Posted on 09/09/2020 2:10:34 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
That’s it!
I knew something wasn’t right with his name on the list but couldn’t put my finger on it.
They can’t seem to let go of 2016 either.
Ted Cruz has got no business being on the SC. He has shown that he either doesn’t understand what a Natural Born Citizen is (thus, too ignorant) or he is willing to argue against the plain intent of the Framers so as to aggrandize himself (thus, too corrupt).
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said Wednesday that he would not accept a nomination to the Supreme Court shortly after President Trump named him on a shortlist of candidates for the high court.
“I appreciate the President’s confidence in listing me as a potential Supreme Court nominee,” Hawley tweeted Wednesday. “But as I told the President, Missourians elected me to fight for them in the Senate, and I have no interest in the high court. I look forward to confirming constitutional conservatives.”
I was going to say the same thing for you Cruzbots - his ties to the Bush family and his globalist wife make him unacceptable for POTUS, but as SCOTUS Justice he would be great.
Where’s Mark Levin on the list?
I guess he is too old.
Yup, I’d take Levin over Cruz. Levin is a fighter, Cruz is too squishy.
Gorsuch got rid of whatever morality was left on the right with his decision giving homosexuals and transgenders civil rights. In many ways Trump is an amazing man, but the fact that he still praises Gorsuch makes me realize that Trump is but a speed bump in the race towards the end of this great nation.
“I’d take Levin over Cruz. Levin is a fighter, Cruz is too squishy.”
That’s true. Cruz is too squishy and malleable. Levin would be better.
Amy whatshername’s not on the list!!!
I’m open to being corrected, but if James Madison, able lawyer he, had wanted to clarify that point, he could have.
Let’s stipulate your point for the sake of argument. The term was “generally understood” at the time.
Congress has since, after a civil war and 27 amendments, provided clear statutory language that forms the legal basis for natural citizenship.
INAL, but it would appear that there would be at least two possible challenges to the current law:
1) it is unconstitutional since it seeks to re-define the commonly understood meaning of the term “natural born citizen” at the time the constitution was ratified and or;
2) using 8 USC 1401 to define ‘natural born citizen’ rests on the assumption that a person is ‘natural born’ if he doesn’t need to be “naturalized” to become a citizen. You could then argue that 8 USC 1401 is good enough for most things, but not good enough to qualify a person for the office of President. But I think that’s a stretch.
Something else: I’m not asking you to do my research for me, but if you have a ready reference to the use of the term “natural born citizen” from the period of say, 1780-1790 that supports your definition, I would be most appreciative. I’m always pleased to have my thinking corrected, if I am, in fact, in error.
The court would redefine water is wet if it was politically expedient. The LAST THING I would ever want to do is let 9 black robed dictators redefine the US Constitution. They’ve already done enough damage as it is.
This is an additional list of names as there could be up to four nominations. Amy Coney Barrett is on the original list. POTUS released these names today so that Sleepy would release his list of radical leftist judges.
Give it a rest. You were wrong before. You're still wrong.
I think that Josh Hawley is more interested in someday nominating people to the USSC than being a member of the USSC.
You'll never know how hard I laughed when I read your post.
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.