by Smitty
Byron York almost doesn’t seem to notice:
There really were a lot of Trump voters out there, and party officials could not, or did not want, to see them.
And what an astonishingly varied group of voters Trump attracted. At his victory celebration in Manchester Tuesday night, I met a young woman, Alexis Chiparo, who four years ago was an Obama-voting member of MoveOn.org. Now she is the Merrimack County chair of the Trump campaign.
I sure would like to know how many other core leaders in Trump’s campaign cut their teeth working for the Commies. I don’t know the lady–her support could be sincere. Or not.
You’ve gotta admit, the (Trump)mentum is rolling along. He just finished a speech at Clemson University earlier this evening to a full house at Garrison Arena.
I think Trump is going to steamroll through South Carolina.
Hmm. My thought is that, as soon as the rest of the field is whittled appropriately, there is going to be some heavy artillery leveled at His Donaldness.
It’s clear movement conservatives and strict constitutionalists(which is ridiculous considering the majority of conservatives support the Patriot Act, NSA mass surveillance, and the War on Drugs)make up far less of the party than previously thought.
I believe South Carolina is a closed primary? If that cuts down on the Trump support it’ll be informative.
It’s not.
From Donald Trump’s home town newspaper
And what is wrong with the Donald? To me, the fact that the GOPe and the Dems are frothing in their mouths and having convulsions is enough proof that the Donald must be doing something right.
It remains to be seen what Trump’s ceiling actually is. As long as Kasich and Bush remain in the race the Establishmentarians *spit* have hope. As long as there are people who believe the ”Establishment lane” is the way to beat Trump those two and Rubio will split the squishy swine vote and Trump and Cruz will take the rest.
Ah. Bummer.
The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
That goes without being said. I just think that people are so damn mad at the squishes we’ve had forced down our throats, that Trump is a statement vote.
Rubio is a squish. His support for amnesty has effectively removed him from contention.
Kasich had his moment in the sun last night in NH. He’s gone after SC.
Bush is…well, he’s Bush. Low energy and pretty much Hillary lite.
Carson is a nice guy and hasn’t gained any traction at all. SC will be the end of him.
I had thought about Cruz, but his support for the TPP and the fact that if He were to be the nominee would start a bunch of law suits about his eligibility.
Will the courts be as kind to Cruz as they were to Obama? I don’t think so.
I don’t know that Obama’s actual eligibility was properly litigated, merely the authenticity of his birth certificate.
I enjoy pointing out to Trump supporters that question Cruz’s eligibility that Trump himself had his lawyers look into it last September and they said it was a big nothingburger.
Doesn’t a fish rot from the head down?
Keep in mind, I say the following as a Cruz supporter.
I’ve read up on several different variations of arguments for and against NBC and how to change it, written at different times, and frankly, it’s complicated (I’ve had an interest even before Barry came along). It’s a procedural requirement, not a substantive one. Like saying, “sure you have a claim for a personal injury, but you didn’t file the complaint within the 2 year statute of limitations, so your claim is barred”. That pisses you off, because you have a substantive injury claim of merit, but procedurally, you lose because you missed the filing deadlines. Translate that to “Cruz (Rubio, Jindal, Obama, etc.) are pivotal to fixing substantive problems, so let’s just overlook that little procedural glitch…”.
Basically, the original intent of the Constitution is simply not being
followed. I tried to look at it differently, but it just stares ya in the face. Logically, Natural Born Citizen (NBC) really means two American parents and location to ensure a lack of foreign obligation, and was intended as such. It’s strict. If you don’t like that procedural requirement, fine, I agree, but you have to amend the Constitution to state as such.
Instead of amending it, which is hard, it is simply ignored it and “watered it down” to the point of having no effect by saying “naturalized” citizens are no different. Hence, we can, with a straight face, say that a person who was born in a foreign nation, but has only one parent
that is American, and another parent that is a foreign national, is an American NBC free of foreign obligations or entanglements, even though they have dual citizenship. Seriously? That’s not a knock on Cruz, or Obama, or
Rubio, it strikes me as ludicrous. It’s fine to consider them American (“naturalized”) citizens, but saying its the same as NBC is a stretch. Again, this only really matters for President, nothing else.
