If Ted Cruz Wins Iowa…
…how does that change the dynamics of the race?
For one thing, Trump says if Cruz catches on, he would “go to war” with Cruz — although I’m quite certain that was a comment that Big Media (the CNBC Squawk Box people) tried to goad him to give.
I don’t think Ted Cruz will “go to war” with Donald Trump — and contrary to what some might think, this is not weakness. This is how Ted Cruz handles the media’s game of trying to pit Republicans against one another:
Cruz is relentlessly positive and issue-oriented, and Big Media — which pretends to be issue-oriented, is in truth anything but.
Bring on the “wars.”
If Cruz wins Iowa, it will knock Jindal out of the race and hurt Carson, and make Cruz the focus of attacks by Trump and the establishment candidates (Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Fiorina, Christie and Graham). The media will immediately claim that New Hampshire is the only vote that matters, not caucus states like Iowa.
If Cruz also wins South Carolina, the establishment and the media will panic and hope that the Romney changes to the GOP delegate rules will keep Rubio alive past the Southern March 1st primary states.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/17/2015 @ 8:38 amCruz – without a doubt is the most qualified to be president
Some will argue that he is a one term senator – the last one was a disaster.
Some will argue that he hasnt produced any good legislation, however preventing bad legislation from passing is an accomplishment.
The dems will point to all the experience of Hillary – though they will never point out her accomplishments – are there any accomplishments?
joe (debac0) — 11/17/2015 @ 8:39 amA debate champion like Cruz is smart enough not to get down in the playground mud with a sideshow freak like Trump. I think he’ll give Trump enough rope to hang himself with, like Obama did by with Romney by pointing out his support for socialized medicine, gun control, abortion, all the things RINOs love or overlook.
CrustyB (69f730) — 11/17/2015 @ 9:55 amSince it’s questionable if Cruz is a natural born citizen, he might not qualify for the presidency. Too bad because he’s probably the best man for the job. However, constitutional restrictions don’t seem to carry the weight they once did, so I don’t expect much focus on Article 2, Section 1, clause 5 unless Cruz wins, then Dems will begin an intense focus (with all the usual suspects front and center) on the most restrictive definition of a natural born ever promulgated and conclude overwhelmingly that Cruz is illegitimate and the issue is settled law, with all the left-wing academic legal ducktalkers quacking in unison.
ropelight (fd015f) — 11/17/2015 @ 9:57 amOn one hand, I can count the politicians I think of as role models. Adding Cruz, I still have a couple of fingers to spare.
Thank you, Patterico, for the post.
ThOR (a52560) — 11/17/2015 @ 10:03 amIt is not questionable if he is a natural born citizen.
JD (7dbed3) — 11/17/2015 @ 10:16 amcarson makes trump look like mount rushmore material
happyfeet (a037ad) — 11/17/2015 @ 10:17 amDid Cruz change his position against ethanol subsidies? http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/09/ted-cruz-woos-iowa-ag-summit-with-principled-anti-ethanol-subsidy-stance/ Because I don’t see him getting a majority in Iowa otherwise.
nk (dbc370) — 11/17/2015 @ 10:45 amHe did not change his position on ethanol. Maybe the subsidy doesn’t matter as much or maybe it matters more to establishment voters in Iowa, but Cruz is turning out more conservative voters.
DRJ (76a58a) — 11/17/2015 @ 10:57 amHe is well organized and that matters in the early States.
DRJ (76a58a) — 11/17/2015 @ 10:58 amNew Hampshire will be hearing challenges to Cruz’s eligibility on Nov 24.
DRJ (76a58a) — 11/17/2015 @ 11:03 amBernie Sanders is challenged too [ed. he certainly is] as not being a Democrat.
nk (dbc370) — 11/17/2015 @ 11:13 amAt #6, JD contradicted my assertion at #4 that Ted Cruz’s status as a natural born citizen was “questionable.”
Here are a few facts:
* Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz was born in 1970 in Calgary, Canada,
* His mother was born in Delaware but his father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, was born in Cuba,
* Ted Cruz held dual American/Canadian citizenship,
* Cruz’s father became a naturalized American citizen in 2005,
* Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship 5/15/2014.
