The Briefing Room
General Category => Elections 2020 => Topic started by: Right_in_Virginia on August 16, 2020, 09:22:52 pm
-
White House, Trump campaign: Kamala Harris is eligible to serve as VP
Washington Times, Aug 16, 2020
Both the White House and the Trump campaign on Sunday said unequivocally that Sen. Kamala Harris is eligible to serve as vice president and blamed the media for fomenting unfounded questions about the issue.
“Yeah,†White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said on CNN’s “State of the Union.†“This is not something that we’re going to pursue … y’all have spent more time on it than anybody in the White House has talking about this.â€
Trump campaign senior advisor Jason Miller said it’s not something anyone on the campaign is talking about.
“In our opinion, it is case closed. End of story. And the only folks who keep bringing it up are the media,†Mr. Miller said on ABC’s “This Week.â€
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/16/kamala-harris-eligible-serve-vp-white-house-and-tr/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/16/kamala-harris-eligible-serve-vp-white-house-and-tr/)
-
Well, good. Though various strains of "birtherism" will keep cropping up until a court, ideally the SCOTUS, issues a ruling making it clear that "natural born citizen" means the same thing as Blackstone's notion of "natural born subject", but applied to a republic, rather than a monarchy, rather than meaning the same thing as Vattel's "natives.
-
Good.. Enough of the Birther BS.
-
She's not eligible -- she has birthright citizenship -- both of her parents were NOT citizens at the time.
But, so be it...there's know way that anyone is going to rule against a DEM on this.
-
She's not eligible -- she has birthright citizenship -- both of her parents were NOT citizens at the time.
But, so be it...there's know way that anyone is going to rule against a DEM on this.
She was born in America.. Case closed.. I hope this is last time we talk about this birther crap.
-
She's not eligible -- she has birthright citizenship -- both of her parents were NOT citizens at the time.
But, so be it...there's know way that anyone is going to rule against a DEM on this.
Nope, can't blame the democrats here. The Republicans/Conservatives retreated in 2008 with Obama and surrendered the issue in 2016 to protect Sen. Cruz ... a candidate born outside the US with one parent not a US citizen -- a double whammy.
The natural born citizen criteria for POTUS is dead .... and we helped kill it. I offer our heartfelt apologies to our Founders.
-
That's it! I'm done!
No point in this Constitutionalist participating in this charade any longer!
I'll cast my vote for someone who actually believes in, and is willing to stand up for, the United States Constitution and none other!
-
Nope, can't blame the democrats here. The Republicans/Conservatives retreated in 2008 with Obama and surrendered the issue in 2016 to protect Sen. Cruz ... a candidate born outside the US with one parent not a US citizen -- a double whammy.
The natural born citizen criteria for POTUS is dead .... and we helped kill it. I offer our heartfelt apologies to our Founders.
WE did no such F'n thing!
-
WE did no such F'n thing!
The Republican/Conservatives most definitely did. The arguments for Ted Cruz's eligibility went on for months.
The most profound irony is constitutional republicans rallied around Cruz's natural born citizenship -- a foreign born citizen with only one American citizen parent at the time of his birth through his twenties -- because he was a constitutional republican.
It hurts my heart, too @Bigun ...
-
The Republican/Conservatives most definitely did. The arguments for Ted Cruz's eligibility went on for months.
It hurts my heart, too @Bigun ...
Go back and check those arguments @Right_in_Virginia! See which side I came down on!
-
Nope, can't blame the democrats here. The Republicans/Conservatives retreated in 2008 with Obama and surrendered the issue in 2016 to protect Sen. Cruz ... a candidate born outside the US with one parent not a US citizen -- a double whammy.
The natural born citizen criteria for POTUS is dead .... and we helped kill it. I offer our heartfelt apologies to our Founders.
