"There are countless horrible things happening all over the world and horrible people prospering, but we must never allow them to disturb our equanimity or deflect us from our sacred duty to sabotage and annoy them whenever possible." -Auberon Waugh
Ann Coulter's thing here is a must-read I believe:http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html#read_moreExcerpt 'A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born -- but only by "naturalization," i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born." 'Brilliant stuff. Top level historical insight, but bad news.
No, she doesn't know what she's talking about, which is sad given her previous efforts. If one looks at DonJohn's family history, his suitability is only marginally better than Sen Cruz's.Moreover, the natural-born qualifier w written to counter those who sought to draft the Marquis de Lafayette (or others) as a substitute King of the US.Cheers
Guess who's out of cocktail parties, bbqs, Christmas...and tge will. BTW, who is his mom? Surely not Jane Fonda. She wouldn't let her offspring go to a military school.As to his remarks....he's confirming what most have known for years.
Good examples Minicapt but do the US Supremes accept that logic? Is that in their judgements anywhere? She has shown the line of legal precedent they have created, I would think that's strong stuff. You only need to convince Their Honors. Anyway if the law is against people like Cruz being "natural born" it needs to be changed. But who will change it, and how?
The problem is a real one. Barack Obama was born of an American mother, but he has documents supposedly proving he was born in Hawaii, an American state, and no other definitive proof shows he was born elsewhere. Ted Cruz also was born of an American mother, but he was born in Canada. My own personal interpretation of that clause is that if you were born on foreign soil, you were not eligible to be President of the United States. There's no getting around that strict interpretation of the Constitution.On the other hand, if we are in the age of Constitutional re-interpretation (as supposed by the Obama administration), this should be an easy decision: American mother, American child.I'm an originalist, so I don't like this interpretation, but I'm also pragmatic, so if it saves us from Donald Trump and/or Hillary Clinton, I'm going to hold my nose, confess my sins, and accept it.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.Why does it say: A natural born citizen, 'OR' a citizen of the United States?Why would they include both, if they don't both apply? Why wouldn't 'natural born citizen' cover only those born in/before the United States was established? Anyone born in/after the United States was established would automatically be a citizen; the 'natural born' qualifier wouldn't be needed. Read that sentence without the 'or a citizen' part. How would it change the meaning?And what's up with: at the time of the adoption of this constitution? Why include that?
And what's up with: at the time of the adoption of this constitution? Why include that?Coz at the time of adoption of the constitution, there were no natural born citizens of the USA, everybody excepting newborn babes, had been born a British subject.
...everybody excepting newborn babes, had been born a British subject.I guess that's true, from the British perspective. I don't think the colonists would necessarily agree.
Mark Levin says Cruz is eligible. That's enough for me.
I'm with Deborah.
Post a Comment