Check out # 113 , also other thoughtful comments in this thread.
See # 84 about Eternal Vigilance, who has been on the ping list from the git-go. ... Nice.
Great recommendation.
Thanks, Flotsam_Jetsome.
Posted on 04/01/2012 12:18:45 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
While pundits, politicians and prognosticators have tapped Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as one of the most likely GOP vice presidential picks, conservative commentator Ann Coulter warned today that such a choice would be a “mistake.”
“I think that would be a mistake because the same people who loved Rubio loved [former presidential candidate and Texas Gov.]Rick Perry,” Coulter told me Sunday during the “This Week” roundtable discussion. “I want someone who’s been a bit more tested.”
As the rising star of the Tea Party and a Hispanic from the delegate-rich state of Florida, Rubio would fix Romney’s two biggest problems: enthusiasm among the Republican base and lackluster support from Hispanics, argued conservative commentator George Will.
But Coulter, who is a firm Mitt Romney supporter, said the GOP frontrunner needs a running mate who is tried and tested, which, as a first-term Senator, Rubio is not. Coulter suggested Romney pick someone like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
“He’s been tested, he’s steady, he’s not frightening,” Coulter said of Kyl. “He could certainly step into the job.”
Van Jones, a former environmental advisor in the Obama White House, threw a brand new name into the realm of vice presidential speculation: former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who served under George W. Bush. “She ticks off a lot of boxes as far as women, persons of color, but she’s actually tested, she’s a national figure and she has foreign policy experience” Jones said. “You want to do something bold, put Condoleezza Rice on the ticket and watch the Obama campaign go crazy.”
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
1) I feel sorry for you if you think that Rubio's OR Obozo's citizenship is in question at all, much less by virtue of the ancient 1874 matter of Minor vs. Happersett (the link to which you have provided complete with some lawyer D'Onofrio's editorial opinions) which can be further be linked to the Justitia website version of the SCOTUS decision in the matter.
2) There are plenty of other issues whether you imagine otherwise or not: abortion, perversion posing as "marriage," the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Obozocare, Romneycare, whether Iran should be allowed to develop and deploy nuclear weapons, religious freedom from oppression by Ms. Sebelius's regulations, whether the governments should be allowed to take real estate such as modest homes by eminent domain to facilitate the construction of large private commercial projects merely because they will pay higher amounts of property tax, whether citizens or even persons who are not citizens may be detained by authorities in the US without trial or a right to counsel or even to communicate to the world outside their place of detention to seek relief just because the authorities wish to detain them upon whatever unproven allegations, the rate of taxation, the amount of spending, further corrupt bailouts of corrupt institutions by our corrupt politicos, etc., etc., etc. That list just barely scratches the surface but noooooo, you believe that "natural born citizen" issues are the ONLY issues "as far as (you are) concerned." How very special!
3. Minor vs. Happersett is, BTW, not at all on point. It simply notes that where a person such as Mrs. Minor who was a white woman born in the State of Virginia to parents were both citizens of the United States, she is unquestionably a citizen (but the main holding is that, in Missouri at that time, she nonetheless had no right to vote enforceable against the State of Missouri and its local county or municipal registrar of voters, Mr. Happersett. It specifically also notes that there is controversy as to whether one born in the US of foreign citizens was to be regarded as a natural born citizen or whether one born elsewhere of American citizens would be so regarded without resolving either of those questions. It also notes questions as to whether one who is born wherever of only one citizen parent might be so regarded without resolving that question.
4. "Binding" holdings of the court are applicable and thus "binding" when the circumstances are the same. If Mrs. Minor (apparently a radical suffragette in her time) had all those qualities but also had red hair and blue eyes, the last two characteristics would be irrelevant, having nothing whatsoever to do with the laws before the SCOTUS. OTOH, the court did not have occasion to make any ruling whatsoever as to people with lesser qualifications than Mrs. Minor as to number of citizen parents or place of birth, but at least some credentials.