*****rollingeyes*****
The PA Supreme Court ruled that Cruz was eligible to run for President -- his mother was a U.S. citizen who was born in DE.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-supreme-court-rules-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-run-for-president (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-supreme-court-rules-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-run-for-president)
-
*****rollingeyes*****
The PA Supreme Court ruled that Cruz was eligible to run for President -- his mother was a U.S. citizen who was born in DE.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-supreme-court-rules-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-run-for-president (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pennsylvania-supreme-court-rules-ted-cruz-is-eligible-to-run-for-president)
But that is NOT the F'n standard!
-
Go back and check those arguments @Right_in_Virginia! See which side I came down on!
I wasn't talking about you @Bigun ... I was referring to the debate in general and the majority opinion.
As I said, on the Republican side this was a profound irony. The Constitution was trampled by the majority opinion for one man --- by self-identified Constitutionalists --- because this one man was a self-proclaimed Constitutionalist. I remember these debates well because I asked if one man was worth this and took holy hell for it.
But it's done, Bigun. The argument is now settled. And I am as upset as are you.
-
I wasn't talking about you @Bigun ... I was referring to the debate in general and the majority opinion.
As I said, on the Republican side this was a profound irony. The Constitution was trampled by the majority opinion for one man --- by self-identified Constitutionalists --- because this one man was a self-proclaimed Constitutionalist. I remember these debates well because I asked if one man was worth this and took holy hell for it.
But it's done, Bigun. The argument is now settled. And I am as upset as are you.
Are you? Really? I SERIOUSLY doubt that!
Our Constitution isn't worth the paper it is written on when there is no longer anyone willing to stand up and fight for it! I will not be found guilty of that!
I do not intend to have to apologize to may ancestors in the hereafter, some of whom came here on the Mayflower, for my willingness surrender what they gave so much to give us!
-
*****rollingeyes*****
The PA Supreme Court ruled that Cruz was eligible to run for President -- his mother was a U.S. citizen who was born in DE.
Don't give a shit, sweetheart. This is not the definition of a natural born citizen, the highest definition of citizen reserved for those seeking to be or in direct line to be POTUS.
Natural born requires the person be born of the soil (in the United States) AND born of the blood (of two American citizens). Cruz met neither requirement. But apparently he was worth surrendering this part of the Constitution because, well, because he's Ted Cruz.
This surrender will be paid for by out children.
-
Are you? Really? I SERIOUSLY doubt that!
Yes, really @Bigun I fought valiantly for years ... and bear the scars.
But the debate became specific to one candidate ... whether democrat or republican ... and the reasoning and genius behind the eligibility for POTUS became muddled and submerged in emotion on both sides of the political aisle.
We are now left with precedents that welcome any anchor baby and any new immigrant from any of the four corners of the word to the Oval Office --- the hub of US policy and history.
I'm heartsick, Bigun -- whether you believe it or not.
-
Don't give a shit, sweetheart. This is not the definition of a natural born citizen, the highest definition of citizen reserved for those seeking to be or in direct line to be POTUS.
Natural born requires the person be born of the soil (in the United States) AND born of the blood (of two American citizens). Cruz met neither requirement. But apparently he was worth surrendering this part of the Constitution because, well, because he's Ted Cruz.
This surrender will be paid for by out children.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizen!
BTW -- so nice to see that you're back with your claws out and teeth clenched. I wouldn't expect anything else. :silly:
-
Yes, really @Bigun I fought valiantly for years ... and bear the scars.
But the debate became specific to one candidate ... whether democrat or republican ... and the reasoning and genius behind the eligibility for POTUS became muddled and submerged in emotion on both sides of the political aisle.
We are now left with precedents that welcome any anchor baby and any new immigrant from any of the four corners of the word to the Oval Office --- the hub of US policy and history.
I'm heartsick, Bigun -- whether you believe it or not.
Alright @Right_in_Virginia since I have no way of knowing what's in your heart I'll take your word for it. And I'll assure you that YOU are not alone!
-
The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizen!
