Poll: Vivek Ramaswamy now in Double Digits, Passes Mike Pence in the 2024 Republican presidential primary

NewsMax ^ | 07/04/2023 | Luca Cacciatore

[SeekAndFind]

Conservative entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy has surpassed former Vice President Mike Pence in the 2024 Republican presidential primary, according to an Echelon Insights poll.

He is also catching up to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

On top of the survey, taken from June 26 to June 29, is former President Donald Trump with a commanding lead at 49%. DeSantis, meanwhile, is 33 percentage points behind with 16% of the vote.

DeSantis is just 6 points ahead of Ramaswamy, who are at 16% and 10% respectively. Next up was Pence and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley — both tied at 5%.

In a head-to-head match-up between Trump and DeSantis, the former president has a solid 28-point lead over DeSantis, 60% to 32%.

The news comes just one month after Ramaswamy tested every member of the Republican primary by asking each to sign a pledge to pardon Trump for all federal charges against him pursued by the Department of Justice.

"This letter ... is my commitment on Jan. 20, 2025 — if I'm elected the next U.S. president — to pardon Donald J. Trump for these offenses in this federal case," Ramaswamy said outside the Miami courthouse where Trump was being arraigned.

"I have challenged — I have demanded — that every other candidate in this race either sign this commitment to pardon on Jan. 20, 2025, or else to explain why they are not," he added.

Ramaswamy has also caught the eye of Trump, receiving his praises in a campaign email sent out earlier this year, Outlook India reported at the time.

"The thing I like about Vivek is that he only has good things to say about President Trump, and all that the Trump administration has so successfully done. This is the reason he is doing so well," Trump explained.

[9YearLurker]

His illegal immigration position is horrific.

I suspect he’s an intel asset like Clinton and Obama were, in the race for a name recognition or veep opportunity to start. He’s playing that sunny “hope and change” kind tune, but for the patriotic, GOP set.

Polls at this point are often tied to name recognition and for him to be rising as a newcomer may suggest that he’s clicking into that great young hope sweet spot that Clinton and Obama found.

[9YearLurker]

Washington was a 4th-generation Virginian.

[House Atreides]

I did a search and it must have been a faulty memory or a misunderstanding on my part. His campaign is still active.

[bIlluminati]

And the phrase Natural born Citizen as used in the constitution for qualification for president in article II cannot in any way refer to a citizen of the United States because the United States did not exist when article II was ratified.

---

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The phrase “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” includes anyone who was a long-time resident resident within the United States, and who did not profess allegiance to a State outside of the United States. Then, for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, natural born citizen was the test.

[justme4now]

Isn’t Nikki Haley too?

[nopardons]

BTTT

[woodpusher]

Problem is no one has standing to challenge it.>> Natural born citizen? Who was a natural born citizen in 1787?

The Constitution did not and does not require one to be a natural born citizen in order to execute the office of the President. Article II provides, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

In 1787, all the people eligible to the office of President were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. It would take a few decades before the first natural born citizens were eligible to the office of President. They would have been able to be elected at 34 but needed to be 35 when inaugurated.

A natural born citizen is one who is born a United States citizen at the moment of birth. Regarding persons born within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, the 14th Amendment makes all persons so born citizens of the United States. The citizenship status of children born outside the territory of the United States is determined by Federal law in effect at the time of birth. To be eligible to the office of President one must also be at least 35 years old and have been 14 years a resident within the United States. Those are the only qualifications stated in the Constitution and no qualifications may be changed, added, or deleted other than by constitutional amendment.

A child born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction (subject to its laws), is born a citizen. The constitution so states without reference to the parents. It does not matter if the parents are two illegal aliens awaiting deportation. All that matters is the child. Was the child born within the territory of the United States? Was the child born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? If so, the child was born a citizen. If the child was born outside the United States, then it becomes a matter of federal law. No foreign law is relevant.

Chester Arthur, Barack Obama, and Kamala Harris were born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. One or both of their parents were aliens, but that was and is irrelevant to the status of the child pursuant to U.S. law.

Vivek Ramaswamy is no different. He was born within the territory of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Nikki Haley ditto.

[Fiji Hill]

Good to see that Ramaswamy has passed Mike Dense.

[Fiji Hill]

Besides, he’s not eligible to be president.

That ship sailed a long time ago.

[jz638]

This is manufactured.

Ramaswany is running interference for Trump.

He never has a bad thing to say about Trump and aligns with his issues. Who is actually thinking "i like Trump on the issues, but I'd prefer his pilicies be mouthed by an ethnic minority who is lesser known and far less likely to be elected?"

[woodpusher]

No one has standing to question anything the deep state wants or allows

CITIZEN STANDING

From: Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition, Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, West Publishing, 2003, pp. 84-5.

c) Citizen Standing

At least in the absence of congressional legislation authorizing the suit, a citizen lacks a sufficient personal interest to challenge government acts as unconstitutional. Her interest is viewed as an "abstract injury" and a "generalized grievance" held in common with citizens generally. While individual justices have argued that the bar to citizen standing is a prudential rule of judicial self-restraint, the Court has generally treated it as an Art. III impediment.

