Posted on 01/22/2016 4:08:30 AM PST by monkapotamus
There's something initially angering that becomes very sad when a fraud is revealed. Tonight on his radio show Mark Levin was forced to admit the son of his fiancee is a full time staffer for Senator Ted Cruz.
After spending weeks attacking anyone who critiques candidate Ted Cruz, the motives of Mark Levin now take full sunlight. He should be ashamed, VERY ashamed.
No, Mr. crony-constitutionalist, lying by omission is not the least bit funny. Nor is deception toward your audience when you do not disclose your own conflicts. Especially when we consider the hours Levin spends railing against the internecine family associations like George Will and his wife working for Scott Walker.
Crony politics is apparently alive and well amid the Mark Levin radio show. Perhaps he will tell the audience how much advertising money he takes from political campaigns? Or more specifically entities with a vested interest in political campaigns?
Think he'll fess up now that he's busted?
Nah, me neither.
He's got another book to sell...
Wow. Just Wow.
The campaign of Donald Trump continues to expose the "Decepticons".
Obama is a different case. If he was born outside the USA, his mom was not old enough to confer citizenship upon him. And there has been no legal Documentation to date that shows he was born here. Circumstantial evidence shows that he was not.
Why would he have used fraudulent social security numbers his whole life? Why is his selective service form a forgery? Why was he only seen a newborn in Seattle where his mom went to high school, and where in 1960 pregnant girls often stayed in unwed mother homes over the border in Vancouver and gave up their babies for adoption?
And why did Levin never ever mention these things with regard to Obama?
It appears that Virginia Minor was, for her time a feminist radical, who tried to register to vote in Missouri which limited the franchise to men in the immediate post-Civil War era. One jurisdictional question before the SCOTUS was whether Minor was a citizen with standing to sue in Missouri's trial and State Supreme Court and before SCOTUS. The SCOTUS in an opinion by its Chief Justice observed that she was a citizen by even the "narrowest" definition of the term since both of her parents were American citizens and she was born in the United States. That does not limit "natural born citizen" much less "citizen" to those born here of two American parents.
Assuming that the question was as to HER citizenship, the Court included her in that category but did not EXCLUDE anyone.
The case also stands for the proposition that women, citizens or not, have no constitutional right to vote, which is the actual holding in the case, rendered obsolete by the 19th Amendment conferring the right to vote on women. Nice try, but invalid cherry-picking of an obsolete case. No cigar!
Hopefully President Cruz will lead to a tomorrow in which Roe vs. Wade is just as obsolete through sensible SCOTUS appointments to replace Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer (all ASAP) and, if needed, recharge the other seats, all with highly qualified young nominees to cause mass outmigration of leftists, native born or not. Irreversible despair will do that for them.
God bless you and yours!
No. The Act of Congress in force at the time Obama was born (similar to the one in force now) required the citizen parent to reside in the US for five years subsequent to their 14th birthday. Comrade Stanley Anne birthed Barry when she was 18, so could not have completed the requirement recited in the Act.
Almost certain some other errors of mine, that create confusion. Hopefully you get the jist anyway.
Ted Cruz claims the repealed and obsolete 1790 Naturalization Act.
Your second paragraph is chock full of speculation. That Social Security # question is an interesting one since he has used the SS# of a man long dead who was issued his card in CT but lived much of his life in NY. I speculate that the deceased was a comrade in good standing in a party other than the Demonrat one and that the party in question provided this info to Obozo to help him hide while at Columbia University and Bill Ayres and Bernardine Doehrn may have been his handlers in this respect when they were not robbing Brinks trucks or plotting to blow up a USO dance at Fort Dix.
Levin makes no pretense of being some sort of objective reporter any more than does Rush, Hannity or Red Eye Radio hosts. Obozo's issues were not Levin's topic du jour. Hannity mentioned many of these things when Obozo ran the first time but the world and most Republicans seemed totally without interest.
I do get the gist but I cannot imagine that Congress has the power (or the guts) to make such distinctions which, in any event beg the question. If Obozo was a NBC (as I believe) then Congress has NO ROLE in the process. If he was NOT an NBC, then Article I, Section 8, "To establish an uniform rule of naturalization" probably confers the naturalization power on Congress and you are right.
However, SCOTUS is NOT looking for the kind of extreme controversy that would be generated if they did nothing about Obozo and interfered with Cruz declaring him ineligible. There would be busy guillotines in and on the streets on all approaches to the SCOTUS building and new aspiring Robespierres, Dantons, and their ilk until they too are separated from their heads.
The question with Cruz puts him even farther beyond NBC, as Cruz is admittedly a dual citizen at birth, born abroad.