“Citizen at Birth” per Act of Congress or Citizenship per the 14th Amendment (anchor baby) are both forms of “naturalized” citizenship per the SCOTUS, i.e., a law is required to make you an American citizen. NBC results from simply being born to American parents on American “soil” – no act of law is required. People like Mark Levin see this as a distinction without a difference, but its like saying an NFL player is the same as a college player because they both play football.
I think the intent has been f”ed up/ignored legally for so long that rather than fix it, it’s just practiced incorrectly as if it were correct. Look up old articles on it from the 80’s – people wanted the Constitution amended to permit Americans born of American parents overseas to become NBC for purposes of being President, because they knew that’s what was needed. But instead, they just decided to “pretend” it’s not an issue, and “change” it in practice. Kinda like the SCOTUS rewriting Obamacare instead of making Congress fix it – a result in search of a rationale that violates the Constitution, all to achieve a practical result.
It’s hard to fix a mistake – and its easier to just continue making it so long as no one bitches about it. Hence the “nothing burger” – the courts just don’t want to deal with it. That’s not the same as being wrong or being frivolous. I see similar behavior all the time before judges – you have procedural law on your side, and they dismiss it out of hand because it prevents them from reaching a result they want. “It’s a tax, not a penalty” anyone?
I don’t believe it was. My bitch with him was his burden of proof was so low (i.e. produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate), and he couldn’t even do that until 3 1/2 years into his first term (and only because Trump pushed him to do it). Once he would have produced it, then it would fall to all the naysayers to legally challenge it. But how can you challenge it when he hadn’t produced it before he was elected? Hence the 4 year kerfluffle. At least Cruz produced his years in advance, meeting his initial burden of proof.
I also don’t know if Barry’s was ever filed with the Clerk of the Senate or other records office. I know it was posted online, but that’s not the same, legally. For example, a fraudulent certificate that is filed officially would be subject to criminal penalties.
The phrase “natural-born citizen” isn’t defined by the Constitution, so for good or ill it’s defined by what the Law says it is.
From what I understand, the law at the time Ted Cruz was born stated that if one parent is a citizen and has lived in the United States for at least 5 years after the age of 14, then their child is a natural-born citizen no matter where they were born.
The same law applied to Barack Obama didn’t automatically qualify him because his mother was 18 when he was born, and thus hadn’t lived in the United States for 5 years after the age of 14. That’s why it mattered whether he was born in Kenya or in Hawaii.
I voted for Obama twice.
Sorry.
Volunteered for him in 2008.
Oops.
Trump doesn’t look so bad.
Basically I just want a way to say “f-ck you” to the people in charge. I don’t expect my life to improve except by my own efforts and a lot of luck.
That former Obama supporters lean Trump doesn’t make me think he’s a secret democrat as much as either (A) he pisses off the correct people or (B) people like myself are just suckers for charismatic populists.
Is that real? I mean the part where a Jew will meet with the KKK.
Ummm… let me guess – they’ll say he’s a racist misogynist.
Amnesty is nothing more than a “bring more” sign.
A racist misogynist homophobic fish!
If Trump manages to build the wall, stop the job killing H-1B visa, can the middle class killing trade “deals”, throw Obama’s Iran deal in the garbage, AND stop muslim immigration, he’s worth my vote regardless of what else he does…
To which no definitive answer ever did emerge.
If the Establishment wants to have any hope of elevating ¡Marco! or any other Establishment candidate over Trump they have to get ¡Jeb! off the stage. They don’t have the guts to do that.
¡Marco! is as Establishment as ¡Jeb! or ¡Kasich!. So as long as there are two of them the Establishment can’t offer any means of defeating Trump or Cruz. And ¡Jeb! won’t leave…
Being a natural born US citizen is not a matter of *where* a person is born. Obama is not a natural born US citizen, even if he really was born in Hawaii, because his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth (nor ever was, for that matter).