These few facts show it’s certainly reasonable to question whether Ted Cruz meets the constitution’s natural born citizen requirement now, before the election, rather than later under a court challenge.
ropelight (fd015f) — 11/17/2015 @ 11:38 amMake that: * Ted Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship 5/14/2014,
ropelight (fd015f) — 11/17/2015 @ 11:41 amWasn’t McCain also born outside the country, as a US citizen?
And Obama had dual citizenship at birth.
So neither aspect is an issue, both have been settled by precident.
scrubone (c3104f) — 11/17/2015 @ 12:00 pmI agree it’s good that Cruz is taking a principled stance.
But he’s going to have to be very careful that he doesn’t slip up, or do something that can be painted by the media as a slipup. The latter in particular is pretty much impossible to avoid.
scrubone (c3104f) — 11/17/2015 @ 12:02 pmCruz doesn’t have to slip up to be painted by the media, including the GOPe-supporting media, as a slip up. Allahpundit over at HotAir has been bending over backward of late to misrepresent Cruz’ record as he shills for the GOPe.
The promise of Cruz is that he will be able to shepherd his message better than the rest. He’s no Reagan, but he’s close.
ThOR (a52560) — 11/17/2015 @ 12:18 pmMcCain was born to two U.S. citizens on a U.S. Naval Airbase in Panama. That is a bit different than Cruz’s situation. As I recall, the Congress had some sort of bipartisan review that determined that McCain was eligible to run, and no court challenges to his eligibility were accepted. It probably wouldn’t be much different if Cruz is nominated in terms of keeping him off the ballot, but I guess it’s conceivable that Democrats and liberal interest groups could go to court to try and block his inauguration should he win, just as ropelight suggests. That would certainly be a brouhaha.
JVW (738b08) — 11/17/2015 @ 12:39 pmAccording to Bartiromo, her tenure as First Lady is part of her experience.
Gerald A (5dca03) — 11/17/2015 @ 12:47 pmIs Ted Cruz a “Natural born citizen”
1) The phrase/clause is “natural born citizen” – as opposed naturally born in territory comprising the united states citizen.
joe (debac0) — 11/17/2015 @ 1:05 pm2) his is a US citizen as the result of his mother being a US Citizen.
3) H
Is Ted Cruz a “Natural born citizen”
1) The phrase/clause is “natural born citizen” – as opposed naturally born in territory comprising the united states citizen.
2) his is a US citizen as the result of his mother being a US Citizen.
3) He is naturally born as opposed to c-section or artificial semination (at least we are presuming) vs cloning, etc.
joe (debac0) — 11/17/2015 @ 1:05 pm
joe (debac0) — 11/17/2015 @ 1:08 pmI don’t think it’s questionable at all whether or not Cruz is a natural born citizen. He *is*. He was born abroad to a US citizen mother; that made him a citizen at birth under the rules in place at the time.
aphrael (73b83f) — 11/17/2015 @ 1:29 pmJVW – Cruz is much more clearly a citizen than McCain was.
The issue with McCain is that *at the time he was born*, the law did not automatically grant citizenship to children of US citizens born in the canal zone. A few years after that, the law was amended to retroactively confer citizenship at birth.
The specific wording of the law at the time of McCain’s birth was that citizenship automatically adhered to “any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States”. Due to a technical lacuna in US law, the Canal Zone was considered to be outside the limits of the US but not outside the jurisdiction of the US. The problem was recognized by Congress, which passed a specific statute to retroactively confer birthright citizenship on people born there.
Opinions may differ on whether it is possible for Congress to retroactively confer natural-born citizen status to someone who was not, under US law, considered a citizen at the moment he was born. But the existence of the debate suffices to make McCain’s status unclear absent a court ruling.
Cruz, on the other hand, has no cloud of confusion over his citizenship. He was inarguably a citizen at the moment he was born.
aphrael (73b83f) — 11/17/2015 @ 1:35 pmOf Canada or of the US, or both?
ropelight (fd015f) — 11/17/2015 @ 1:56 pmOr maybe he was also a citizen of Cuba.
ropelight (fd015f) — 11/17/2015 @ 1:57 pmRopelight – under American law at the time of his birth, Ted Cruz was inarguably a citizen at the moment he was born.
