2
2
0
Poll: Americans happy at home, upset with federal government
The divide between how the memberships of the two political parties view things is interesting. The way that Mr. Trump's supporters view things is even more interesting.
I can quite understand why Mr. Trump's stated desires to cleanse (metaphorically speaking, of course) America of malevolent "people whose values are not that of true Americans" while "restoring America's greatness" and "returning America to a place in the sun" can capture the imagination of people who feel that they have suffered from a "stab in the back"
The divide between how the memberships of the two political parties view things is interesting. The way that Mr. Trump's supporters view things is even more interesting.
I can quite understand why Mr. Trump's stated desires to cleanse (metaphorically speaking, of course) America of malevolent "people whose values are not that of true Americans" while "restoring America's greatness" and "returning America to a place in the sun" can capture the imagination of people who feel that they have suffered from a "stab in the back"
News from The Associated Press
Posted from customwire.ap.org
Election 2016
Politics
Statistics
United States
Economics
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
COL Ted Mc thanks for the thread, I have been out the loop for awhile, its nice to get an overview of the candidates and yes Donald Trump. Outstanding read!
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
"We the People" face an interesting, and disturbing conundrum this election cycle. On one Party side we find a Socialist and Hillary to choose from. Clinton is currently undergoing an extremely l-o-n-g FBI investigation that I suspect will dissolve into nothingness, not because of her innocence as much as her stature within the Washington elite.
Within the Republican Party a strange thing manifested itself. Three candidates; Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal. None of them seem to qualify iaw the US Constitution. Article Two mandates that a person must be a natural born citizen to hold Office as President. Rubio and Jindal were both born within the USA, but both lacked even one US citizen parent on the date of their birth. Cruz is a bit more complicated to those who do not comprehend what the term "natural born" citizen requires.
Cruz was born in Canada as a Canadian Citizen with a Canadian birth certificate in 1970. His father's nationality was Cuban when he was born in Canada (some say he was already a naturalized Canadian, but a moot point). His mother had just married Rafael Cruz, Ted's father, before they moved to Canada where they lived for eight years. Since she has been found to be on the Canadian Voter Rolls it seems she, to emigrated into Canada when her new husband did.
Seems Cruz was born in Canada to a foreign national father, whether Cuban or Canadian. Also, he renounced his Canadian citizenship after he was sworn in as a US Senator. Much to think about here and it will require a good founding in what the men who authored the US Constitution had in mind when they required natural born citizenship to be President.
Within the Republican Party a strange thing manifested itself. Three candidates; Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal. None of them seem to qualify iaw the US Constitution. Article Two mandates that a person must be a natural born citizen to hold Office as President. Rubio and Jindal were both born within the USA, but both lacked even one US citizen parent on the date of their birth. Cruz is a bit more complicated to those who do not comprehend what the term "natural born" citizen requires.
Cruz was born in Canada as a Canadian Citizen with a Canadian birth certificate in 1970. His father's nationality was Cuban when he was born in Canada (some say he was already a naturalized Canadian, but a moot point). His mother had just married Rafael Cruz, Ted's father, before they moved to Canada where they lived for eight years. Since she has been found to be on the Canadian Voter Rolls it seems she, to emigrated into Canada when her new husband did.
Seems Cruz was born in Canada to a foreign national father, whether Cuban or Canadian. Also, he renounced his Canadian citizenship after he was sworn in as a US Senator. Much to think about here and it will require a good founding in what the men who authored the US Constitution had in mind when they required natural born citizenship to be President.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
1SG James A. "Bud" Parker - First; Citing "Dred Scott" - a court decision which held (in part) that there was no way that the government could make either "Blacks" or "Indians" citizens of the United States of America and that, therefore, they had none of the constitutional protections which accrued to citizens of the United States of America - isn't actually the strongest support for your position possible.
And, since Blackstone was one of the foremost authorities on the "Common Law" of the day (if not THE foremost) then citing the "Common Law" in part and ignoring the rest of Blackstone doesn't do much better.
And, since Blackstone was one of the foremost authorities on the "Common Law" of the day (if not THE foremost) then citing the "Common Law" in part and ignoring the rest of Blackstone doesn't do much better.
(0)
(0)
1SG James A. "Bud" Parker
COL Ted Mc - My point in mentioning Dred Scott was not what the court proceedings were about, rather the fact that the Justices articulated what constitutes natural born. SCOTUS was never spoken to the issue of natural born citizenship in the context of the Office of President. In fact, they have unofficially commented that it is a political issue that must be addressed by the House.
Also, you're one of the rare few that has mentioned Blackstone in this discussion.
Let me ask you point plank without regard to any particular candidate. In the context of qualifications to hold Office as President what is a natural born citizen, and why did John Jay even bother with placing it in the Constitution?
Also, you're one of the rare few that has mentioned Blackstone in this discussion.
