Report: Trump ‘openly praising’ Harry Reid on campaign trail

New Zeal ^ | February 26, 2016 | renee nal

[RginTN]

trump not trustworthy.

trump praising harry reid in the midst of a primary...crazy

[Crucial]

There goes our Supreme Court nominee. Whoever it is, they won’t even approach Scalia’s stature.

[eyedigress]

There are reasons why I support Trump that some may not see.

He scares the system that has put a burden on the taxpayer that is downright sinful. He knows that the burden is being strengthened through illegal immigration.

He also knows it is being destroyed by Obama and the taxes imposed by DC on all business in the USA.

They just piss everybody off when a man wants to pee with a 6 year old girl and they find it “groovy”.

Trump is a populist and needs that favor. I call that representative government.

[sickoflibs]

The sad part is it has been working for TRump.

So much hope here that this skit will work in a real election, after all the dynamics change.

[Bob434]

[[Trump was defending “wonderful” Planned Parenthood]]

Exactly, and saying pp is good ‘because they do tremendous good’ is liek saying rapists are good because they remember their mom’s birthday and send her flowers every year- How many babies have been aborted under this death cult planned parenthood? And he calls them good?

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Got tired of saying it myself, so your post 47 was a breath of fresh air. The original intent was to delegate it to Congress, which was there is not hard-wired definition of the phrse I. The Constitution itself.

[Springfield Reformer]

The Constitution did not give the Congress to power to change the Constitution.

Actually, it did. See Article 5:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

So there are two methods for modifying the Constitution, Congressional proposal of amendment followed by ratification of the states, or a constitutional convention organized by the states proposing an amendment, which is then ratified by the states. So your statement is factually wrong.

But that misses the point entirely. There is no need to modify the Constitution to find Ted Cruz eligible. The Congress does have the power to tell us by statute who needs some process after birth and who does not. The Constitution gave Congress that power and they can and have rightfully used it. And according to that power, Ted Cruz did not need to be naturalized. Under the proper operation of the law, he has his citizenship at birth, and naturally, by inheritance from his mother. He is a natural born citizen.

Furthermore, the quotes you provided that go into the definition of natural born are not constitutional authority. They are opinions of academics or sidebar musings of judges spewing dicta, some of it highly questionable, and not holdings under the doctrine of stare decisis. They do not and cannot supply a binding definition for natural born citizen. It is malpractice for an attorney to present dicta as if it were a holding. I could get disciplined by the ARDC if I tried a stunt like that. It's fine entertainment for amateur legal analysts with no skin in the game, but please do not imagine that a trained attorney, democrat or otherwise, would endanger their professional license by presenting such theories as binding law. They would first be laughed out of court and then sanctioned, if the judge was doing his job.

Peace,

SR

[TigersEye]

I want to buy a Kelo of whatever these people are smoking!

[DoughtyOne]

Folks, if you're reading this, you know what needs to happen.
It doesn't take a big contribution. Pick your comfort level and
please join others to help put the FReepathon to rest. Thank you.

The above note was first presented to you on 02/25 at around 11:00.
The goal shortfall at that time is depicted to you on the left.
The graphic on the right reveals our status as of 02/26 22:30.
We can finish this by Sunday night. Let's do it.

Let's give Jim, his crew, and us a full month to rest up.

Jim, his crew, and every other FReeper thanks you.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well, I think I could praise Adolf Hitler for his mustache. That scarcely means I’m a Nazi. This is getting sillier by the day.

[sickoflibs]

The problem is that Trump is a bully.

Only those attacked by him would try to defend themselves at the time, others either hid or beat on on him w Trump trying to get second position.

This time two went after the bully at the same time instead of each other.

Yes, its sad.

[GLDNGUN]

If you are about the truth, then why are you trying deceive? Trump did not "praise" Reid. He correctly noted that Romney only released his returns after being taunted for months by Reid.

Is this another dishonest Cruz campaign tactic? Or did your deceitful mind come up with this all on your own?

[mbrfl]

To say he was praising Reid is absurd. He was criticizing Romney, not praising Reid. Once again we see a shameless disregard for the facts from a Cruz supporter.

[Impy]

Yes.

Should have done it earlier.

[publius911]

So was your house, probably!

And your point is...?

[publius911]

Give it a rest!

Many Freepers have been pro-trump before he opened his mouth by way of persuasion.
I am among them.

He has the same opinion of what ails the country as I do.
So yeah, it works for me>

[Flick Lives]

That picture is a hoot!

[patq]

Trump was lughing about that moron Romney requesting tax returns when Reid embarrassed Romney over his.

On a side note, the worst thing about Reid is he got more things down in the senate ina day than Cruz ever did in his entire tenure there.. We need a fighter , not a talker.

[publius911]

That post makes no sense...

[Springfield Reformer]

Yep, I know it is confusing. I am continuing to learn about it the more I study and discus the matter. But the basic issues are coming into focus. As Bruce Campbells Chin so succinctly described it, the Constitution delegates the whole area of naturalization to Congress, no doubt in wise recognition of the need for ongoing adjustment in the area.

Some stumble on the idea that the congressional power is over naturalization, therefore, they assume, Congress cannot address those who do not need naturalization. But they can.  In Zivotofsky (2015), Justice Thomas, building on a quote from Scalia, declares foreign born children of US parents to be natural born citizens, and cites the naturalization statute as his authority:

(Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (recognizing that “Congress has the power to set the requirements for acquisition of citizenship by persons not born within the territory of the United States”). It has determined that children born abroad to U. S. parents, subject to some exceptions, are natural-born citizens who do not need to go through the naturalization process. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1401(c), (d), (g).

Available here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-628/concur5.html

It's only logical. Saying Congress can speak to who needs to be naturalized and under what process necessarily infers they must likewise be able to address those who do not need such a process. Person X was born to alien parents and so has to go through A, B, C after birth to become a citizen. Person Y was born a citizen because they had a citizen mother. Boom. No process, and as Justice Thomas points out in the dicta above, these folks are natural born. 

So really, after banging around all the enormous wall posts and boiling it down to it's essence, this isn't really all that hard. Trump and his legion of attorneys must know full well there is no threat to Ted on this issue, other than it being used as a political weapon against him, by bamboozling the legally uniformed public into thinking there is a problem, when there isn't.

Peace,

SR