5. When the now disposed of and quite despicable (and thank God) former Connecticut Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., angered by the magnificence of Ronaldus Maximus, expressed a desire to run for POTUS to restore the GOP's fatal historical flaw of being run by the GOP elites and the peasants be da*ned, it was noted that he had been (unlike most of us) born in Paris, France, when his American citizen father and mother were there due to the senior Mr. Weicker's business duties for Squibb Drug Company (or whatever its formal name was). Trust me. Those of us who despised the younger Weicker as though he were Lucifer's younger brother as well as his most faithful servant on so many of what you regard as non-issues, first saw to his defeat by Joe Lieberman and then tried to cut off his attempt to run for POTUS on the birther issue. It was and is a bogus issue as to Obozo, McCain, George Romney (whose status may have been questionable since he was born in Mexico at a permanent Mormon settlement there) and therefore, by your standard, perhaps throwing Mitt Romney's natural born citizenship status into question, and as to Weicker. Nice try but no ceegar.
6. Weicker then was elected on his solemn and oft-repeated promise to NEVER impose a Connecticut state personal income tax on wages and salaries. His lips moved. Therefore he lied and he made the buying and bullying and bribing of the Connecticut General Assembly his primary obsession, got it enacted in his first year as governor and well understood that he was finished politically as a result but, hey, he got his revenge against his conservative enemies.
7. What you regard as "binding" in the ancient Minor vs. Happersett matter is nothing but dicta at best. Dicta is the term for judicial shooting the breeze and in this matter for nothing more relevant than suggesting that SCOTUS was in 1874 more profound than ever it has been. Dicta amount to mere words or sayings and not "binding" holdings.
8. You may well disagree with me in good faith on paragraph 7 but, if you think Obozo, or any of the rest of them to be other than natural born citizens, file a federal or state action with the courts for a declaratory judgment to uphold your point of view and ask for an injunction against the appearance of his electors on any state ballot and you will lose as soooooo many others have already. If you think that proves the courts lawless you are wrong on to think so on the birther issue but at least you will surely understand how pro-lifers, pro-marriage folks, and others have long regarded our elitist courts.
God bless you and yours and bless your efforts on the birther quest if you actually try but don't hold your breath!
Mark this post."
Okay. Marked.
Let me add for other FReepers who might be tempted to then blame you for things I post here that you and I are not clones of one another and the fact that I post on whatever issue does not mean that you agree with me, even if I ping you. We are only in agreement 95+% of the time and a higher percentage of the really important stuff.
Please keep in your prayers two friends of mine: The first is a mother of many children and a superb wife and mother, a determined Christian lady who has, by great surprise and quite suddenly been diagnosed with Stage 4 colon cancer. Pray for her recovery, or for her speedy and happy death and for the fine family that she may leave behind. The other is a very fine young man, himself an ambulance attendant/EMT, who was horribly injured and maimed in a head-on collision riding a motorcycle on Sunday morning. He has lost one leg at mid-calf, my lose a hand or even an arm or its use, has several areas of bleeding in his brain, and undetermined other injuries. His mother is an athletic coach who has been particularly kind to each of my three daughters. The entire family are exemplars of character. He was part of a crew of two EMT's who took me 25 miles by ambulance to an ER in early February with the utmost consideration when briefly I could not walk due to heart issues and pneumonia. When such tragedies strike two such fine people and their loved ones, it puts life and other matters into sharper perspective. Whatever God's plans may be, they just have to be better than our own. His will be done.
May God continue to bless you and yours!
Sorry to say, but Ann has made herself passe. She's washed up.
Wow.. That’s a pretty good graphic right there.
Correct. If the constitutional requirements for the presidency itself are open to negotiation, then all bets are off.