BTW -- so nice to see that you're back with your claws out and teeth clenched. I wouldn't expect anything else. :silly:
And if you have need of ANY legislation ever passed for your citizenship you are NOT a natural born citizen as the founders understood that term!
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, ..."
Article II, United States Constitution
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii)
It is perfectly clear to me that the language in that sentence makes a distinction between a mere citizen and one that is "Natural Born" .
I am a natural born citizen of the United States owing to the fact that I was born here of parents (plural) who were citizens at the time of my birth. Jus Soli AND Jus Sanguinis. THAT is the standard!
And Kamali Harris doesn't even have ONE parent who was a citizen at the time of her birth!
I'm done! Hope all of you surrender monkeys, and your children and grandchildren, enjoy being ruled by the grandson of Mao Zedong or Pol Pot at some point in the future!
-
The Whitehouse says she's qualified to be Vice President..... done deal. Debate is dead.
-
The Republican/Conservatives most definitely did. The arguments for Ted Cruz's eligibility went on for months.
The most profound irony is constitutional republicans rallied around Cruz's natural born citizenship -- a foreign born citizen with only one American citizen parent at the time of his birth through his twenties -- because he was a constitutional republican.
It hurts my heart, too @Bigun ...
At least Ted had ONE American parent. Kamala might have been born here, but her parents were not citizens and were not even eligible to be naturalized at the time.
With that criterion, any visiting Saudi or Chinese Communist who gives birth could whelp a candidate for POTUS.
There is no way in Hell that is what the founders intended in the Constitution.
-
At least Ted had ONE American parent. Kamala might have been born here, but her parents were not citizens and were not even eligible to be naturalized at the time.
With that criterion, any visiting Saudi or Chinese Communist who gives birth could whelp a candidate for POTUS.
There is no way in Hell that is what the founders intended in the Constitution.
Yes, Cruz only had ONE parent who was an American citizen -- same with Obama. Right or wrong and I am NOT saying that I agree, but precedent was set when Obama was allowed to be president.
Yes, in Kamel's case neither parent was a U.S. citizen. Rubio ran as well and neither parent was a citizen. Again, precedent has been set. NO. It doesn't make it right. I get that!
Until this is challenged and settled in court, this will continue. However, the WH has already declared that she is eligible to run, so it's not going to be challenged. Even IF it was, it is highly doubtful that SCOTUS will even take up the case.
-
Yes, Cruz only had ONE parent who was an American citizen -- same with Obama. Right or wrong and I am NOT saying that I agree, but precedent was set when Obama was allowed to be president.
Yes, in Kamel's case neither parent was a U.S. citizen. Rubio ran as well and neither parent was a citizen. Again, precedent has been set. NO. It doesn't make it right. I get that!
Until this is challenged and settled in court, this will continue. However, the WH has already declared that she is eligible to run, so it's not going to be challenged. Even IF it was, it is highly doubtful that SCOTUS will even take up the case.
Well, shit, does Idi Amin have any surviving relatives? How about the Kims? Let's just let any sonofabitch in the stinking world have a go at it.
Committing a crime and getting away with it does not set precedent. Only contempt for the Law, especially the supreme law of the land by the people charged with "protecting and defending the Constitution" does.
Why lose the Republic when the people who supposedly defend it, "Conservatives", are willing to just give it away without a fight?
-
Yes, Cruz only had ONE parent who was an American citizen -- same with Obama. Right or wrong and I am NOT saying that I agree, but precedent was set when Obama was allowed to be president.
Yes, in Kamel's case neither parent was a U.S. citizen. Rubio ran as well and neither parent was a citizen. Again, precedent has been set. NO. It doesn't make it right. I get that!
Until this is challenged and settled in court, this will continue. However, the WH has already declared that she is eligible to run, so it's not going to be challenged. Even IF it was, it is highly doubtful that SCOTUS will even take up the case.