I don’t know enough about Canadian, or Cuban, law to comment on them.
aphrael (73b83f) — 11/17/2015 @ 2:56 pmwell he was born in Canada, his father was likely a national of Canada, and there was an expectation however misguided of possible return at that time,
narciso (732bc0) — 11/17/2015 @ 3:02 pmaphrael, the issue isn’t whether Cruz was a citizen or not, the question is, was Cruz a natural born citizen. That issue is unsettled and should be fully addressed prior to election day.
ropelight (fd015f) — 11/17/2015 @ 3:03 pmRopelight – while the phrase hasn’t been defined by the supreme court, I think it’s generally understood that “automatically a citizen at the time of birth” and “natural born citizen” are synonymous.
aphrael (73b83f) — 11/17/2015 @ 3:06 pmaphreal, I understand the urge to assume so, but if that was so there would be no need to distinguish between an ordinary citizen and the only kind eligible for the presidency.
ropelight (fd015f) — 11/17/2015 @ 3:31 pmNo, Cruz was never a citizen of Cuba. http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/Cuba%20Constitution.pdf (Articles 29-31.)
nk (dbc370) — 11/17/2015 @ 4:08 pm“Natural born” means born to registered Democrats.
nathony kennedy (dbc370) — 11/17/2015 @ 4:09 pmI love Steve King. Cruz should find a cabinet post for him. I like Steyn for press sec.
mg (31009b) — 11/17/2015 @ 4:12 pmCruz/West
Steyn for press sec.
That would be awesome.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 11/17/2015 @ 4:17 pmmaybe one of the candidates will make that a campaign promise…
On the contrary, it is very questionable. You are trying to sneak in the assumption that “natural born citizen” means “citizen at birth”. I don’t believe it does, and I have not seen any serious argument that it does. People just assert it as if it were self-evidently true, and pretend to be astonished that anyone might question it.
I don’t believe Cruz is a natural born citizen, but at this point I no longer care. If the Electors vote for him, and the House counts their votes, then he will be the legitimate president regardless of eligibility. There was a 29-year-old senator once, and nobody ever questioned the legitimacy of bills he voted on. Once he was sworn in he was a senator like all the others, and that was that.
I’d prefer a president who was eligible to the office, but not so much that I would accept a Trump or a Huckabee, let alone a Clinton or a Sanders — or a Michelle 0bama — in his place. The poor old constitution will be in better shape with an ineligible president who respects it than with an eligible one who despises it. Perhaps he will shed a tear over the matter, as Agrippa I did when he publicly read Deuteronomy 17:15, which made him ineligible to his office.
The best evidence we have for what the term “natural born citizen” meant in the 18th century is Blackstone’s definition of the term “natural born subject”. He defined it as one who was born under the protection of English law. He specifies that that includes “the king’s embassadors” who are physically in a foreign location but are still protected by English law, rather than by those of the foreign country where they are located.
This definition fits very well with the one used nearly a century later in the 14th amendment to define who is guaranteed citizenship, so well that it is surely the exact same concept. Therefore McCain counts, because he was born on a US naval base, under the protection of US law. If someone had tried to strangle him in his cradle, they would have been arrested by USA MPs, and tried by a USA tribunal under USA law.
Possession of dual citizenship, at birth or at any other time, is completely irrelevant. There is nothing in the constitution that even hints that dual nationals may not be president. Cruz did not have to renounce his Canadian citizenship to run. If he is eligible without it then he would be equally eligible with it.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 4:40 pmnk, Ted Cruz was born in 1970 in Calgary, Canada, 6 years before the 1976 Cuban Constitution at your link. Although his father had once fought for Castro, he later became disenchanted with the increasingly communist direction of the Cuban revolution and fled the island prior to Castro’s takeover for the US and an education in Texas.
