Posted on 04/27/2019 5:35:48 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
President Trump's recent stonewalling tactics, aimed at blocking Congress' ability to follow up on the allegations detailed in the Mueller report, are rooted in the belief that he can run out the clock on the Democrats in the House through the 2020 election. Nonetheless, it's a strategy fraught with peril, and if the President begins to see a significant erosion in his approval numbers from Americans tired of the endless standoff, he might need to reach deep into his bag of tricks to reset the national narrative.
There is one move that could prove to be a complete game changer: naming Nikki Haley, the former UN ambassador and South Carolina governor, as his running mate in 2020. News of a Trump-Haley ticket would be a master stroke that would upend the 2020 election and could send Democrats into a complete tailspin.
Bucking tradition for the heck of it is a hallmark of this presidency, but if Trump were to part ways with Mike Pence it would be nothing more than raw political calculus: in one move, Trump would make history by selecting a woman of color with a deep political resumé and foreign policy gravitas -- making it the most diverse ticket in the history of the GOP.
Adding Haley to the ticket would not only strengthen his position in key defensive battleground states, but possibly put several states that Hillary Clinton carried in 2016 back in play for the GOP. By tapping Haley as his running mate, the President could deliver the ultimate coup de grâce to Democrats' hopes of retaking the White House in 2020.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I’m sure CNN is a good source of advice for the president. /s
Nope, would be a much worse move.
On hell no!
Pathetic—from one swamp creature to another.
Yes lets all listen to liberal advice, they really want him to win after all.
Neither of Niki Haley’s parents were citizens when she was born. She is an anchor baby.
She is ambitious but she will get killed because of citizen issues.
This is why they want her as vp.
They know shes not eligible to be president. That would become a huge issue for the democrats to exploit.
Here in NH we USE to be a Conservative stronghold, but that has changed drastically in the past 20+ years with all the invaders from Mass/Maine/Vermont and elsewhere.
NH provides a perfect example of people wanting to escape high tax/regulation states for a no income/sales tax state ... but bringing their liberal sickness with them to “$hit in their own nest”.
Can’t wait to get the heck out of here in the next 2 years and head down south.
Neither of Niki Haley’s parents were citizens when she was born. She is an anchor baby.
She is ambitious but she will get killed because of citizen issues and she would take down the republican party with her.
That would be the stupidest thing he could do.
Sounds like he was named by a teen mom.
LOL!!!! Boy Howdy! Good gosh and golly!!! Shore is nice of them folks at the Commie News Network to take time off their busy schedule of Trump bashing, Trump hating, lying About Trump, lying about collusion, calling for impeachment, dissing conservatives, etc. etc. etc. to give Trump some advice about how he can improve his election prospects in 2020.
Shuuuuuureeee!!!! I’m absolutely positive that Trump would just be thrilled to take their advice.
Ha ha ha
TRUMP/TRUMP signs everywhere.
Liberal heads exploding all around.
CNN wants Trump to pander to identity politics because that was the winning ticket for Hillary...oh, wait, never mind. But as long as we’re looking for someone, ah, “intersectional”, I propose a person of color universally respected in this country who is gay and has great name recognition. Yessiree, Vice President Jussie Smollett sounds pretty good to me.
anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.
////////
sez you’re inspired interpretation of the meaning of “natural born citizen” and the offspring of “natural born citizens.”
But expect the democrats to go full birther on haley and expect half the republican party to stand aside.
That’s your definition of a natural born citizen.
Not everyone shares that definition with you.
From DMZFrank | 12/22/2018 2:58:29 PM PST replied
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.
Here’s a better move: don’t take campaign advice from your enemies.
Not that Trump would need to be told this...
IOW, they want to be rid of Pence now to have a better chance in 2024. Another way of putting it is that, they know that 2020 is lost to democrats and want a better chance in 2024.
Pence is loyal. Keep him. He’s been a good VP.
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.