Until WE collectively rise up and put an end to it the erosion of the Constitution will continue unabated! If that does not happen soon, it won't make a damned bit of difference either way!
-
Stop whining and take it to the SCOTUS and get a decision....
-
Until WE collectively rise up and put an end to it the erosion of the Constitution will continue unabated! If that does not happen soon, it won't make a damned bit of difference either way!
I absolutely agree! I really shudder to think of someone like Ilhan Omar running for president -- she IS a naturalized citizen -- with neither parent a citizen when she was born...at the rate this issue is going, we've got big problems on our hands.
-
Well, shit, does Idi Amin have any surviving relatives? How about the Kims? Let's just let any sonofabitch in the stinking world have a go at it.
Committing a crime and getting away with it does not set precedent. Only contempt for the Law, especially the supreme law of the land by the people charged with "protecting and defending the Constitution" does.
Why lose the Republic when the people who supposedly defend it, "Conservatives", are willing to just give it away without a fight?
:amen: pointing-up
-
Well, shit, does Idi Amin have any surviving relatives? How about the Kims? Let's just let any sonofabitch in the stinking world have a go at it.
Committing a crime and getting away with it does not set precedent. Only contempt for the Law, especially the supreme law of the land by the people charged with "protecting and defending the Constitution" does.
Why lose the Republic when the people who supposedly defend it, "Conservatives", are willing to just give it away without a fight?
I agree. However (and again, not saying that it makes it right) if I recall correctly there were several court challenges involving Obama's eligibility and either the cases were either thrown out or ruled against.
Here we sit.
-
If they won't stand up and fight for the Constitution's standards on who can be president and vice president, what makes you think they will stand up and fight for ANY part of it? Including the bill of rights.
-
If they won't stand up and fight for the Constitution's standards on who can be president and vice president, what makes you think they will stand up and fight for ANY part of it? Including the bill of rights.
Well, my assessment is that there are very few in Congress who stand up FOR the Constitution anymore. A lot of our society seems to have lost that connection or even have some knowledge of, which I believe could be remedied by mandating that each high school student take at least one semester on the U.S. Constitution in order to graduate.
Education IMHO is key -- it's how we get there in order to do so.
-
I agree. However (and again, not saying that it makes it right) if I recall correctly there were several court challenges involving Obama's eligibility and either the cases were either thrown out or ruled against.
Here we sit.
Every time Clinton appointees ruled the plaintiffs had no 'standing' before he was elected, and none would approach the issue after the election. THe media made their smokescreen about the issue, trotting out the whole Conspiracy Theory canard, and few dared to broach the subject, being derided as "Birthers" by both the Left and alleged Conservatives alike.
Let's not keep making the same idiotic mistakes of letting the Constitution be used for toilet paper.
Toilet paper isn't that scarce, and there is the salient issue that NEITHER one of her Parents were American Citizens, different from any of the others. Her only claim to citizenship comes from a misreading of the 14th Amendment, in effect making her an 'anchor baby'.
Or have those who claim to be conservatives become so wishy-washy they won't even grow enough spine to stand up for the Letter of the Law? If not, I'd better start selling my stuff while I can still get something for it, and figure out what country I'm going to show up at as a refugee from America.
Maybe this sort of crap is the reason America isn't listed, even metaphorically, in end times Prophesy in the Bible.
-
I agree. However (and again, not saying that it makes it right) if I recall correctly there were several court challenges involving Obama's eligibility and either the cases were either thrown out or ruled against.
Here we sit.
All of the challenges to O'Bastard's eligibility were tossed by the courts, one by one. Some legit, and some laughable (I remember some Dentist gal who filed a pro per challenge. "Taitz?"), but no Plaintiff could rise to the level of even having the "standing" to sue. Amazingly, even people who were actual Electors in the Electoral College did not have standing to challenge!