ropelight (fd015f) — 11/17/2015 @ 4:41 pmit’s more accurate to say, he was in the antibatista movement, as were many, including many of Fidel’s most significant future foes, most counterrevolutionary running dogs, were on the other side of the ledger at one point,
narciso (732bc0) — 11/17/2015 @ 4:46 pmI don’t believe that is generally understood, or was even heard of until recently. When I was at school there seemed to be no question in anyone’s mind that it meant born in the USA. I never heard any other definition proposed until 2008.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 4:48 pmNo, ropelight, there would certainly be the need to distinguish between a citizen at birth and one who obtained his citizenship later.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 4:50 pmJindal is out, which suggests his in trial polls show the Iowa polling is shifting away from him. Is it shifting to Carson or Cruz or maybe Trump? Maybe the King endorsement helped Cruz more than a little.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/17/2015 @ 4:52 pmInternal polls, not in trial.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/17/2015 @ 4:52 pmno one seriously cares, this was a notion floated by Alan Keyes’s supporter and one of Red Queen’s, what someone believes is more important than the parentage of one or other, at a particular point,
narciso (732bc0) — 11/17/2015 @ 4:54 pmAssuming that the 1976 Constitution did not codify or restate pre-existing law; and further assuming that Spanish/Cuban/Communist law prohibits ex post facto in the first place; constitutions can and do operate ex post facto and nunc pro tunc.
nk (dbc370) — 11/17/2015 @ 4:55 pmit’s all periodical literature, anyways as Degaulle said of pre’58 regimes,
http://babalublog.com/2015/11/17/reconciliation-impossible-until-the-castro-dynasty-relinquishes-power-and-is-tried-for-its-crimes/
narciso (732bc0) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:00 pmJindal’s out. What a pity, but I suppose it was inevitable. I was desperately hoping that something would break right for him, but it’s over, so now I think I’m stuck supporting either Cruz or Rubio. I think I’d be happy with either one, and happier than with any of the remaining candidates. But I still think Cruz would do better making a name for himself in the senate, and then serving on the supreme court.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:02 pm#35, Milhouse, Blackstone is irrelevant, Americans are not subjects, we are citizens who elect our leaders, not subjects born naturally to serve a hereditary monarch. As such, in no way do the duties and responsibilities of a natural born subject inform us on the deep and subtle meaning of a natural born American citizen.
#36, Milhouse, we do make that distinction, those who obtain their citizenship later are naturalized citizens, but only natural born citizens are eligible for the presidency, and they’re a specific subgroup of birthright citizens. Otherwise there would have been no reason to identify them in Article 2.
ropelight (fd015f) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:04 pmRopelight, the term “natural born citizen” was derived directly from “natural born subject”, and meant the same thing. The change in term was indeed because US citizens are not subjects; that’s irrelevant to its meaning.
Re your second paragraph, you’re not making any sense. If natural born citizen means citizen at birth (which I don’t think it does), then that is precisely what the Article 2 clause was for. How else do you suggest the framers should have indicated this requirement?
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:13 pmWhat is all this about Cruz winning Iowa?
Polls can be wrong or misleading, but this is what they show now:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html
In the four most recent polls:
Trump: 20% to 25%
Carson: 21% ro 28%
Cruz: 9% to 15%
Rubio: 10% to 18%
Bush: 5% to 9%
Fiorina: 4% to 5%
Jindal: 1% to 6% (may be affected by being included or not included as a prompt I think)
Huckabee: Ditto 1% to 6%
Christie: 2% to 3%
Kasich: 2% to 3%
Paul: 2% in all 4
Santorum: 0% to 2%
Graham: 1 poll at 2%, the other 3, zero.
Pataki: 0% and in one poll nobody mentioned him (that would be no one among 300 to 500 people)
Polls can be off by a lot, especially if the question in a poll is a bit of a different question than what people are going to be asked to do, although I think for the Republicans it is close – it is straw poll.
I am not sure if they have rough counts before, but people give speeches for each candidate.
Of course there’s also the attendance factor. Lots of evangelicals (people connected to chirches and very interested, for instance, in stopping or limiting abortions) attend Republican IOwa presidential caucuses, and they would go more for Carson.