That opens Pandora's box -- as if it wasn't opened already, by derelict Congress and chicken-scheist SCOTUS. Congress can't have the power to "make natural," both for reasons of simple logic (an Act of Congress can't change a boy into a girl, a person is born one or the other), and for reasons of preserving the nation. A rogue Congress could pass an Act that says either "all persons born in Iraq are citizens at birth of the US," or even simpler, "all persons born in Iraq shall be considered to be born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" The second form, if allowed, bypasses naturalization altogether, because the 14th amendment attaches citizenship on "born in the US" in combination with "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The first form looks like naturalization.
Congress always has a role - it counts the electoral ballots and has the power and duty to ascertain that the president-elect is qualified. Usually this is not contentious. But when it is, Congress has an amazing ability to clam up.
From my point of view, Congress and SCOTUS are subversive of the constitution.
I think the country is lost anyway, except as a name for a location on the planet. The people are lazy, sheepish, and gullible. I watch things unfold for entertainment.
STILL begs the question of NBC. Neither the unknown “treatise” writer nor the Congress of 1952 change that. If Ted Cruz or Obozo is NBC, Congress has no authority to “naturalize” a NBC. If not an NBC, then Article I, Section 8, grants authority (otherwise within constitutional limits) to Congress over naturalization.
I thoroughly agree with the last three paragraphs. Also, anyone born here or born to an American citizen is a citizen and subject to the laws of the US. If residing abroad, that person would also be subject to his/her country of residence. The exception as to those born here is that children born to foreign diplomatic personnel are immune from US jurisdiction. IIRC, if a foreign diplomat robs a bank here, we can turn him over to his embassy and demand that he be removed from the US by his nation of citizenship. If an ordinary non-diplomatic foreigner robs an American bank, he will not be an American citizen but he will be subjected to our laws.
Dual citizenship is not a simple concept for many Americans. The late actress Elizabeth Taylor was British by birth, American by naturalization and also an Israeli citizen who converted to Judaism and became also Israeli after marrying Eddie Fisher. I believe she held all three citizenships until her death.
Assuming that Congress may determine the electoral count and the qualifications of the president-elect, one other question remains: Does an action seeking a mandamus lie in such cases? That will depend on whether Congress's authority is discretionary or ministerial. If ministerial (mandatory outcome), mandamus lies. If not ministerial, courts can order the exercise of discretion but not dictate the specific choice to be made. That was, at least, the common law of Connecticut when I practiced there and obtained several writs of mandamus and I cannot imagine why the feds would have different standards..
Link or reference?
On the interplay between Congress and SCOTUS in case of a question on eligibility (assuming they don't all just avert their gaze), there is first a question of SCOTUS taking it up. I think they should, so as to have a check on the NBC clause. Others say that Congress's assertion is conclusive and not to be questioned. I think that opens a door to a rogue Congress.
Your remark covers the nature of the remedy. I don't think SCOTUS has the power to mandate Congress do anything, so a writ of mandamus is the wrong vehicle. All SCOTUS could do is declare the president-elect unqualified. Then it's up to the president elect and Congress to either abide by "the finding" or not. Wouldn't be the first constitutional crisis, but it would be volatile, for sure. I think that volatility is why SCOTUS, like Congress, abdicates its duty.
The players have worked under a dysfunctional system for so long, their only hope is to fool the people into thinking this (averting of gaze) is upholding the constitution.
Makes me want to puke, sometimes. Then I realize family is more important than nation. If the public won't fight for the nation, why should I even care?
That is just a reassertion of the claim that Ted Cruz makes such a claim. I asked for a link or, to be clearer, for a searchable reference.
First, will SCOTUS take up the question? In your opinion, can anyone have standing to bring a case of original jurisdiction to be actually tried before SCOTUS under the little used constitutional provision for same?
It does seem that counting the ballots and determining qualifications of the president-elect sound more discretionary particularly as to qualifications than ministerial. Ballot counting may well be ministerial unless Congress is viewed as having some power to reject a state's electoral votes for election irregularities which would seem a rather dangerous precedent.
I also agree that both Congressional and Judicial branches are unlikely to intervene and are likely to abdicate as is usual. We now have Mitchie McTurtle filing a snowmageddon bill to empower Obozo and future presidents to use the military domestically on an easily constructed web of lies and, IIRC, suspend habeas corpus. This is a catastrophic notion to so empower ANY POTUS, no matter who.
Family is most important and I bet you want yours protected from this idiocy as much as I want mine protected. That protection lies, in the first instance, in not so empowering ANY POTUS or anyone else.
So the government answers our question in the study guide for the citizenship test?
Oh, wow! Sundance doesn’t have an ivy league degree, etc., blah blah blah.
That is, Levin agrees with obama that it’s such a shame that the media and the public narrative are no longer controlled by a tiny number of elitist media outlets, that it’s so unfortunate that ANY good thinker who writes well now has an equal chance to go up against the Brian Williams and Mark Levins of the world.
yes, indeed, folks, Trump’s success is now smoking out the heretofore hidden elitism in guys like Mark Levin.
yet ANOTHER laudable result of “The Trump Effect”!
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.