Posted on 04/08/2016 7:17:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Plus, Trump will be 70 himself, and odds are that Hillary chooses a younger running mate. I think it would help Trump to balance that with a younger running mate as well.
Great minds think alike.
>>So, if you’re leading, you can talk whatever nonsense you wish?
>>/not getting into this fight, just pointing-out an inconsistency
What country did you move here from where elections are polite and civil?
This one has been the worst of my lifetime, but it is a symptom of America’s slide into Third-world status, where elections are always a barroom brawl. The political class prides itself on putting on a show for the ignorant masses to give the impression that there is any real difference to choose from. Trump entered this race to give us a choice and the entire political establishment on both sides (including those so-called “outsiders” who really aren’t outsiders) lined up against him. We demanded that he fight and he is fighting.
Trump is chemotherapy for a sick, cancerous political system that is infested with tumors and disease. Chemo isn’t pleasant and doesn’t always work. But it is better than doing nothing.
‘o’ brought the kindling
Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.
It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."
The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.
Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.
Agreed. Hope they kiss and make up.
I don't think it is "reasonable" to assume that Congress simply had a flash of inspiration five years after the fact that "gee, I guess what we did five years ago was unconstitutional".
However, even if you do think that's a "reasonable" assumption, that doesn't prove it as a fact, and you can't build your "I am certain I am right" on a foundation that is based on nothing more than something being a "reasonable possibility". So, the elimination of the phrase "natural born citizen" in the Act of 1795 was nothing more than standard legislative housecleaning of eliminate redundant language in a statute.
You may not agree with that, but that's certainly as "reasonable" as assuming they all realized five years after the fact that they had acted unconstitutionally. In fact, if their motive was to correct an error, wouldn't it have been prudent of them to pass some clarifying measure to ensure that people born during 1790-1795 were not considered natural born citizens?
Trump as President. Cruz as Vice president. Trump serves 4 years then Cruz 4 or 8. But as was said already here. That bridge was burned.
Madison led the committee which drafted the 1795 statute. He was not involved with the drafting of the 1790 statute.
Trump builds bridges - has done so all his life
The problem is that Kasich does far better than the others against Hillary
“....Hillary is going to take Cory Booker.”
Interesting. No chance on that Castro turd?
Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.
Where have you been Pat? I said this when they both started running for office. To late for this combo now. They are enemies.
Brewer would be a far superior choice, though I too would be OK with Susana, despite her slide into the establishment. I believe Trump would set her straight on that, and she hopefully would return to her roots which made her so attractive in the first place. I did more than my share in the SW part of the state to get her into the governor’s mansion the first time around, but she later fell for (wait for it) former Bush advisor’s advice and slid into the establishment’s noose, which meant a falling out between us, and no more invites to her party’s for me. But I do believe that she is a good woman, and in *if* she chose to bail out from her current circle of establishment goons, entered into Trumps inner circle, most of the attractive qualities and virtues that have been smothered would resurface and the nation would be proud to have her as second in command.
I've read that entire piece (and I'd encourage any who doubt me to do the same) and nowhere in there does Mr. McElwee (who apparently wrote that article in 1967) provide a source for his claim of a "false inference" being found. That appears to be nothing more than McElwee's own individual conjecture as to why it was changed. He offers absolutely no evidence, no link to contemporaneous statements or Congressional records, to support that claim.
Looks to me like Mr. McElwee just didn't like George Romney, and wrote that article to argue against him being eligible.
If you believe me to be mischaracterizing this, please identify specifically the evidence that Madison believed there to be a "false inference". What contemporaneous document contains that proof? Again, here's the link for anyone who wants to check for themselves. The key language regarding the desire to correct a "false inference" is contained on p. 10.
http://natural-borncitizens.com/nbcfiles/nbc_McElwee.pdf
Not going to happen.
“VP choice will likely have more weight than compared to past elections.”
I agree fully. I think that if the *right* choice was made well ahead of the convention, such will (could) go far in the delegate’s decision making process. Of course it could mean absolutely nothing depending on the level of manipulation the delegates experience beforehand.
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.