Sammy Finkelman (c8f489) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:13 pmhttp://siouxcityjournal.com/news/state-and-regional/iowa/impact-of-king-s-cruz-endorsement-limited-unless-others-follow/article_2c504663-9438-5eb7-a3a2-ff1b25e3dc75.html
mg (31009b) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:20 pmCruz could be President for two terms and still be young enough to serve on the Supreme Court. It’s unlikely given how partisan politics has become, but he could never go straight to the Court from the Senate. He could only get on the Court if he was popular enough to overcome partisanship, and the only way that could happen is if he had the springboard of being a popular Presidrnt.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:21 pm“You are trying to sneak in the assumption that “natural born citizen” means “citizen at birth”. I don’t believe it does, and I have not seen any serious argument that it does.”
That is exactly what it means. It means “born a citizen” as opposed to a “naturalized citizen”. Any argument to the contrary is fatuous, frivolous, and fraudulent.
Mark Johnson (a0593a) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:25 pmRE: 51.
Exactly.
Steve Malynn (b5f891) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:28 pmHow do you know? What 18th century source supports such an interpretation? For that matter, what 19th or 20th century source supports such an interpretation?
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:28 pmYes, I had made the early prediction of Walker/Jindal, uniting the heartland of America from North to South.
Yes, there is a reason I don’t think I know much about political predictions.
But it does show how terrible a state the nation is in. Two people with the most experience and the most ideas couldn’t get traction. I guess one needs to be a bit of a celebrity to attract attention in order to suck the attraction away from others.
Hopefully Jindal will have the opportunity to clean up some branch of the executive office.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:31 pmConsider this, Milhouse.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:35 pmCruz-Rubio is my choice, MD.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:36 pmBeing a Governor shows they can handle bureaucracy. There was a time that was a good thing but not now. Now we need leaders who can dismantle the bureaucracy, not expand and/or handle it.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:38 pmWhat do people know about the gov of NM, I know some have spoken of her as a VP type in the past.
MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:38 pmmost of the candidates who foundered seem to have had a mistaken understanding of what the campaign was about, you pitch your own tent, worry about the other guy,
narciso (732bc0) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:38 pmJindal should be the point man on dismantling ObamaCare and working to help the States deal with the aftermath. He has the perfect skill-set as a healthcare wonk and Govetnor.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:40 pmCruz/West is mine.
John Hitchcock (7147ac) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:41 pmMartinez is a good Governor for a small State but running NM is like being mayor of a medium-sized city. It is not enough to be a VP.
DRJ (15874d) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:43 pmCruz/Rubio, or Cruz/Fiorina. I don’t see much daylight between Rubio and Fiorina as far as what they say about conservatism. Of course, we’ve had more opportunity to see Rubio in action as a politician, for better or worse.
Dana (86e864) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:43 pmLady Dana, your options put in my mind Reagan/Bush. And I was never enthralled by the guy who mocked Reaganomics.
John Hitchcock (7147ac) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:51 pmThank you for the reference, DRJ, but I’m not impressed. They cite Blackstone but appear not to have actually read him, because they don’t address the fact that he gives a definition incompatible with theirs. Also, their argument that Jay would not have excluded his own foreign-born children holds no water if you read Blackstone, since Blackstone explicitly lists ambassadors’ children as natural born despite the foreign location of their birth. And he explains why they are exceptions, in a way that includes McCain but excludes Cruz. For Clement and Katyal to have ignored this they must have been unaware of it, because they didn’t bother looking up Blackstone before citing him.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:59 pmTheir reference to the Naturalization Act of 1790 is a strong argument, but I understand Congress to have been giving such children the same rights as if they were natural born, not declaring that they were so. I admit this depends on a fine parsing of the phrase “shall be considered as natural born citizens”.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:00 pmthere haven’t been two senators on a ticket, since Kennedy/Johson,
narciso (732bc0) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:02 pmI’m not saying yours is an inherently unreasonable position to take, but I’d like to see some source for it that predates the 21st century.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:02 pm0bama/Biden.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:03 pmAnybody but Hillary except Trump, and I will vote for Trump if the Cubs are in the World Series next year (I will accept it as proof that Hell has frozen over).
nk (dbc370) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:04 pmwell I blocked them out, but that shows how rare that alignment is,
narciso (732bc0) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:08 pm#47, Milhouse, nonsense! Citizens are not subjects, natural born or otherwise. You assume facts not in evidence. The Framers specified only natural born citizens were eligible for the presidency, if they had intended to exclude only naturalized citizens they could and would have done so, but they didn’t, they excluded all but a very specific and clearly defined sub-set of birthright citizens.