Anyone not the child of two American Citizens isn’t “natural born”.
That’s because you enjoy not using your mind when reason will take you where you don’t want others to go.
Anyone who favors the PATRIOT Act, NSA spying, DHS, TSA, or the abuse of the Constitution that IS the FEDERAL “war on drugs” cannot possibly be called a conservative. Because all of those things are clearly “progressive”.
Trump has all the right enemies…
“Natural Born Citizen (NBC) really means two American parents and location to ensure a lack of foreign obligation”
That’s not precisely correct. Being a natural born US citizen doesn’t require that one be born on US soil. Nor does it require that *both* one’s parents be US citizens. Rather, it requires that one’s *father* be a US citizen (*) who has lived in the US for a certain number of years at the time of one’s birth.
(*) and for this, being a naturalized citizen is sufficient.
My biggest sin was voting for Clinton in 1992 (hey, I was 20…). My next biggest sin? Voting straight GOP from 1994-2012. Both parties need to be destroyed.
“The phrase “natural-born citizen” isn’t defined by the Constitution, so for good or ill it’s defined by what the Law says it is.”
Is that the best ya got? It must be, because you people alwats trot it out, aas though it means anything.
The Constitution also doesn’t define “year”, of “age”, so until there is a law defining what “thirty-five years of age” means, who is to say what it means.
Likewise, the Constitution doesn’t define “marriage”, so, clearly, it can mean whatever the Powers That Be want it to mean today.
?
One can produce all manner of other illustrations of the absurdity of this “argument”.
That’s the “lawyer” trap, saying it isn’t defined in the Constitution (as a lawyer, I can say that). The Constitution does not have a “definitions” section like a statute usually does, but that does give us carte blanche to redefine “arms” to mean only a knife. That’s what our liberal buddies have done for 80 years – language in the Constitution “never” means what it says. Hence the fight over the right to firearms. It took Scalia writing a huge decision outlining the history to make clear what the words on the document already did. It’s just that libs don’t like guns, so they will incessantly try to read the 2nd Amendment to say something it doesn’t. Results in search of rationales.
Also, Congress has the power to grant citizenship “naturalization”, not just to foreigners that want to be Americans, but also to children of Americans born overseas. That’s the “Citizen at Birth” point. That allows Congress to protect those children and give them citizen rights. But NBC doesn’t require law, just birth circumstances. So Congress has the power to change the law on granting citizenship, but not the power to redefine NBC as stated in the Constituion. Otherwise, Congress would have the power to change the meaning of ANY word in the Constituion, which would thus negate any need for an Amendment process. The Courts have been doing that for 100 years, much to our detriment.
RE Cruz, his issue is that his father is a Cuban national, his mother American, and he was born in Canada. After birth, his mother applied to the Feds to naturalize him per statute, since his mother was American. So if you subscribe to a pure NBC standard, he’s missing location and on american parent. For example, the Great One, Mark Levin (who is a big Cruz supporter), calls him “naturalized” because he gets citizenship from his mom via law. That is true, he’s a citizen, but not a NBC. He’s a citizen by means of operation of law, which is A-OK for every other purpose BUT president. Levin thinks that means he’s NBC too, but if that is the case, then take it to its logical conclusion – why is only that type of “naturalization” sufficient for NBC? Why then couldn’t a truly foreign born person not become an American citizen and then run for president? He/she was “naturalized” too, right? How does Congress’ acts not violate the original intent of the Constitution? What would stop them?
RE Obama, you are correct. Given the law at his birth, if he was born in Kenya he would not even be able to be NATURALIZED under law because the law was different back then for naturalization. But if NBC means two American parents and location, Obama fails that too even if born stateside because his father was a Kenyan British National. That’s a situation worse than Cruz’s (which is why it would be insane for the left to challenge Cruz on this).
I’m not saying I have all the answers on this issue – I’m saying this is not cut and dried like its sold it is.