Let me ask you point plank without regard to any particular candidate. In the context of qualifications to hold Office as President what is a natural born citizen, and why did John Jay even bother with placing it in the Constitution?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
1SG James A. "Bud" Parker - First; To start, I believe that (under the current law) a "natural born citizen" is anyone who is born in the United States of America and/or a possession of the United States of America AND anyone who is NOT born in the United States of America and/or a possession of the United States of America PROVIDED that they have complied with the statutory requirements of being recognized as an "American citizen from birth".
[The only question that I have concerning Sen. Cruz is whether those statutory requirements were met.]
I really don't know why Mr. Jay insisted that it be placed in the Constitution, but I would hazard a guess that the Founding Fathers didn't want a bunch of "Johnny-come-latelies" interfering with "The Right People".
[The only question that I have concerning Sen. Cruz is whether those statutory requirements were met.]
I really don't know why Mr. Jay insisted that it be placed in the Constitution, but I would hazard a guess that the Founding Fathers didn't want a bunch of "Johnny-come-latelies" interfering with "The Right People".
(0)
(0)
1SG James A. "Bud" Parker
Well, Colonel, do you believe that Congress, who writes laws by the thousands every year, can modify the intent of the US Constitution on a mere whim? You stated that you believe the "new improved" meaning of Natural Born Citizen" (under the current law) is virtually anyone. What happened to the process of legitimately Amending the US Constitution? To change the Original Intent of any portion of the Constitution requires a Constitutional Convention, does it not?
According to the Founders of the Nation a natural born citizen is someone born within the country to citizen parents. In 1786 we had just kicked the British out of the USA and no longer wanted their form of government. We became a Republic, based upon "Natural Law" rather than laws created by men. The natural born clause was placed in the Constitution to prevent the British, or any other foreigners, from weaseling their way into the White House. The Original intent of natural born was to prevent any person from being President that had any family ties to any foreign nation. They did not want a Commander-in-Chief with any association to any country other that the USA.
"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
That statement is written to cover two distinct classes of citizens. The original citizens, none of whom could possible be born to citizen parents because they were the 1st citizens of the nation! Also, they addressed future generations of US citizens. I'll use parentheses to show the text that they used to Grandfather themselves in.
"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, (and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.")
Notice that among the Original Citizens who may hold Office as POTUS they had to have been a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. Also, they had to be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. The remainder was to prevent foreigners influence in the Office of POTUS in future years.
So, what did the Founders believe had to be be met in order to qualify as a natural born, or True Citizen? They established this nation based upon Natural Law, not laws of men, which change continually. They extensively used the text of a book written by a Frenchman named Vattel. The "Law of Nations." To summarize what would require many more paragraphs to explain in depth it means that to be President you must be born within one of the Individual States (no territories, no foreign nations) and born to US citizen parents.
Why would they even bother to insert this requirement in the Constitution if, basically, anyone with any class of citizenship could hold that powerful Office? You mentioned anyone who complied with Statutory Requirements. That means they complied with Man's Laws to be a citizen, not God's "Natural Law." Laws of Nature. When SCOTUS has mentioned natural-born they invariably mention Vattel's Law of Nations as the source.
According to the Founders of the Nation a natural born citizen is someone born within the country to citizen parents. In 1786 we had just kicked the British out of the USA and no longer wanted their form of government. We became a Republic, based upon "Natural Law" rather than laws created by men. The natural born clause was placed in the Constitution to prevent the British, or any other foreigners, from weaseling their way into the White House. The Original intent of natural born was to prevent any person from being President that had any family ties to any foreign nation. They did not want a Commander-in-Chief with any association to any country other that the USA.
"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
That statement is written to cover two distinct classes of citizens. The original citizens, none of whom could possible be born to citizen parents because they were the 1st citizens of the nation! Also, they addressed future generations of US citizens. I'll use parentheses to show the text that they used to Grandfather themselves in.
"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, (and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.")
Notice that among the Original Citizens who may hold Office as POTUS they had to have been a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. Also, they had to be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. The remainder was to prevent foreigners influence in the Office of POTUS in future years.
So, what did the Founders believe had to be be met in order to qualify as a natural born, or True Citizen? They established this nation based upon Natural Law, not laws of men, which change continually. They extensively used the text of a book written by a Frenchman named Vattel. The "Law of Nations." To summarize what would require many more paragraphs to explain in depth it means that to be President you must be born within one of the Individual States (no territories, no foreign nations) and born to US citizen parents.
Why would they even bother to insert this requirement in the Constitution if, basically, anyone with any class of citizenship could hold that powerful Office? You mentioned anyone who complied with Statutory Requirements. That means they complied with Man's Laws to be a citizen, not God's "Natural Law." Laws of Nature. When SCOTUS has mentioned natural-born they invariably mention Vattel's Law of Nations as the source.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google