A natural born citizen is a birthright citizen born of parents who are both citizens.
ropelight (fd015f) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:13 pmWho decides? If it’s Congress, under its naturalization power in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, then it’s whoever Congress says it is plus whoever the the Fourteenth Amendment says it is.
If it’s the Supreme Court, then natural born citizens could be the gay transgender children of biracial vegan atheists.
nk (dbc370) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:15 pmDRJ,
I think it’s interesting that not only could Cruz end up on the Supreme Court, but if elected president, he could end up appointing several justices to the court. Of course, if it doesn’t look like Hillary will take the presidency, Ginsburg may retire sooner than she intended so that Obama, not President Cruz, would select her replacement.
Dana (86e864) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:16 pmConsider this: The Founders specified a natural born citizen in order to ensure no US president would hold conflicting allegiances. If our president was born of a foreign parent he could be seriously influenced by that parent’s penchant for the beliefs and traditions of the old country.
We need look no further than the current occupant of our White House to validate the Founder’s very real fears of such divided loyalties.
ropelight (fd015f) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:38 pmIf Hillary is destined to lose, and I still give her a bit better than a 50% chance of winning, it probably won’t be apparent until a month or two before the election. If Ginsburg suddenly resigned at that point, I assume even McConnell wouldn’t be incompetent enough to allow a vote on Obama’s appointee. Of course she might resign months earlier just in case.
Gerald A (949d7d) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:41 pmI agree with you, ropelight, that’s why Walker was my boy, but that’s a voter preference not a legal question.
Remember when the Gropinator was the GOP’s fair-haired boy and Orrin Hatch proposed a Constitutional Amendment to allow immigrants for President? That made me sick to my stomach.
nk (dbc370) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:47 pmI do indeed, nk, and I’ve never viewed Orrin Hatch in the same way since. How could the man who warned Slick Willy *to tell the truth under oath turn around and blatantly ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution? I’ll acknowledge the Constitution isn’t perfect but it’s sure better than what we have now.
*Of course Slick put his hand on the Bible and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but instead he lied like a dog and when cornered he absurdly weaseled out by quibbling over the meaning of “is.”
ropelight (fd015f) — 11/17/2015 @ 8:28 pmWhich is why they changed the term “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen”. But the two terms mean exactly the same thing. The meaning of “natural born” didn’t change, and neither did the underlying assumption, that a person has a natural loyalty to the sovereign whose laws protected him at birth.
Such as?
How would they have done so?
How do you know?
Says who? There is no support for that at all. Had you ever heard of this position before 2008?
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 8:30 pmThe supreme court won’t decide it. It’s decided by the Electors by casting their votes, and the House by counting them. If nobody in the House raises the objection then it’s rendered moot. If someone does raise the point, the House will vote whether to count the votes, and that will be that. And both the Electors and the House will decide it based on their partisan preferences, not based on what they really think the constitution means. There isn’t anybody to stand up for the constitution itself.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 8:33 pmRemember when the Gropinator was the GOP’s fair-haired boy and Orrin Hatch proposed a Constitutional Amendment to allow immigrants for President? That made me sick to my stomach.
Let me take one brief moment to stick up for Schwarzenegger, detestable as he turned out to be. The reports about him groping women on set came out just days before the 2003 recall election, they were pushed by Gloria Allred who is a camera hog and a Democrat operative, and they were published in the LA Times, a newspaper that had editorialized against the recall and who turned out to be purposely sitting on a story about how then-Governor Gray Davis had flown into screaming rages and berated female employees in his office, even throwing a flower pot at one of them. So when we started to hear that Arnie liked to play a little grab-ass on the set, it wasn’t hard to assume it was just a Democrat hit job. The fact that it turned out to be true is lamentable, but I don’t feel the need to apologize for treating the story with heavy skepticism at the time.