Examples:

(1) A citizen lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute authorizing the director of the CIA to certify expenditures as a violation of the constitutional requirement of a regular accounting of the use of public funds. United States v. Richardson (1974).

(2) A citizen has only a generalized interest, insufficient to maintain standing, in challenging the holding of reservist status by a congressman in violation of the Incompatibility Clause which prohibits members of Congress from holding other office. Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War (1974).

(3) A citizen and taxpayer lacks standing to challenge an HEW grant of surplus land under a federal statute to a religious institution as a violation of the Establishment Clause. Since the challenge was to an HEW action rather than a federal statute and since the government grant was based on the property power rather than the Taxing and Spending Clause, the challengers did not have standing under Flast as taxpayers. Nor does a citizen qua citizen have standing to challenge government action merely to correct constitutional wrongs. An Establishment Clause claim does not eliminate the Art. III requirement of personal injury. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United For Separation of Church and State (1982).

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep418166/

U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974)

United States v. Richardson

No. 72-885

Argued October 10, 1973

Decided June 25, 1974

418 U.S. 166

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Respondent, as a federal taxpayer, brought this suit for the purpose of obtaining a declaration of unconstitutionality of the Central Intelligence Agency Act, which permits the CIA to account for its expenditures "solely on the certificate of the Director. . . ." 50 U.S.C. § 403j(b). The complaint alleged that the Act violated Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, of the Constitution insofar as that clause requires a regular statement and account of public funds. The District Court's dismissal of the complaint for, inter alia, respondent's lack of standing under Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, was reversed by the Court of Appeals. That court held that respondent had standing as a taxpayer on the ground that he satisfied Flast's requirements that the allegations (1) challenge an enactment under the Taxing and Spending Clause of Art I, § 8, and show (2) a "nexus" between the plaintiff's status and a specific constitutional limitation on the taxing and spending power.

Held: Respondent lacks standing to maintain this suit. Pp. 171-180.

(a) Flast, which stressed the need for meeting the requirements of Art. III, did not

"undermine the salutary principle . . . established by Frothingham [v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447] . . . that a taxpayer may not 'employ a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized grievances about the conduct of government or the allocation of power in the Federal System.'" Pp. 171-174.

(b) Respondent's challenge, not being addressed to the taxing or spending power, but to the statutes regulating the CIA's accounting and reporting procedures, provides no "logical nexus" between his status as "taxpayer" and the asserted failure of Congress to require more detailed reports of expenditures of the CIA. Pp. 174-175.

(c) Respondent's claim that, without detailed information on the CIA's expenditures, he cannot properly follow legislative or executive action, and thereby fulfill his obligations as a voter, is a generalized grievance insufficient under Frothingham or Flast to show that "he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining direct injury as the result" of such action. Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634. Pp. 418 U. S. 176-178.

465 F.2d 844, reversed.

BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 418 U. S. 180. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 418 U. S. 197. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 418 U. S. 235. STEWART, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 418 U. S. 202.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

[...]

418 U. S. 179

It can be argued that, if respondent is not permitted to litigate this issue, no one can do so. In a very real sense, the absence of any particular individual or class to litigate these claims gives support to the argument that the subject matter is committed to the surveillance of Congress, and ultimately to the political process. Any other conclusion would mean that the Founding Fathers intended to set up something in the nature of an Athenian democracy or a New England town meeting to oversee the conduct of the National Government by means of lawsuits in federal courts. The Constitution created a representative Government, with the representatives directly responsible to their constituents at stated periods of two, four, and six years; that the Constitution does not afford a judicial remedy does not, of course, completely disable the citizen who is not satisfied with the "ground rules" established by the Congress for reporting expenditures of the Executive Branch. Lack of standing within the narrow confines of Art. III jurisdiction does not impair the right to assert his views in the political forum or at the polls. Slow, cumbersome, and unresponsive though the traditional electoral process may be thought at times, our system provides for changing members of the political branches when dissatisfied citizens convince a sufficient number of their fellow electors that elected representatives are delinquent in performing duties committed to them.

As our society has become more complex, our numbers more vast, our lives more varied, and our resources more strained, citizens increasingly request the intervention of the courts on a greater variety of issues than at any period of our national development. The acceptance of new categories of judicially cognizable injury has not eliminated the basic principle that, to invoke judicial power, the claimant must have a "personal stake in the outcome,"

[...]

[Angelino97]

Could be he’s running to be Trump’s VP pick.

[Fresh Wind]

Problem is no one has standing to challenge it.

If he should get close to getting the nomination, or if he is tagged as a VP choice, as if by magic, the left will suddenly find that they have standing and will go after his NBC status like rabid dogs.

[enumerated]

Good for him.. I hope he wins (VP).

[Bikkuri]

I am sure he is going to get the H1B vote.

[Laslo Fripp]

Are H1B’s allowed to vote?

[Alberta's Child]

Read Article II closely:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President …

I believe John Tyler, the 10th President of the United States, was the first one who was born after the Constitution was ratified.

[Eleutheria5]

Next the Dems’ll be claiming he’s not a natural born citizen. Durn furners.

[CatOwner]

Only if the leftists pollute the GOP primaries. So, we’re saying there’s a chance.

[BobL]

Good to see Vivek starting to break away from the pack. Having someone credible with the base as the second option will make the Primary season much more civil.