Posted on 10/02/2018 5:01:40 AM PDT by reaganaut1
every second of every minute of every hour of every day
I don’t believe roe v wade has anything to do with it.
It’s all about getting Pres. Donald J Trump.”””
Yes- and also about the 2nd Amendment & our right to have guns.
I also think there is another hidden agenda item that the Dems are concerned about.
Obama got to be President because no one truly challenged his ELIGIBILITY status. We got stung for 8 years and we do not need an encore....
I believe that the clarification of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN eligibility status of ANY candidate will be coming up in front of the Supreme Court in the near future. I am basing this on the hard push the Dems are putting behind Kamala Harris for a Presidential candidate.
Kalama is NOT ELIGIBLE to be POTUS OR to hold any position that can succeed POTUS.
Both of her parents were born in other countries-—Jamaica and India. They came to the USA, met, married, and had Kamala. However , NEITHER was a citizen of the USA when Kamala was born. They became citizens about 5-6 years later. I understand that NATURAL BORN CITIZEN means that you are the USA born offspring of 2 parents who were BOTH AMERICAN CITIZENS at the time of that birth.
Obama was not NATURAL BORN, as his father was NOT an American citizen. BUT—Obama never got properly vetted by the DNC, led at that time by Howard Dean. Then Pelosi & others ‘assured & signed off’ on the idea that Obama was eligible. We were lied to and snookered from the start. Bill Clinton knew that Obama was NOT eligible. He tried to point it out to Kate Snow in Africa in 2008, but Snow never caught the hint. Clinton even repeated the phrase “IF he is eligible”.
After all that publicity, I don’t think that scam can be pulled off another time in the USA. There will be legal challenges when it arises again.
IMO, Kavanaugh will be very strong in supporting the eligibility of a President to be based upon the fact that BOTH parents MUST be USA citizens at the time of their child’s birth to have a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Kamala is NATIVE BORN, for having been born in the USA. She is an ANCHOR BABY-——She is NOT eligible to be President.
Kavanaugh is standing in the way of her becoming President, IMO.
All the Trump crazy of the last year mostly had to do with the Senate races in Nov.
The GOP was looking at a possible 8 State pickup.
Now thanks to the GOP-e, its probably closer to 4-5
every second of every minute of every hour of every day
Xavier Becerra for attorney general
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-attorney-general-endorsement-20181001-story.html
” touting his more than 40 lawsuits against the Trump administration...”
I’ll take a 4-5 pickup.
Kennedy was also the swing vote in a decision similarly devoid of constitutional authority: homosexual marriage.
The left is all about sexual perversion. So butt-bangers must be glorified and women must be able to murder their children.
‘It’s all about getting Pres. Donald J Trump.’
that, and keeping a Trump nominated male from replacing a liberal justice; Gorsuch replaced Scalia, so no net difference there...
You do know that the internet is full of paid liberal troll employees that spend the entire day posting online on any message board possible? Same thing with bitcoin a while back...
My vote for worst would be Wickard v. Filburn.
Yeah, I’m well-aware of those paid posters, but, since they’re all over the place, I feel the need to take them on every chance I get. They know that if enough uneducated and uninformed and easily swayed people see their posts, that they have a prospective liberal voter in their future.
good grief...besides yours, only a couple of intelligent thoughts in the comments.
those you enter at your own risk.
They make it sound as if anybody on the supreme court can say “let me look at this law and see if it’s constitutional.” No, commie, it doesn’t work that way.
What should be looked at in the whole context of the verbal lynching of a good & decent jurist, is this:
What precisely are they seeking, which motivates them to smear Judge Kavanaugh? What is the object of their reprehensible tactics?
Surely the end is even more reprehensible than the loathsome methodology. It is to prevent having a Supreme Court that will actually enforce the Constitutional intent; and by that vehicle, to retain the intention of the Founders, to pass on the Liberty won in the Revolution to succeeding generations.
The loathsome tactics, then, are to allow intellectually corrupted theorists on the Left, to deny Americans their birthright. Loathsome tactics to an even more loathsome purpose.
Our Last Chance? [Can Donald Trump Revive The "Spirit of '76?]
The article references Scalia’s dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:Opinion of Scalia, J. (page 979)
every second of every minute of every hour of every day
The SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution with regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS cases wherein they have given a definition of what a NBC (or a 14th amendment citizen in the case of Wong Kim Ark)is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Venus Merchantman Case of 1814) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Harris, Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, It is conceivable that Jamaica or India could claim that Kamala Harris, thru her parents, is a citizen who owes allegiance to both of those countries FROM HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.
By the way, Ted Cruz (who I admire very much) made a very public demonstration of the fact that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?
The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
I suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.
Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.
Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchill’s birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winston’s father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchill’s birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 “natural born citizen” in any way.
Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say let’s eliminate all those who don’t even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.
This matter is SCREAMING for a definitive ruling on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, by the SCOTUS for the first time in the history of the US. It is revealing to note what Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president when he said that the high court is “evading” the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget in April of 2017. Thomas said that to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
After two Obama terms, I think they are terrified of the implications of a ruling based on originalist constitutional intent and interpretation. That does not excuse the cowardice in refusing a grant of certiorari for those who wish to have SCOTUS exercise it’s Article III oversight on this matter.
Question:
Has anybody heard who is next on Trump's nominee list, if, say, "Sleepyhead" Ruth Ginsburg "goes away", like McCain was so kind as to do?
Sorry, not tired of winning yet, I guess. Actually, I think I'm getting somewhat addicted to it.
every second of every minute of every hour of every day
every second of every minute of every hour of every day
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/2018 03:47 PM
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.