Posted on 05/14/2015 8:44:18 AM PDT by Josh Painter
-PJ
That’s certainly an interesting theory.
There’s a more practical political consideration regarding impeachment: there are 54 Republicans in the Senate, including the RINOs. It takes 67 votes to convict and remove him from office.
Ten Republicans voted Clinton not guilty of perjury and five Republicans voted him not guilty of obstruction of justice. The final votes were 55-45 not guilty of perjury and 50-50 not guilty of obstruction.
Obama is likely be found not guilty without at least 13 Democrat guilty votes and that’s unlikely. The Republicans then would have handed Obama a major political victory if impeachment failed to convict.
Clinton’s job approval ratings skyrocketed after the failed impeachment trial and the Republicans looked like losers. We wouldn’t have Clinton’s wife running for president today if he had been found guilty.
In my humble opinion, the best way to get rid of Obama is via a grand jury investigation and criminal indictments being handed down by a prosecutor that would be so embarrassing that the DNC would ask for him to resign for the sake of the party.
Politicians standing on principal, what a novel idea.
Since the House of Representatives, which has the oower to draft a bill of Impeachment has never held a hearing on Obama’s eligibility, I’m thinking that some new evidence would need to be released in order to get the ball rolling.
Currently the congressional Republicans seem to be busy giving Obama more power to fast track negotiations on Asian trade agreements.
That’s certainly an interestng theory.
I'm sure your link is an accuarate representation of naturalization law.
It is not clear from your link what country's green card Cruz Sr is even talking about. Your theory is that it was a US green card. The idea that a Canadian resident can get a US green card is certainly an interesting theory.
You’re not worth debating, because you can’t deal with FACTS !
The green card was for “a Cuban to the United States” !
That’s certainly an interesting theory.
That’s certainly an interesting theory.
Your comment is definitely a CONFESSION that YOU HAVE NO FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR BOGUS THEORY!
I read the thread. I posted my opinion. You pinged to me what I have already read and you feel the need to direct me back to what I have read again?
I guess I’m getting forgetful in my old age.
This thread is long since dormant, but I remembered it, did about five seconds of research, and noticed that you did not bother to include a following sentence in one of your quotes. You posted:
“The Naturalization Act of 1790 probably constitutes the most significant evidence available. Congress enacted this legislation just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, and many of those who voted on it had participated in the Constitutional Convention. The act provided that “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
For some reason you stopped there. There is a COLON, not a period after “citizens” and so it should have read “...shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose father have never been resident in the United States.”
Did you deliberately leave out the last clause? It rules out Obama and Cruz.
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.