This is really not that hard, and one doesn't even need to resort to Minor v Happersett to reach the natural, logical conclusion:
If the purpose of inserting the Natural Born Citizen language in A2S1C5 of the Constitution was to preclude, to the greatest degree possible, the potential for divided loyalties in the Executive (and you'd better believe that is was), then a citizen born on the country's soil to two citizen parents represents the gold standard (completely natural, not being able to be any other kind) in citizenship. Just what you'd want in the person entrusted with the authority to wield the presidential levers of power; a person with presumed undivided loyalty to the Republic.
Nominating an ineligible candidate on the GOP ticket is just about the only thing that will make me vote 3rd party. And if I do, it won't be for a candidate that shrugs off the foregoing exercise in basic logic.
TREASON!
It'd be the kind of show that'd have you hungering for that former NY Governor and that woman, good ol' what's her name!
Thank you. Why did it take 18 posts to get this said?
Have we still not learned to pay attention to the Constitution, even here on FR?
It’s amazing the clarity that a glimpse of our own mortality brings.
Prayers up.
The specificity of your argument is far more eloquent proof of how badly you would be hammered in the court system than anything I would feel moved to spend precious time composing in responding to you.
I spent 25 years practicing law, including constitutional law before retiring. I am betting you have not spent a day as a lawyer. OK, contact this Attorney D'Onofrio, hire him, spend your hard-earned money on his fantasies and watch him go down in flames. Has he EVER tested his own fantasies in court on the subject? IF he is still practicing and has ever been competent, he KNOWS he will not be charged with treason although he may be financially sanctioned for bringing a frivolous lawsuit under federal court rules. Best he embarrass himself in some state court which would be more charitable to him unless he insists on ignoring all the rulings on the subject that have already been entered by courts state and federal after losing a few of his own.
REST WELL!!!!
Did Ann say something? LALALALALALALALALA
1. Let's flesh out your opinion.
2. Senator John McCain was born of American parents in Panama when his distinguished father was in a substantial command position in the US Navy. I believe he was later the head of naval operations for the Vietnam War when the senator, in his youth, was shot down as a naval aviator over North Vietnam and wound up being badly injured and taken to the "Hanoi Hilton" prison. Was John McCain a "natural born citizen" when he ran for POTUS in 2008 or at any time in his life? If so, why? If not, why not?
2. Mitt Romney's great grandfather apparently fled Utah for Mexico when Utah Territory, as a condition of admission to the United States, outlawed polygamy. Romney's great grandfather reportedly had four wives at the time. Assume that he fled to Mexico not only to avoid criminal prosecution for polygamy which had previously been quite legal in Utah Territory, but also to reject what he reharded as the USA and the Utah Territory infringing on his religious "right" and that of his four wives to be a polygamist and intended to renounce his citizenship when he moved to a Mormon colony in Mexico with others of similar views. Mitt Romney's paternal grandfather was born in Mexico not in the USA at all. I suspect but do not know that his paternal grandmother was likely to have been born there as well and to parents either Mexican (in which case we would have heard by now) or of a Mormon family who had fled to Mexico either as polygamists or simply as Mormons offended by what was perceived as US and Utah religious discrimination. If one assumes the foregoing, was George Romney, Mitt's father, a natural born citizen? Is there any evidence that he or anyone in his family line (and according to your theory both maternal and paternal ancestors) had regularized any alleged citizenship in the US? When? Where? Before or after Mitt was born? I will stipulate that Mitt's mother was a natural born American citizen according to your apparent standards. Does her citizenship plus Mitt's birth in Michigan suffice to make him a "natural born citizen?" Even if his father was, for whatever reason, NOT a natural born citizen or not a citizen? This issue arose in 1968 when George Romney ran for the GOP POTUS nomination but no one bothered to DO anything about it because George Romney was going to get his ass kicked for making such a fool of himself claiming to have been "brainwashed" into supporting the VietNam War after figuring out that he would get little credit for supporting the war when contesting Nixon (flip-flopping with outrageously empty-headed and not credible rationalizations is an old Romney family tradition). Short question under that complicated history, is Mitt Romney eligible as a "natural born citizen" to run for POTUS? If so, why? If not, why not?
3. A man is in the US military and fought for our country in the VietNam War. His family history is such that his natural born citizenship is based upon BOTH of his parents being natural born citizens and both being descended from families going all the way back to George Washington's officer corps and even those ancestors were born within the thirteen (really fourteen since Connecticut consists of the colonies of Connecticut and of New Haven). While in South VietNam, he meets and falls hopelessly in love with an astounding young VietNamese woman, marries her, brings her back to the USA to reside permanently (and joyously) with him. Before her citizenship is final, their first child is born in, say, Kansas. Is that child a "natural born citizen?" If so, why? If not, why not?
4. Same situation as #3 but that child is born in VietNam and those parents are legally married there prior to the birth. Mom returns to Kansas in 1975 as the Reds take over the South? Is that child a "natural born citizen?" If so, why, If not, why not?
Recognize that these questions seek your opinions but also your reasoning. For the latter, something more substantial is needed than that you REALLY, REALLY want your personal definition of "natural born citizen" to be the law just because it makes sense to you personally and to others who understandably despise Obama and want him gone. Courts require proof and preferably some legal precedent. As to these questions, Minor vs. Happersett is generally silent, deals with entirely other issues, gives mere lip service in the form of non-precedential dicta to even the qualifications of a woman differently situated might have successful access to federal courts to force Missouri to allow her to vote in its elections after she moved there, based on what one of you called "the gold standard" of two American parents and birth in Virginia (or any other state of the USA). The decision does NOT address anyone with only one citizen parent (or none) or who was born elsewhere since no such person was a party before the court.
Emotional "outbursts" are not arguments and are no substitute for the real thing. As someone once observed of a particularly silly position, the proponent's "argument" could be accurately summarized as "Shut up!" she argued. If there is nothing other than Minor vs. Happersett (1874 no less) for you to rely on, then it would seem likely that the matters of George Romney, Mitt Romney, John McCain, AND Obozo would be cases of "first impression," i.e. virgin issues never decided by our courts previously and quite ripe to be decided. Yet every case brought against Obozo's qualifications have foundered and been dismissed by the courts or lost by the petitioners just as Mrs. Minor (for entirely different reasons) lost her case.
Your collective definition of "natural born citizen" does not hold water (at least not yet) and has no apparent precedent. Of course, SCOTUS handed down Roe vs. Wade in 1973 and has kept it on life support ever since, so, who knows? Nonetheless, I suspect not. If you disagree, hire this Attorney D'Onofrio. It will be cheaper if yo pool your resources to do so. Whatever you do, don't agree to pay his fines for frivolous lawsuits in federal court when he loses. The courts have entertained literally dozens of these suits and rejected them by decision or dismissal in every case I am aware of. Eventually the judges tire of wasting scarce judicial time on such repetitive bad claims and fine those responsible (particularly the offending attorneys).
Before things get beyond the point of no return, I'd like to see the following documents made officially public for Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Rubio....
a. Certified copy of candidate's long-form birth certificate proving birth on U.S. soil.
b. Certified copies of documents showing U.S. citizenship of BOTH of the candidate's parents at time of candidate's birth and birth certificates of each.
Is this too much to ask?
=============================================
=============================================
“Why did it take 18 posts to get this said? “
Great question. Perhaps this is a lesson in human nature that conservatives are just as vulnerable as liberals to the passion of the moment. The difference is that conservatives generally recognize the rules quickly, while liberals never will.
You ask big questions, BlackElk.
That’s okay; only little answers are required.
see #114 (with thanks and a tip of the hat to Scooter100)
My definition of NBC (both soil & blood, to be succinct) does not matter one whit. The Supreme Court owes us all a definition that is clear and in keeping with the Framer’s intent.
All candidates for any public office should have to show their bona fides, the same as anyone opening a checking account, getting a driver’s license, or joining a little league team.
Rubio seems like a no-brainer - parents were nto citi=zens when he was born.
McCain, as far as I can tell - not eligibile - born on Panamanian soil.
Romney, depends on if his parents were citizens under US law when he was born; probably should be decided by a court.
At issue is not whose opinion here will ultimately prevail so someone earns “I told you so” rights. What really matters is that our gov’t is ignoring legitimate grievances by earnest citizens about perceived violations of a national security provision of the Constitution. PERIOD
Check out # 113 , also other thoughtful comments in this thread.
See # 84 about Eternal Vigilance, who has been on the ping list from the git-go. ... Nice.
Great recommendation.
Thanks, Flotsam_Jetsome.
This is especially so since you seem to imagine that to be a natural born citizen, a person MUST be born of TWO US citizens AND be born on "US soil" which also needs definition. Are American military bases "US soil?" Are American diplomatic facilities "US soil?" If there are birth complications requiring hospitalization for such personnel on foreign soil but near where they are stationed, is the child denied "natural born citizen" status by the accident of the medical condition of his American citizen mother at his birth who is married to his American citizen father?
Texas Voter seems to imagine that McCain's birth to a father serving in the United States Navy in a substantial capacity outside the country at American Naval Base and who somehow failed and neglected to send his American citizen wife back to "US soil" to ensure that Senator McQueeg would satisfy imagined qualifications which seem closely related to the much later fantasy agenda of today's border mania crowd. This, in spite of the fact that his paternal grandfather was a truly major figure in the Pacific theater of the navy in World War II. I hope that the words "thank you very much for your service" are not uttered by people who believe such nonsense as this "birther" baloney to anyone who has served abroad.
That being said, I certainly believe it would be a wonderful if each and every POTUS and VPOTUS candidate would provide each and every document you request as to self and parents so that we can fully air this "issue" and demolish it in the public square. It would appear that either that the candidates' long form birth certificate proving US birth OR documentary proof of one parent's citizenship would suffice. However, it would not put the controversy to rest. I believe that the Congress would have jurisdiction to enact a law requiring such documentation as a pre-condition of any candidacy for those two offices and each state might have jurisdiction to do likewise as a condition of the candidate being listed on any primary or general election ballot and that would include requirement that no potential delegates (in state legislation) or electors for any candidate (state or federal legislation) be listed on a ballot if such documentation is not submitted.
Still seeking clear constitutional language and/or relevant and controlling court decisions which are claimed to support your opinions.
As Ronaldus Maximus used to say, there ARE simple answers just no easy ones.
"Legitimate" (from the Latin lex, legis meaning law) would be grounded in, well, law! Likewise "legitimate grievances."
"National security provisions of the constitution?????" Show me that one as well in the specific language of the constitution. I believe it provable from public documents that Obozo's buddy Bill Ayres and his wife, the former Bernardine Dohrn (whose actual name was Ohrnstein) were born respectively in Illinois and Wisconsin.
He is the son and namesake of the man who became the very wealthy and quite left-wing Chairman or CEO of Com Edison, Illinois's major supplier of consumer electricity and, among the very many valid accusations against Mr. Ayres and and even more against Ms. Dohrn, I have never heard it said that either was not legally a citizen by birth and/or parentage.
Mr. Ayres and Ms. Dohrn WERE founders of the quite criminal Weatherman faction of Students for a Democratic Society and were apparently involved in and responsible for a wide variety of quite serious crimes for which I do not believe either was ever brought to justice. Keeping the two of them out of the country and away from its officers and facilities WOULD be a matter of national security and a great improvement in that security since neither has apparently abandoned the wild-eyed and ultra-radical and ultra-violent intentions of their respective misspent youths. Check them out and I bet you will agree.
Alexander Hamilton (not a particular favorite of mine) was born out of wedlock to a British subject mother resident in the Bahamas and I believe a Scottish merchant father who also resided long enough in the Bahamas to impregnate his mother. He participated notably as an officer under Washington in the American Revolution, as the apparent chief ideologist of the Federalist Party and as one of the major proponents of the constitution. By virtue of the exception contained in Article II, paragraph 5 of the constitution he would have been eligible for the presidency. Now, Marco Rubio, for example, was apparently born in Florida to parents who were not yet citizens. He is no more a threat to "national security" than was Hamilton unless you know something I don't know. McCain is certainly an eccentric excuse for a GOP senator and candidate for POTUS but, whatever his corncucopia of drawbacks, is no national security risk just because he was born in Panama. And so forth.
What is at stake here is not my opinion or thine but the relevant words of the US constitution on eligibility and what the constitution actually says rather than what folks may wish it means. The Founders are entitled to the judicial presumption that they said what they meant and meant what they said. When we deviate from that standard as a society, we join the Elena Kagans and the Ruth Bader Ginsbergs and the Herod Blackmuns and like in regarding our constitution as being "what the judges say its is" and regarding the SCOTUS as an ongoing self-annointed constitutional convention (see Roe vs. Wade) without any need for ratification by the Congress or by the respective states.
Still seeking clear constitutional language and/or relevant and controlling court decisions which are claimed to support your opinions.
As Ronaldus Maximus used to say, there ARE simple answers just no easy ones.
"Legitimate" (from the Latin lex, legis meaning law) would be grounded in, well, law! Likewise "legitimate grievances."
"National security provisions of the constitution?????" Show me that one as well in the specific language of the constitution. I believe it provable from public documents that Obozo's buddy Bill Ayres and his wife, the former Bernardine Dohrn (whose actual name was Ohrnstein) were born respectively in Illinois and Wisconsin.
He is the son and namesake of the man who became the very wealthy and quite left-wing Chairman or CEO of Com Edison, Illinois's major supplier of consumer electricity and, among the very many valid accusations against Mr. Ayres and and even more against Ms. Dohrn, I have never heard it said that either was not legally a citizen by birth and/or parentage.
Mr. Ayres and Ms. Dohrn WERE founders of the quite criminal Weatherman faction of Students for a Democratic Society and were apparently involved in and responsible for a wide variety of quite serious crimes for which I do not believe either was ever brought to justice. Keeping the two of them out of the country and away from its officers and facilities WOULD be a matter of national security and a great improvement in that security since neither has apparently abandoned the wild-eyed and ultra-radical and ultra-violent intentions of their respective misspent youths. Check them out and I bet you will agree.
Alexander Hamilton (not a particular favorite of mine) was born out of wedlock to a British subject mother resident in the Bahamas and I believe a Scottish merchant father who also resided long enough in the Bahamas to impregnate his mother. He participated notably as an officer under Washington in the American Revolution, as the apparent chief ideologist of the Federalist Party and as one of the major proponents of the constitution. By virtue of the exception contained in Article II, paragraph 5 of the constitution he would have been eligible for the presidency. Now, Marco Rubio, for example, was apparently born in Florida to parents who were not yet citizens. He is no more a threat to "national security" than was Hamilton unless you know something I don't know. McCain is certainly an eccentric excuse for a GOP senator and candidate for POTUS but, whatever his corncucopia of drawbacks, is no national security risk just because he was born in Panama. And so forth.
What is at stake here is not my opinion or thine but the relevant words of the US constitution on eligibility and what the constitution actually says rather than what folks may wish it means. The Founders are entitled to the judicial presumption that they said what they meant and meant what they said. When we deviate from that standard as a society, we join the Elena Kagans and the Ruth Bader Ginsbergs and the Herod Blackmuns and like in regarding our constitution as being "what the judges say it is" and regarding the SCOTUS as an ongoing self-annointed constitutional convention (see Roe vs. Wade) without any need for ratification by the Congress or by the respective states.
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.