The sticking point with NBC is John Jay’s concern about foreign influence, foreign obligations. NBC carries a certain meaning (especially back then), otherwise the Framers would have just used “American Citizen” or “AC, natural born or naturalized”. They didn’t. That creates a better argument for parentage being the most important factor, regardless of birth location. But having one foreign national parent makes you NBC? That’s a bridge too far.
When people like Levin resort to lefty tactics of ridicule and refusing to address the situation any further, or even take calls on it, that doesn’t sway me on the strength of his argument. That’s “science is settled” crap. I listen to his argument, expecting him to address each issue raised, but he didn’t. he glossed over very important ones that were easliy answered (if he was right), and at that point he resorts to name calling. Neil Boortz used to be that way on abortion – “fingers in the ears la-la-la I can’t hear you”. And I’m a Levin fan that listens to him daily, because he’s an originalist. That’s why his stance on this gives me pause – I thought he might be right, but now I’m not so sure. I think he likes Cruz, and thinks he’s vital to the nation, so he’s willing to look the other way.
Again, amend the Constitution to include naturalized citizens (or specify the instances) and this goes away. But don’t shortcut it via law.
If they wait too late, it won’t matter what they do. By doing so in SC, they stand something of a chance. Frankly, however, I won’t vote for Rubio if he is the nominee. He’s already shown us what he is and I won’t vote for CINO.
The original definition the founders accepted was 2 citizen parents and born on US soil.
With increasing presence of US citizens outside the country, that has changed. From my time as a MilBrat, I know there are hoops the parents have to jump through if you were born outside the US, but can’t remember what they are. I have a friend who was born in Germany to an Army father and his birth certificate is in German. Under the law, however, he is a natural born citizen.
My understanding of the law is that one of the parents must be a US citizen, and doesn’t have to be the father. Cruz met that standard.
The U.S. Constitution doesn’t mention “marriage.”
Just like it does not mention a specific religion (except for the date), shoes, sexual preferences, or an official recipe for Johnnycake.
That doesn’t stop the politicos from messing with those things.
I noticed that – I think the Father angle was like the “women can’t vote” issue – fathers mattered legally and not mothers at the time of enactment. The 14th Amendment, at its passage, would permit mothers to be elevated to fathers (meaning 2 required, not either/or), but if the intent was to avoid a foreign obligation, how does having one parent NOT American (NBC or naturalized) address that? If you are not counting Mom, legally, that does the trick, or no?
It never was litigated. The courts did not allow it.
What was posted online was shown to be a hoax. Whoever tampered with it was stupid enough to leave the layers in place, rather than collapse it to one as you would expect in an image scan.
Do you know what law/Act says that a naturalized citizen is a Natural Born Citizen? I haven’t found any cite to one that states that. Levin didn’t address this, and an Act conveying “naturalized citizenship” in those military situations is not the same as granting NBC unless it specifically states it does. I think this is the pivot point on this matter. (FYI my nephew is born of an NBC American father and Spanish mother in Spain on a military base, and he had dual citizenship until he renounced it at age 18 to enter West Point).
I don’t know the nitty-gritty technical details on that, but once I heard about the layers my first thought was “that’s not a direct scan”. That’s why scans, etc. not filed of record carry zero weight. Try filing a basic civil complaint and serving it that way, you’d be laughed out of court. The filing matters, and just slapping it out there online did nothing but get the media off it.
I know exactly one self-identifying Trump supporter. He too voted twice for Obama. He isn’t marginalized by the establishment. He isn’t a “disaffected” voter. I get the impression he’d vote for Heath Ledger’s Joker if he could. Some people just want to watch the world burn.
I think it’s already too late. The GOPe should have had “The Talk” with ¡Jeb! before Iowa…
Trump might manage that.
LIB is a legitimate political, social position.
The Spanish mother was the kicker there. My friend had two US citizen parents and did not acquire German citizenship as a result.
I’ve seen the law cited in several places, but didn’t keep up with the cite so can’t lay hands on it immediately.
It got some people off it, but only those who wanted to get off it.
The same thing was said, at different times, of Caesar, Sulla, Marius, and Augustus.