Posted on 02/10/2016 2:33:49 AM PST by expat_panama
Shortly after Barack Obama swept into the White House while giving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid a coattail Marxist Congress, Newsweek Magazine ran the cover "We're all Socialists now,"...
...it took until last night before it was literally true, as New Hampshire gave a full-throated socialist a rout over semi-socialist Hillary Clinton on the Democrat side and the once and now apparently again socialist Donald Trump won...
...In case you missed the final score, it was Bernie by about 18 over Hillary and Trump by about 18 over John Kasich. Yes, John Kasich. ...
...Trump has flirted with socialist talking points and ideas for decades, including...
..."Trump has promised to allow the government to negotiate drug prices — a common position among Democrats but rarely heard at nominally Republican events. He said he would not raise military spending, arguing that the nation's defenses can be improved without increasing its already huge Pentagon budget. He promised tough sanctions on American companies that move jobs overseas."
Think about that. He's full Bernie on the military, and instead of rolling back our liberal government to entice companies to stay onshore or move onshore, Trump wants to sic the IRS on companies...
..."Trump was, in other words, in full populist mode as he wrapped up his New Hampshire campaign." York understates. He was in full Bernie Socialist mode. Meanwhile, daughter Ivanka Trump yesterday insisted that "from day one, my father has set the agenda for both parties."
Indeed he has. It sounds a lot like Bernie's socialist agenda. And he and Bernie both won. Beam me up, Scotty...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The American Stinkernhas really fallen!
You are as sore a loser as your namesake!
Apparently not enough.
Nobody is pretending Trump is conservative. He holds some opportunistic conservative principles. Unlike most of the other politicians who are frauds, Trump holds sincere personal beliefs like concealed carry lowering crime, e.g. his proposed 50 state carry. At the same time we can probably count on Trump to fail in some big picture long term issues. Suppose the 50 state permit turns into a federal carry permit complete with FBI records. That would not be good. Or I could see Trump proposing some sort of restrictions as part of a deal.
In short, if we get Trump as president we will get a fixer and he will make America great again. But we may lose some Constitutional rights and will have to make sure Congress keeps him in check.
So why don’t you pussies ping him?
Naw he knows my position on him.
Ok, so let me hand you a tissue.
“Why do so many of these “journalists” invent their own unsupported assertions, and then desperately want the readers to follow them?”
Good question. C. Edmund Wright Ping!
“....and instead of rolling back our liberal government to entice companies to stay onshore or move onshore, Trump wants to sic the IRS on companies who don’t hire the way he wants.”
Trump has suggested a tariff on the companies who moved offshore. That’s a far cry from writing that he wants to “sic the IRS on companies who don’t hire the way he wants”. His tax plan also reduces tax rates as an incentive to keep companies in the United States.
lol...thank you for your kindness. More than lord Wright would do.
You're absolutely right! I mean, really. Just how bad could this possibly get?
I offer the serious study by Gordon in the Maryland Law Review. Since I am chastising Trump supporters for their lack of intellectual honesty, I must point out that this Law Review article was written before the latest Supreme Court decision touching on the matter came out with dicta to the effect that a natural born citizen does not qualify merely by virtue of birth citizenship. The author of this article anticipates that dicta with some logic.
It is a long article so I reproduce here only the conclusions be found at the end. I recommend the article to anyone who is not content with bland assurances from one side or the other but who wants a fundamental peer-reviewed study of the issue.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
My study of this 180 year enigma leads me to the following conclusions.
1. The reference to "natural-born" in the presidential qualifica- tion clause must be considered in the light of the English usage, well known to the Framers of the Constitution. The English common law, particularly as it had been declared or modified by statute, accorded full status as natural-born subjects to persons born abroad to British subjects.
2. Although the evidence of intent is slender, it seems likely that the natural-born qualification was intended only to exclude those who were not born American citizens, but acquired citizenship by naturalization. The Framers were well aware of the need to assure full citizenship rights to the children born to American citizens in foreign countries. Their English forebears had made certain that the rights of such children were protected, and it is hardly likely that the Framers intended to deal less generously with their own children. The evidence, although not overwhelming, unquestionably points in the direction of such generosity.
3. This gloss of prior history and usage is not dulled, I believe, by the Naturalization Act of 1790 or by the fourteenth amendment. The 1790 act, enacted soon after the Constitutional Convention, recog- nized such persons as natural-born citizens. The fourteenth amendment, adopted primarily to confirm the full citizenship denied to Negroes by the Dred Scott decision, did not refer to "natural-born" citizens, did not purport to limit or define the presidential qualification clause of publicized election contest involving an election for governor was In re Andersen, 264 Minn. 257, 119 N.W.2d 1 (1962). 237. Comprehensive recent discussions of the political controversy doctrine will be found in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210-37, 267-318 (1962) ; Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 427-37 (1964) (act of state doctrine). 238. See the observations of Professor Corwin and Fincher quoted in text accom- panying notes 171 & 173 supra; F. MncHEM, PUBLIC OFFICES AND OFFICERs 312-14 (1890) (remedy discretionary, and court may withhold relief if disastrous consequences would result. However, the Supreme Court's direct confrontation with the President in the Steel Seizure Case (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)).
239. See Means, supra note 27, at 30, 113 CONG. RIc. at H5779.
240. Even if an elected official is disqualified by the courts, it does not follow that the office can be claimed by his defeated opponent. See G. MCCRARY, ELtCrIONS 248 (4th ed. 1897).
1968]
MARYLAND LAW REVIEW
the Constitution, and did not, in my estimation, bar a construction of that clause to include children born abroad to American parents. 4. Nor is such a construction foreclosed by questionable dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and other Supreme Court decisions. These dicta are not addressed to the presidential qualification clause and cannot control its construction.
Having endorsed these conclusions, I must concede that the picture is clouded by elements of doubt. These doubts will unquestionably persist until they are eliminated by a constitutional amendment, a definitive judicial decision, or the election and accession of a President who was "natural-born" outside the United States.241 The withdrawal of Governor Romney has ended the possibility that clarification would emerge as a result of his candidacy. Perhaps such clarification will develop from some future candidacy of another citizen in the same situation. On the other hand, it may eventually be necessary to amend the Constitution in order to remove the ambiguity
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2068&context=mlr
All true. Part of why I will never vote for Trump. Many on FR may all choose to get fooled, but not me. This guy will betray conservatives worse than Brutus betrayed Caesar.
But we have someone who will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Yippee!
You nailed it. I won’t be fooled. I’m surprised to see so many fools here.
Or not
Whose Congress?
Likely a Republican Congress but what sort of Republicans? Rinos?
Will Rino Republicans break their lifelong habits and decline to combine with Democrats to give Trump his way contrary to the Constitution, in favor of crony capitalism?
I fear relying on Congress to save the Constitution from Trump is about as futile as relying on Congress to save the Constitution from Barack Obama.
Like a crony capitalist.
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.