Posted on 10/05/2018 6:08:55 PM PDT by EdnaMode
Morning Joe co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski envision possibly four more years of Trump in 2020 just not Donald Trump.
Ivanka Trump Is going to run for president, Brzezinski declared during an on-stage conversation with editor David Remnick on opening night of the New Yorker Festival.
Remnick did a double-take, asking them to explain the theory. Hes got this obsession with positioning her, Brzezinski said. You can pull up her Instagram and shes got these carefully composed sizzle reels, ,,, Shes going to all of the companies Scarborough interjected, Giving speeches in front of the presidential seal. He added, When her advisors announced that she was giving up her businesses and they were asked if that meant she could run for office and they wouldnt answer. They all just laughed.
Later in the nearly two-hour conversation, Scarborough offered another potential rationale for Donald Trump not running for re-election. He has early signs of dementia, he said. His father had it and now he has it.
As could be expected, the conversation at the SVA Theatre on 23rd Street covered a wide range of topics, from Brett Kavanaughs Supreme Court nomination to the mid-term elections to the origins of their MSNBC show.
The first 15 minutes were devoted to the roiling debate over Kavanaughs high-court process, which is expected to conclude this weekend.
I think this will make Brett Kavanaugh a more hardened conservative, Scarborough said, citing the example of Clarence Thomas. He said Kavanaughs emotional Senate testimony defied the usual expectation of someone sitting on any bench, let alone that of the highest court of the land. If youre a cable news host, you can act like a jackass, and I have. But if youre a federal judge you have to have a different standard.
As much of a country-dividing earthquake as it may be, the Kavanaugh episode may end up galvanizing Democratic voters in a months time at the mid-term elections. Thirty-two days from now, in the Trump age, this will be a distant memory, Scarborough said.
Brzezinski ruefully noted the handling of the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh. I think we may have gotten in the way of this a bit, she said, meaning the media. Before all of the facts were out about the allegations, Everybody was taking that leap. Democrats did it and the media did it. And thats damaging.
The early days of the show, which Scarborough created as a quick solution to the networks overnight problem: how to replace the three-hour morning block occupied by Don Imus. After making racist comments in 2006, Imus was fired and the concept for Morning Joe soon got a tryout.
The freeform, roundtable feel of the show threw some guests who were booked to talk about one topic and then had to call an audible. Remnick recalled suddenly being asked for his take about tabloid reports that golfer Tiger Woods had, in his words, was playing more than golf.
Hearing Remnick describe feeling daunted by the prospects of having to do improv, Scarborough said, I didnt realize that was intimidating to people because for us, we just talk. When one guest started complaining about not knowing what topic she would be asked on air to address, he recalled, Mika walked over and dropped a stack of newspapers on the table during a break and said, Were talking about this.'
Nothing new from socialist libtards.
All republicans are crazy/brain damaged/stupid. Really getting old.
MSLSD
Somebody fax me a few of the joints those people are smoking. Maybe I dismissed cannabis too soon.
I think eventually either Ivanka or Don Jr. will run for president, but it won’t be in 2020. 2020 would be for their dad to finish his second term. I don’t think either will be ready until they have served in some political capacity.
I know DJT never held office before this, but he is one of a kind. I don’t expect to ever have such a Man Of His Time like DJT within my lifetime.
Royalty, smelly cheese, high speed trains, hairy female armpits, leftist dictators, ABBA - they're into it all.
If the birthers on this forum are honest, they will have to oppose both Ivanka and Don Jr.
“He said Kavanaughs emotional Senate testimony defied the usual expectation of someone sitting on any bench”
Yes, and when he’s sitting on the bench we expect him to be dispassionate
When he’s defending his name, reputation against virulent slander, emotion is warranted.
+100!
To me being a birther, is someone who believe Barrack Obama was not born in one of our 50 states. Many birthers consider his citizenship status still ‘undetermined’.
What does that have to do with another Trump family member serving as our president?
Maybe you meant to use the term ‘Dynasty’.
Could that be it?
I’ll take Don jr. in 2024. We need at least 16 years of Trumps to even get close to saving America.
Has this idiot mediot ever been correct with any news involving the Trump family?
He is referring to the “natural born citizen” meme.
.
It could happen. And it would be a nightmare scenario for their side.
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.
Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one 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
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
The Biggest Cover-up in American History
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
The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.
You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.
You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.
Maybe Ivanka should run against Gillbrant first....
Testing the waters and get a little experience
C’mon man if you’ve got something to say please say it in plain English.
Yes on Don junior. No on Ivanka. No personality. Phony baloney.
Absurd.
Tiffany is the only adult child of President Trump that is a natural born citizen.
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.