Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rising star Nikki Haley says she is open to becoming GOP running mate
Yahoo News ^ | 13 Jan 2016 | Michael Walsh

Posted on 01/13/2016 9:52:10 AM PST by mandaladon

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley says she would consider being the vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party this year.

The rising political star revealed that she is open to the possibility in an appearance on NBC News’ “Today” show Wednesday, a day after delivering the GOP response to President Obama’s final State of the Union address.

“If a candidate wanted to sit down and talk, I would sit down and talk,” she told host Matt Lauer. “I think that’s a big decision. It’s a family decision. It’s a state decision. It’s something I’d have to think about. But I absolutely would sit down and talk with anyone that wanted to talk about it.”

Despite speculation that Haley is being prepped to join the Republican ticket, she said that she has not given the prospect much thought even if people in the media do not believe it.

It’s worth noting that her speech the night before did not merely target the Obama administration. She warned against the siren call of the country’s angriest voices and said Republicans share the blame for our current state of affairs and should look in the mirror.

"I was given an opportunity to say what I think, and I appreciate that from Speaker [Paul D.] Ryan and Senator [Mitch] McConnell,” she said.

It’s likely that the Republican establishment tapped Haley to deliver the SOTU response not simply to criticize Democrats — but to distance the GOP from its current frontrunner, Donald Trump, whose dominance in the polls continues unabated.

(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: 2016veep; elections; haley; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last
To: mandaladon
Criticize conservatives = "rising star"

Have fun with that GOPe. Watch the entire base stay home this time.

81 posted on 01/13/2016 10:33:46 AM PST by Dr.Deth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

The chick is out of her tree if she thinks she can even get a cabinet seat.


82 posted on 01/13/2016 10:34:39 AM PST by waterhill (I Shall Remain, in spite of __________.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

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”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

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”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

83 posted on 01/13/2016 10:35:11 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

Is that why she was chosen as the RINO Spokesapologist? Go away Haley and take your beloved Lindsey Graham with you.


84 posted on 01/13/2016 10:37:30 AM PST by cva66snipe ((Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VideoDoctor

Quote:

“BUSH - HALEY .. a political ticket to NOWHERE!”

Perhaps you noticed that Jeb has “surged” to Number 3 in the latest Reuters poll? Before it’s all said and done, we may discover the entire election process is a Kabuki show and our votes are meaningless.

A Banana Republic where the United States used to be may become a reality.


85 posted on 01/13/2016 10:38:44 AM PST by TTFlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dante3
"Instead of limiting her rebuttal to Obama's speech, she attacks the GOP front runner. How absurd is that?

Very absurd.
Essentially the Nikki Haley response was the GOPe telling Donald Trump and the nation that they don't support him. Trump was trashed by the GOPe on national television by the GOPe sock puppet Nikki Haley who just happens to hate the heritage of southern Americans. An overt Uniparty bid to derail Trump.

86 posted on 01/13/2016 10:42:46 AM PST by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

After last nights speech, I dont see that happening.


87 posted on 01/13/2016 10:44:13 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doldrumsforgop

[[What does she have to offer other than unbridled amnesty?]]

Support for gay marriage, hatred of conservatives, probably pro abortion too, obamacare supporter likely, Perpetual cowering In the face of adversity, and likely a climate change advocate as well- Who knows, perhaps she hates Jews too- She seems to really love muslims

You know, all the ‘ideals’ of a good establishment GOP-e Rino


88 posted on 01/13/2016 10:48:57 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: McGruff

perhaps she’ll hook up with huma abedien when hellary doesn’t need her anymore


89 posted on 01/13/2016 10:50:54 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: StormEye

One of the posters mentioned that Paul Ryan chose her. If true, that tells me also a lot about Ryan.


90 posted on 01/13/2016 10:51:12 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

No thanks!!!


91 posted on 01/13/2016 10:51:43 AM PST by tallyhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

what Does all that mean? Is Ted NBC according to the ‘early constitution’ or not?


92 posted on 01/13/2016 10:53:57 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: luvbach1

Yes, in Bamberg, SC.

However, both of her parents were not citizens at the time of her birth, which would fail the “of parents who are citizens” test.

The same test would also cause the failure of Obama, Jindal, Rubio and Cruz, assuming you agree with the Founders’ strict intent and that definition, of course.


93 posted on 01/13/2016 10:57:09 AM PST by NOVACPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

No thanks.


94 posted on 01/13/2016 10:58:15 AM PST by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to to God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mastador1
Well I guess there is always an outside chance Hillary could ask her.

With Huma possible going to jail (someone needs to take the fall) Hillary may be looking for another squeeze. VP and Hillary's squeeze, a twofer!

95 posted on 01/13/2016 11:01:08 AM PST by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley says she would consider being the vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party this year.

She must be insane after kissing 0bama's backside and attacking the people who are the voice of the voters who will elect a republican president (if a r is elected) she thinks that any of them will want her. Totally delusional. I was embarrassed for her. Her groveling to the democrats was disgusting and repulsive.

Although I just had an inspiration as to how her performance makes sense. She wants to become Hillary's or Bernie's running mate. She just got confused as to the difference between the current Republican party and the democrats (something that is very easy to do) Now it all makes sense.

96 posted on 01/13/2016 11:06:26 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

Haley is on perpetual BITCH Status after her attack on southern heritage.


97 posted on 01/13/2016 11:08:42 AM PST by catfish1957 (I display the Confederate Battle Flag with pride in honor of my brave ancestors who fought w/ valor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

Campaigning for it, it seems.


98 posted on 01/13/2016 11:08:54 AM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

This woman pisses all over the top candidates and then suggests she is a team player. Clueless.


99 posted on 01/13/2016 11:09:47 AM PST by GilGil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NOVACPA
However, both of her [Nikki Haley's]parents were not citizens at the time of her birth, which would fail the "of parents who are citizens" test.

So she was an anchor baby.

100 posted on 01/13/2016 11:20:41 AM PST by luvbach1 (We are finished. It will just take a while before everyone realizes it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson