Posted on 01/06/2016 3:47:16 PM PST by House Atreides
You are completely missing the point.
Obama and the Democrats have successfully re-defined the NBC eligibility requirement as one of Jus Solis in the minds of the American public. Even you have bought into that to some extent.
A canine born to poodle parents is a poodle. A canine born to a pug and a poodle is a mongrel/mutt. Both Obama and Cruz lack the pedigree necessary to meet the eligibility requirements of Article II of the Constitution no matter where either of them is born.
Because the Democrats and Obama got away with it, does not mean that Cruz should also. In fact the Democrats are ready to challenge Cruz on this issue and will win assuming a timely challenge.
The Democrats are much more bold in twisting the law to their advantage while denying the Republicans......read “Rules for Radicals” its their “bible.”
as to your questions, as I have said, I’m not about to defend the Republican (stupid) Party to you. The RNC is one reason Trump is so popular across America. The other is the lawlessness of Obama nd the Democrats.
No, I'm not.
as to your questions, as I have said, I’m not about to defend the Republican (stupid) Party to you.
You're the one missing my point. The cowardly Republican party aside, nobody raised the NBC objection to Obama because of his Kenyan father until after his election -- no lawyers, no jurists, no political observers, nor self-described constitutional experts, such as yourself.
From the time until he announced until several months after his election, the NBC issue wasn't even mentioned on FreeRepublic. And I ask why? If all the experts agree it takes both parents to be U.S. citizens to make a NBC, why was no objection raised to Obama's candidacy -- officially or even on a forum like FreeRepublic?
My question has nothing to do with the Republican Party. It is instead addressed to the hundreds of thousands of private citizens who conceivably qualify as experts on the constitution. Why didn't any of them recognize that Obama wasn't eligible and call attention to his shortcoming? Everybody knew that his dad was a Kenyan. Why didn't they at least raise the issue on a conservative political forum like FreeRepublic?
I can't complain about you, Forty-Niner, because you weren't a member of FreeRepublic at the time.
I'll answer my own question. The hundreds of thousands of people who are sufficiently expert on the constitution didn't blow the whistle on Obama because they didn't consider his Kenyan father disqualifying.
And if having a Kenyan father wasn't automatically disqualifying in 2008, having a Cuban father isn't automatically disqualifying in 2016.
DONE DEAL ....Settled✔ï¸....Deal With It!
“And if having a Kenyan father wasn’t automatically disqualifying in 2008, having a Cuban father isn’t automatically disqualifying in 2016.”
So 2 wrongs make a right?
But nobody thought it was wrong in 2008.
That's the point.
NOBODY!
It wasn't until several months into 2009 that NBC became an "issue".
you mean no-one you were aware of....I think that both McCain and the RNC knew, but were afraid of being labeled a racist for calling Obama on it.....cowards both!
The NBC eligibility requirement was written for a purpose. You cannot be a conservative if you support ignoring the provisions of Article II, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican candidate that fails the test.
No one I was aware of means, importantly, nobody on this forum. You weren't here then, so I can't hold you responsible.
But there are now numerous FReepers espousing your opinion...and none of them were espousing it in 2008. Nor was anybody else.
You think McCain and the RNC "knew" Obama wasn't eligible and that is the reason they passed the McCain eligibility resolution. But that resolution was dated April 10, 2008 an passe April 30, 2008 -- before it was certain that Obama would be the Democrat nominee.
And, by the way, I am not "ignoring" the provisions of Article II. I am honoring them as they have been defined by Congress. Your definition is, for the present, your own.
“And, by the way, I am not “ignoring” the provisions of Article II. I am honoring them as they have been defined by Congress. Your definition is, for the present, your own. “
My definition????? Read Minor v Happersett, Elg, and other court decisions both USSC and various Administrative courts.
NBC = native born to citizen parents.
NBC has no cachet in the US except as an eligibility requirement for the Presidency. Although it is meant to weed out those who could have divided loyalties. In reality it is no great burden on the vast majority of Americans....would you say 95% of Americans were born on US soil to American citizen parents?
Yet people say Cruz, born in Canada to a Canadian/Cuban father is a US Natural Born Citizen......Its hard for me to keep from splitting my gut from laughing so hard at the thought. Does ideology blind people that much, even on FR? Apparently it does for some. Yet they call themselves big C Conservatives.......stop it, you’re killing me!
Thousands of people had the relevant facts in hand -- the Constitution's requirement or a "natural-born citizen" requiring two American citizens as parents and Obama's own confession in Dreams of My Father that his father was a Kenyan -- yet nobody raise a hand against his eligibility for the presidency.
Doesn't this suggest something rather profound to you? Like nobody took "natural born citizen" to mean what you think it means?
“Doesn’t this suggest something rather profound to you? Like nobody took “natural born citizen” to mean what you think it means?”
No it sounds like everyone was afraid to naysay a “historic (sic the first Communist) ‘Black’ President.
Coward and perianal Idiot John McCain even told all of us that we had nothing to fear from Obama before the votes were even cast. Escapes me why McCain has survived this considering that McCain was challenged for “birth outside of the US to two US citizen parents while they were serving in the US Navy in the Panama Canal Zone.”
You keep pushing the meme of “my definition” of NBC. Tell that to the Romans for their centuries long use of that definition, tell it to Emerick Vattel when he wrote “Natural Law”, tell it to the Founders who used their 6 copies of Vattel’s book as a reference when writing the Constitution, Tell that to the justices when they wrote the decision in Minor v Happersett, Tell that to the justices who wrote the decision in “Elg”, or the individual judges that have used that definition in numerous administrative cases.
Or tell Nancy Pelosi that she needn’t have changed the state certification of Barack Obama’s candidacy from “meets the Constitutional requirements for the Office of the President” to “Is the Democrat candidate for the Office of the US President.”
Yep...you’re right “my definition” is just one of my “pipe dreams” made up because of my racist, hyper partisan hatred for a black patriotic, historic president, who loves the United States so much that he wants to change it fundamentally so that it conforms to the Dreams of his Kenyan father. Yeah, I’m a very deluded, ignorant, and basically bad person.....need I? /s
Oh, horse...apples.
That's a weak excuse. Like "...the cowardly Republicans didn't dare challenge Obama".
Among the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Americans who were aware of Obama purported ineligibility, not one raised a warning??? NOT A SINGLE ONE???!!! Until it was too late...
There's only one explanation, 49er. Those who knew best, knew better.
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.