Posted on 07/14/2010 8:12:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
With two years until the next presidential election, several of the Republican candidates from the 2008 election cycle are trying to posture themselves for another run at the GOP nomination. To be blunt, none of the major players from the last election should be anywhere near the 2012 nomination. They have too many skeletons and too little backbone.
Huckabee is a committed social conservative. From what I have seen, he is devoutly religious, and often shares his views about faith. Huckabee seems like a nice guy, a good neighbor. But America is not craving a social conservative. We don’t need a “feel-good,” “compassionate,” president, we need someone willing to take radical liberals like Pelosi head-on. We need a fiscal conservative willing to slash the runaway entitlement spending built up by Congressional Democrats. Huckabee may be the most moral presidential candidate in recent history, but I struggle to imagine him rolling back liberal regression.
Before there was ObamaCare, there was RomneyCare, the Massachusetts health care plan. I don’t often advocate single-issue politics, but this is a major issue. How can we trust a man who brought an equally destructive—albeit constitutional—health care takeover to his own state to repeal the Democrat takeover of our health care at the national level? The simple answer: we can’t.
Politically, Giuliani is probably the most dependable, but he is a New England Republican. He is a “moderate” who supported “comprehensive immigration reform” to provide a “path to citizenship” on the 2008 campaign trail. Amnesty never has worked; amnesty never will work; it fails every time it is tried. If the immigration snafu isn’t enough to take down Giuliani among Conservatives, Democrats are sure to break out the scandal file and bring up the same ethics charges that stymied his campaign the last time around. All-in-all, unless he’s facing a weak Democrat with a continued GOP upswing, Giuliani is a losing candidate.
And finally, if McCain chooses to run in 2012, he is a fool. If the Republican party selects him as the nominee, then it deserves to go down in flames.
Yes, he was born in the U.S., but neither of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth. They naturalized later. That makes him a citizen, but not a natural born citizen.
Jeeze.
The term natural born has never been defined by the Supreme court and the fact that he is a citizen means he can be POTUS.
Jeeze.
Not true. He’s a citizen.
Haley Barbour
So what?
The threshold for presidential eligibility is higher than simply being a mere citizen. Naturalized citizens aren't eligible either...they're citizens aren't they?
So according to you, just being a citizen is enough? That would mean any citizen, even a naturalized citizen can be potus?
The threshold is native, which is essentially natural.
No judicial distinction has ever been made between the two. The argument you are making was tried once before in a presidential election and it did not work then either. Niether the courts nor the people of would ever care about some imagined difference between natural and native.
No, not a naturalized in the sense of a foreign born is not enough, but a native is.
See my response in post #49.
4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen" http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Well, not really. That link and those cases make some good arguments but the definition itself is never made in a crystal clear manner.
In fact, there is this statement from the cases;
"These were natives or natural-born citizens"
...which further muddies the waters between the two terms. I'll admit a case could be made that one's parents would have to be citizens but just as good a case could be made to say native = natural. I doubt that any court or the American people would accept such a distinction. The legal and philosophical trend in America is just the opposite in fact.
In the end, Jindal is a citizen an if he runs no one of any reputation will challenge him. To do so would be to be called a birther (or in this case, what, a naturalizer? I dunno) except they'd be on shakier ground legally and popularly.
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2485624/posts
Well I guess we’ll have to wait and see. My money is on the fact that natural born and naive born is a distinction without a difference and that most people and courts will see it that way as well (assuming anyone has the guts/lack of brains to bring a suit against Bobby if he runs). The press, including the conservative-friendly press and blogosphere, would have a field day with it. No one, including the courts, would want to stand in the way of a natural born citizen because of semantics.
“Sarah Palin will go down in history as both America’s first woman president, and the best, most effective president in the modern era.
She’s a gift to America from God.
;-/”
You are right 100%.
But since you brought up "semantics", and only since you did, I'm going to rant, however not necessarily at you.....this country was not founded on semantics, and I am fed up with the dumbing down of everything about my country, everything that has made us what we are, and everything this country was founded on. Someone better come up with the guts to finally take a stand and put this country back on an even keel, and soon. I've lived in one hell-hole (Saudi Arabia) and traveled all around this world. There has never been another country or government I've wanted to live in and I by-d*mn want my country back.
We have already settled for, at the least, second best in the last election due to the dumbing down, stupidity and ignorance of too many citizens and this country is being torn apart. But if that is what we are going to have as the new level to live down to, and since the Constitution is already being shredded and we are not longer a nation of laws but a nation of selected laws to enforce, maybe it really doesn't matter any more. H*ll, lets just settle for anyone that even has a green card, or maybe not even bother with that distinction either. Shoot, we already have a dictator in the works, lets just be happy with that.
deep breath Ok, Rant over, for now
Riiight.
And up is down, black is white, hot is cold, and the sun rises in the west.
If his parents weren't naturalized before he was born, he shouldn't run.
He'd be good in a cabinet position however.
I know he was born in the US but I believe his parents came to the US from India. My question is if they became US citizens before he was born will he then be classified as a NATURAL born citizen? If not then he is not eligible to run despite 0bama’s fraudulent election.
I know he was born in the US but I believe his parents came to the US from India. My question is if they became US citizens before he was born will he then be classified as a NATURAL born citizen? If not then he is not eligible to run despite 0bama’s fraudulent election.
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.