-
All of the challenges to O'Bastard's eligibility were tossed by the courts, one by one. Some legit, and some laughable (I remember some Dentist gal who filed a pro per challenge. "Taitz?"), but no Plaintiff could rise to the level of even having the "standing" to sue. Amazingly, even people who were actual Electors in the Electoral College did not have standing to challenge!
So what would YOU recommend we do @Cyber Liberty I'm genuinely interested in knowing.
-
So what would YOU recommend we do @Cyber Liberty I'm genuinely interested in knowing.
:shrug:
I don't have an answer.
-
:shrug:
I don't have an answer.
Well the answer cannot be to just shut up and sit down can it?
-
Well the answer cannot be to just shut up and sit down can it?
Is somebody telling you to do that? I don't think I did, I don't believe for a nanosecond you would do it....
-
Is somebody telling you to do that? I don't think I did, I don't believe for a nanosecond you would do it....
I wasn't asking specifically about myself. I was asking a general question that really only requires a yes or no answer.
-
Every time Clinton appointees ruled the plaintiffs had no 'standing' before he was elected, and none would approach the issue after the election. THe media made their smokescreen about the issue, trotting out the whole Conspiracy Theory canard, and few dared to broach the subject, being derided as "Birthers" by both the Left and alleged Conservatives alike.
Let's not keep making the same idiotic mistakes of letting the Constitution be used for toilet paper.
Toilet paper isn't that scarce, and there is the salient issue that NEITHER one of her Parents were American Citizens, different from any of the others. Her only claim to citizenship comes from a misreading of the 14th Amendment, in effect making her an 'anchor baby'.
Or have those who claim to be conservatives become so wishy-washy they won't even grow enough spine to stand up for the Letter of the Law? If not, I'd better start selling my stuff while I can still get something for it, and figure out what country I'm going to show up at as a refugee from America.
Maybe this sort of crap is the reason America isn't listed, even metaphorically, in end times Prophesy in the Bible.
Even the issue of "anchor baby" has been silenced.
I for one have a problem with every Maria that sneaks across the border and gives birth which in essence gives citizenship to that child and then all the crying liberal lunatics so it is inhumane to separate child from mother. Fine ... since the mother IS not a citizen, then she needs to pick up her new bambino and waltz it back across the border!
-
I wasn't asking specifically about myself. I was asking a general question that really only requires a yes or no answer.
Fair enough.
"No, we should not just sit and take it."
-
Fair enough.
"No, we should not just sit and take it."
Thank you! That's the way I see it as well.
-
Even the issue of "anchor baby" has been silenced.
I for one have a problem with every Maria that sneaks across the border and gives birth which in essence gives citizenship to that child and then all the crying liberal lunatics so it is inhumane to separate child from mother. Fine ... since the mother IS not a citizen, then she needs to pick up her new bambino and waltz it back across the border!
Exactly right! :amen:
And BTW: The people who made the 14th law were very clear as to what they were doing and that was granting citizenship to former slaves who had been born and raised in this country. Nothing else.
-
Thank you! That's the way I see it as well.
The practical question would be, "How do we proceed?" and that's why the :shrug:
-
The practical question would be, "How do we proceed?" and that's why the :shrug:
I'm working on it! But it's quite clear that a bunch of individuals speaking as individuals and thus easily be ignored by the powers that be isn't going to cut it! It's going to have to be something that brings all those people together so that they can speak as one IMHO.
-
Even the issue of "anchor baby" has been silenced.
I for one have a problem with every Maria that sneaks across the border and gives birth which in essence gives citizenship to that child and then all the crying liberal lunatics so it is inhumane to separate child from mother. Fine ... since the mother IS not a citizen, then she needs to pick up her new bambino and waltz it back across the border!
I totally agree. The anchor baby issue is a blatant, deliberate misuse of the Constitution.
-
I totally agree. The anchor baby issue is a blatant, deliberate misuse of the Constitution.
Fully agree. Our government should have ended the anchor baby technicality when we had a chance. In a post socialist dim run country? Will never happen.