Posted on 01/23/2016 8:34:22 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Presented without comment for your consideration.
Simply click each policy or issue to read the back-story...
(Excerpt) Read more at trevorloudon.com ...
“As someone who (stupidly) voted for Ventura, this is the exact same scenario, same type of candidate.”
Thanks for your honesty. I know a great many Minnesotans - fine people, all of them. Strangely enough, none of them remember voting for Ventura. Ha!
In all seriousness, buying into the folly of a celebrity candidate is nothing to be ashamed of...one time, anyway. They’re master manipulators who know what buttons to push because they’re performers, and angry, frustrated voters make easy prey for them. Kudos to you for recognizing it and trying to warn others from the same mistake Minnesota and California made.
Concerning the contention made in earlier cases that everyone who is made a citizen only by
federal statute is a “naturalized” citizen (even those who are made citizens at birth by statute), it
may be noted that the common understanding and usage of the terms “naturalized” and
“naturalization,” as well as the precise legal meaning under current federal law, now indicate that
someone who is a citizen “at birth” is not considered to have been “naturalized.”164 Justice
Breyer, for example, dissenting on other grounds in Miller v. Albright, explained that “this kind of
citizenship,” that is, under “statutes that confer citizenship ‘at birth,’” was not intended to
“involve[ ] ‘naturalization,’” citing current federal law at 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(23).165 The
Supreme Court recently recognized in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, that federal law now specifically
defines “naturalization” as the “conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth,”166
and thus it could be argued that by current definition and understanding in federal law and
jurisprudence, one who is entitled to U.S. citizenship automatically “at birth” or “by birth” could
not be considered to be “naturalized.”
............................................
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized in a recent
case that one may be a “natural born” citizen of the United Sates in two ways: either by being
born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the
residency requirement. In United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado, a case dealing with the
propriety of an appeal based on requested jury instructions not given, the court stated:
No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was “an accurate statement of
the law,” in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968
is a natural born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2)
born outside the United States to a biologically-related United States citizen parent who met
certain residency requirements.167
.............................
Article II states that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President.” Article II left
to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers
v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828, 91 S.Ct. 1060, 28 L.Ed.2d 499 (1971). Many decades later, the
Fourteenth Amendment set a floor on citizenship, overruled the Dred Scott decision, and
provided that all born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, were citizens by reason of birth (or naturalization proceedings, for that matter). Id. at
829-30, 91 S.Ct. 1060.
At the time of Senator’s McCain’s birth, the pertinent citizenship provision prescribed that
“[a]ny child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose
father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States,
is declared to be a citizen of the United States.” Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48
Stat. 797. The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “out of the limits and jurisdiction of
the United States” in this statute to be the converse of the phrase “in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore to
encompass all those not granted citizenship directly by the Fourteenth Amendment. [United
States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687 (1898) ....]
Under this view, Senator McCain was
a citizen at birth. In 1937, to remove any doubt as to persons in Senator McCain’s
circumstances in the Canal Zone, Congress enacted 8 U.S.C. 1403(a), which declared that
persons in Senator McCain’s circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby
retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already.
This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that
Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of
success on the merits necessary to warrant the drastic remedy he seeks. 170
The federal court in Robinson v. Bowen thus implicitly adopted a meaning of the term “natural
born” citizen in the presidential eligibility clause which would include not only the narrow
“common law” meaning (jus soli, being born geographically in the United States without
reference to parental citizenship, as codified in the Fourteenth Amendment), but also the statutory
designation by Congress of one entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth” even if born
abroad when such citizenship is transmitted from one’s parent or parents (jus sanguinis).
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Congressional Research Service Report
Doesn’t matter...all he did was repost a piece by American Doug Ross:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2016/01/your-handy-dandy-trump-vs-cruz.html
Ping
It is sad. It seems to be more than just being gullible.
The Trump Tapes: Vol 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE&feature=youtu.be
Wow! What a revelation! That means Trump did what the incumbent administration expected in order to allow his business to prosper. Too bad he did not stand on principle and allow his businesses to fail. Boo Hoo......
It's not personal, it's just business.
We have heard those same arguments for nearly 2 decades and that is what gave us Boehner/Ryan, McConnell and the many other REPUBLICAN sell-outs.
Many of them even ran as conservatives/Tea Party.
So, it comes down to a matter of — do you trust another Republican politician?
According to the polls, the answer seems to be 2-to-1 or greater — a resounding NO!
Ironically, many of the Dems (blue collar, etc.) have the same problem on their side — another candidate to the LEFT of Obama in Sanders or Hillary? Many seem to be giving Trump consideration.
It's not fear, it's anger and frustration that no matter what the voters ask for the always get the same BS.
I agree that they now want a strong man to go to DC and break up the cabal.
Attila the Hun was not available so they choose Trump.
Good chart of comparison. However, it will make no difference to Trump supporters out there in the country. Trump will have to make some outrageous statement that is worse than his usual outrageous statements before those supporting him realize he has no core values. He goes with the wind, however it is blowing minute to minute - say whatever works that minute which may be different the next minute.
...Lord Business.
If you plan it right, you can take the same plane out of the country with Whoopie.
Nailed it!
“Trump are natural supporters. You can tell by their arrogance and rudeness”
Typical Cruz supporter projection.
After your 4 day Palin tirade, the fact that you clowns like to still run around with halos on your head is just pathetic.
Non sequitur.....
I never rely on polls to tell me what is a conservative position. Sorry to hear that you do.
“However, it will make no difference to Trump supporters out there in the country.”
American conservatives in 2016 are living deep behind enemy lines. We are a hated minority. And now it appears half our ranks have just decamped to follow a false prophet.
Agreed. It is very sad to see how so many FReepers have lost their minds, have abandoned conservatism and embraced the cult of personality.
Before you elevate Cruz to Deity status read Lauren Stephen’s open letter to Mark Levin. Some uncomfortable info about Teddy that you may not want to know.
I see the faults in everyone running and decide which ones matter enough. I see both Cruz and Trump for what they are. As an example, I'm not even immune to the stubbornness... I have an urge to ignore negative stuff about Cruz... but I eventually read it anyway. So far, I don't see anything that would sway me... but there are things that could. I follow grandpa's logic. the only valid variables for weighing a person is what they have done... never what they have said. I apply that to Cruz and everyone else equally. For that reason alone, I have trouble understanding the Trump movement's strength.
My top 2 are immigration, 2nd Amendment... and not in that order. Trump gets a zero on both in my opinion. Some will want to blast me or argue with me about it, but again... what he says now means absolutely nothing to me, only what he has done in the past before it was critical to his campaign. Unfortunately, I don't have a voting record for Trump, all I have are his own words from the years past and the people whom he has supported... and it's not very flattering to say the least. For me, at least as things stand right now, it's Cruz or bust.
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.