.
Using the Occam’s Razor approach to looking at this issue makes it VERY CLEAR and VERY SIMPLE:
(a) the wording in Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations is simply: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
(1) This phasing equates “NATIVES” and “NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS”.
(2) It DOES NOT equate “NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN” (a term coined at a later time) with “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN”.
(3) It uses the plural for “parents” AND does NOT say “... of fathers ...” (or mothers for that matter) but RATHER “... of parents ...”.
(4) It SPECIFICALLY, as was the societal custom of the times, confers the father’s GENERIC citizenship onto his children.
(b) Rampant sexual irresponsibility was the exception rather than the rule in those times, and the assumption, fairly made, was that most children (particularly “respectable” ones) would be born of TWO parents, ONE MALE and ONE FEMALE.
As to the impact of these points:
(1) The phrase of qualification in the US Constitution is “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ...”
(2) The implication, using Occam’s Razor, is that if one was a citizen of the US at the time of the adoption, they qualified. NOBODY after that unique group was to be viewed as qualified unless they met the NBC parameter.
(3) In ANY CASE, the father’s GENERIC citizenship (NOT any NBC status) passed to the child, which trumped any possibility of NBC status if the father was an alien at the time of birth (as in OB’s case).
(4) If a child had two parents, the child was an NBC, IF and ONLY IF, BOTH parents were US Citizens at the time of birth. Since no single parent births were possible at the time (ie no artificial insemination was available), then the status of BOTH parents was ALWAYS the determining factor. Sorry, but in spite of any compassion for “it’s not the kid’s fault” position, back in those times, a child born out of wedlock with an unidentifiable father was hardly likely to be seriously considered for POTUS.
Anyone whose mother AND father were not US Citizens (either NBC or Naturalized) at the time of one’s birth IS NOT an NBC. PERIOD.
(Albeit, I can’t get my brain around the impact of test tube people with TRULY unidentified fathers ..... DNA testing, piercing sperm bank privacy, dead guys, multiple parteners, rape, yada, yada, yada ... it’s truly a mess, but we should at least adhere to what IS well and simply defined)
Besides ALL of this, WHY is it so difficult to find competent candidates whose lineage cannot be called into question?????????????
Could there be an ulterior motive to breaking down yet one more protection in the US Constitution that was included by overt, conscious action on the part of the FFs?????????????
Blackstone was and is far more important.
Blackstone does not agree with Vattel.
YOU have decided what you want and who you do and do not want, and you and other radical birthers are attempting to corrupt our legal system to support your views.
There is nothing “conservative” about radical birtherism.
There are two types of citizenship:
Natural Born
Naturalized
It is YOU and the very small number of radical birthers who wish to complicate this matter.
No NATURALIZED Citizen may become President.
This is all that was ever intended.
To believe there was ever a possibility of that happening would be naive.
Thank you !
NBC is silly, self-defeating nonsense.
I don’t even see charisma.
All I see is a metrosexual that everyone seems to say is the next president.
Ain’t riding the hype train anymore, no more oh he or she is the only electable one. Either I see conservatives taking conservtive action, or I do not a damn thing.
I am perfectly fine with seeing the GOP disappear altogether.
Take comfort in irrationality.
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.