Wouldn’t it be an interesting thought if Gabbi got so pissed off she would change her party to independent? And that would cause Nancy such a case of heartburn her eyes would roll back and she’d pull a Hilary.
That might actually earn a spot on the eleven o’clock news.
rwood
Mods! Do your stuff!
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Don’t hypocrite Democrats always cry that every vote counts?
Patriots are reminded that 12th Amendment (12A) electoral vote procedures say nothing about constitutionally undefined political parties limiting who electors can vote for.
The only limit that 12A puts on electors when they vote for president and vice president is that one of their choices must not be a resident of the same state that they are in.
Excerpted from the 12th Amendment: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves [emphasis added]; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; […]"
But more importantly, the reason that the corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties are so concerned about presidential elections is this imo. They want the likewise corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification federal government to retain control of stolen state powers and state revenues, such revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”[...] the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Insights welcome.
Remember in November!
MAGA, now KAGA! (Keep America Great Always!)
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA will effectively give fast-working Trump a third term in office imo.
One of my main objections to Gabbard’s candidacy, notwithstanding her mostly doctrinaire progressive liberalism; is that she is not an Article II, Section one, clause 5 natural born citizen who is constitutionally qualified to assume the office of POTUS.
Even though SCOTUS has never directly issued a ruling on what type of citizen makes one an Article II eligible president, in every case wherein they have given a definition of what a natural born citizen is, (Venus Merchantman 1814, Minor vs Happersett, Wong Kim Ark vs US) those descriptions bear no relationship to Gabbard’s birth provenience.
Because of the SCOTUS’s acquiescence for Obama’s 8 “presidential” years, we cannot get the SCOTUS to adjudicate this Article III matter for the first time in US history.
Tulsi Gabbard was born on April 12, 1981, in Leloaloa, Maoputasi County, on American Samoa’s main island of Tutuila.
Tuaua v. United States
According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the people born in American Samoa – including those born on Swains Island – are “nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth”. If a child is born on any of these islands to any U.S. citizen, then that child is considered a national and a citizen of the United States at birth. In an amicus curiae brief filed in federal court, Samoan Congressman Faleomavaega supported the legal interpretation that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not extend birthright citizenship to United States nationals born in unincorporated territories.
All U.S. nationals have statutory rights to reside in the United States (i.e., the 50 states and Puerto Rico), and may apply for citizenship by naturalization after three months of residency by passing a test in English and civics, and by taking an oath of allegiance to the United States. However, the INA makes clear that any “national but not a citizen of the United States” who at any time has been convicted of any aggravated felony, whether the aggravated felony was committed inside or outside the United States, is “debarred from becoming a citizen of the United States”
Gabbard is a US citizen at birth (not a US Natural Born Citizen) due to her US citizen mother. A statute, the Immigration and Naturalization Act, passed in the 20th century, holds that anyone born to a US citizen parent anywhere in the world is a US citizen. This statute did not modify the intent of Article II, section one, clause 5 of the constitution, ratified in 1787. A statute cannot amend the meaning or intent of a constitutional provision. That requires an Article V amendment process.
Being a “Citizen at Birth” is not analagous to being a “Natural Born Citizen.” They are not the same thing. Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico are citizens at birth also. None of them are Article II Natural born citizens either.
For-later
Isn’t she getting around 1 % of the Democrat primary vote? or less ? I don’t she left the race, the race left her.
The liberals don’t realize how their identity politics is going to hurt them.
If Warren’s loss is sexism, it is DEMOCRAT sexism.
If it is discrimination that explains everything, then Democrats are both sexist and racist to be repeatedly changing the rules to exclude Tulsi Gabbard.