JVW (738b08) — 11/17/2015 @ 8:36 pmNothing at all in the constitution forbids a dual citizen from being elected president. A person may inherit a foreign citizenship from a grandparent, or may have acquired it himself while traveling (as 0bama may have done in Indonesia) without renouncing his US citizenship. Someone born in the USA, even to USA parents, might grow up in China or Russia, take citizenship there, marry there, even get involved in politics there, and then return to the USA at the age of 40 and be eligible for the presidency at 54. If you think that’s bizarre, consider that the prime minister of Denmark is married to a member of the UK parliament. Talk about conflict of interest there!
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 8:44 pmIn what way did he ignore it? Proposing an amendment is the very opposite of ignoring it. And there’s nothing wrong with amending the constitution, if you can get the votes for it. There’s nothing sacred about it.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 8:46 pm#83, Milhouse, I don’t hold the constitution sacred, but I do recognize it as the fundamental law of the land (and I’m aware of the amendment process). I’m also aware that Barack Obama’s divided loyalties have inflicted immense damage on the nation.
He’s exactly what the Founders were attempting to avoid, a president who adheres to an anti-American ideology. At every turn Obama has advanced policies which have degraded our economic well-being, put our citizens out of work, advantaged our enemies on the battlefield, coddled terrorists bent on mass murder, released terrorists from incarceration at GITMO, alienated our allies, armed our adversaries, lied at every turn, and used executive orders to usurp the powers of Congress.
We reap what we sow, and ignoring the natural born citizen requirement results in a harvest of woes, as recent experience so clearly demonstrates. What loyal American would want to repeat the last 7 years?
ropelight (fd015f) — 11/17/2015 @ 9:18 pmSo why did you object to Hatch proposing an amendment? How was that different from Madison et al proposing the first batch of twelve amendments (ten of which passed)?
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/18/2015 @ 8:06 amAnd you really imagine that had anything at all to do with the president’s father whom he barely knew??!! You really imagine it would have all been different if only his mother had got knocked up by someone who was born in America?! (I guess you’re not one of those who believe his real father was that all-American commie Frank Davis, because according to you that should have made him a good president!)
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/18/2015 @ 8:10 am#85, Milhouse, I object to a sitting US Senator proposing an amendment which in addition to being so obviously in direct conflict with the interests of the American people, is a naked example of political expediency.
#86, I have no clear notion of what in the world you’re alleging, however if you’re assuming that a child can’t only be influenced by someone other than an absent foreign born father then you’re nitpicking instead of elucidating. Please, if you want to be taken seriously, stop bending over backwards and make your case in good faith.
ropelight (2b5a9b) — 11/18/2015 @ 8:43 amThat the amendment was against the people’s interest is your peculiar and extremely fringe opinion. Hatch clearly thought such an amendment would be in the people’s interest, and IIRC polls showed that most Americans agreed with him. There was no political expediency involved, since the amendment would have enabled both Schwartzenegger and Granholm to run. Indeed no amendment can pass unless it helps both major parties equally.
It’s very simple: You claimed that the reason 0bama has been such a disaster is that he was sired by a man who lacked a US passport, which, according to your peculiar reading of the constitution, makes him not a natural born citizen. If only his sperm had come from a US citizen, you seem to be saying, the last 7 years would not have been the nightmare that they have been. But how could this possibly be? His sire played no part in raising him, and therefore could not possibly have had the slightest influence on how he turned out. The people who did raise him were US citizens.
I note in addition that you seem confident that BHO Sr was his father, and thus to place no credence in the fringe theory that he was the bastard son of Frank Marshall Davis, a genuine All-American commie, whose child by an American mother would be “natural born” even according to your interpretation.
Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/18/2015 @ 3:12 pmI do like this line
from http://louderwithcrowder.com/ted-cruz-like-youve-never-seen-throws-gauntlet-on-refugees/
seeRpea (71d373) — 11/19/2015 @ 8:07 am