The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: rangerrebew on June 14, 2018, 04:02:31 pm
-
Both Parties Agree: This Woman Might Be Our First Female President
By Rusty June 14, 2018 10:47AM
Unlike the two-time failure in Hillary Clinton, there is one woman on the political scene who is uniting both parties around her as possibly the first female President of the United States.
And her name is Nikki Haley.
Haley raised her public standing very recently with her role in bringing together two world leaders in President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un for a historic summit.
The former South Carolina governor echoed the actions of the President in playing a behind the scenes role in trying to establish peace, while publicly reminding North Korea that they would be decimated in any military conflict with the United States.
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/nikki-haley-president-first-female/
-
That's funny, I thought Obama was our first female president??
(http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn9/Kev-n-Bev/BarackGaydar.jpg?t=1258469696)
-
Kudlow could be her VP, to keep her from getting confused.
-
Is Nikki Haley a natural born citizen? When she was born was her father a US citizen? Was she born in the USA?
-
Is Nikki Haley a natural born citizen? When she was born was her father a US citizen? Was she born in the USA?
Family moved to the US in 69 Haley was born in 72. 3 years in country likely means mom and dad were not US citizens. She is not a NBC of this country, not qualified to be president.
-
Is Nikki Haley a natural born citizen? When she was born was her father a US citizen? Was she born in the USA?
Pish Posh! Your not going to interject that old Constitution thingy into this are you?
-
Pish Posh! Your not going to interject that old Constitution thingy into this are you?
Yes, I like our Constitution and think we should follow it. I'm kinda old fashioned in that way.
-
Yes, I like our Constitution and think we should follow it. I'm kinda old fashioned in that way.
Guess you haven't heard. The Constitution is an outdated, meaningless piece of paper. Or so some people think -- including apparently, our last and current president.
-
Is Nikki Haley a natural born citizen? When she was born was her father a US citizen? Was she born in the USA?
How successful were we in keeping "irregardless" out of the dictionary?
-
I like Haley where she is. I'm not sure success at the UN transfers to success at running the US.
-
I like Haley where she is. I'm not sure success at the UN transfers to success at running the US.
She's also been a governor, so she has executive experience. The UN Ambassador position gives her experience dealing with foreign relations.
-
She's also been a governor, so she has executive experience. The UN Ambassador position gives her experience dealing with foreign relations.
She might be one of the few potential Presidential candidates on whose campaign I'd be willing to work.
-
Family moved to the US in 69 Haley was born in 72. 3 years in country likely means mom and dad were not US citizens. She is not a NBC of this country, not qualified to be president.
:facepalm2:
-
Family moved to the US in 69 Haley was born in 72. 3 years in country likely means mom and dad were not US citizens. She is not a NBC of this country, not qualified to be president.
She was a citizen from birth. The constitution does not define NBC specifically but legal references equate NBC to citizen at birth and not required to go thru naturilization.
-
Is Nikki Haley a natural born citizen? When she was born was her father a US citizen? Was she born in the USA?
She was born a citizen instead of naturalized so yes.
-
Haley/Cruz...
-
Cruz/Haley fixed it for ya @rustynail
-
She was born a citizen instead of naturalized so yes.
Nope!
-
Nope!
That train left the station, @Bigun. The meaning of the term "NBC" was permanently disfigured so the liberals could have their guy.
-
As if voting matters anymore.
-
That train left the station, @Bigun. The meaning of the term "NBC" was permanently disfigured so the liberals could have their guy.
Nope! Not until the Constitution is amended to provide for a mere citizen at birth to become POTUS!
-
That's funny, I thought Obama was our first female president??
@INVAR
I am tempted to say that would be Boy Jorge,but I seem to remember there was some president from the late 1800's or early 1900's that was suspected of being a homo,and a lot of historians seem to think Lincoln was a little light in the loafers,too.
-
Nope! Not until the Constitution is amended to provide for a mere citizen at birth to become POTUS!
The Constitution doesn't define natural born citizen. So to figure out what it means you have to look at common law which defines it as a citizen at birth and not requiring naturilization.
So yes she is a natural born citizen.
-
I am tempted to say that would be Boy Jorge,but I seem to remember there was some president from the late 1800's or early 1900's that was suspected of being a homo,and a lot of historians seem to think Lincoln was a little light in the loafers,too.
Lincoln was abnormally tall in the loafers, not exactly 'light'.
But - then when your wife is Margot Kidder - who knows whose hairy arms you want to run to.
-
The Constitution doesn't define natural born citizen. So to figure out what it means you have to look at common law which defines it as a citizen at birth and not requiring naturilization.
So yes she is a natural born citizen.
No sir! You have to figure out what the men who wrote the Constitution understood that term to mean and it is quite clear that they understood it to mean those born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens and none other!
-
No sir! You have to figure out what the men who wrote the Constitution understood that term to mean and it is quite clear that they understood it to mean those born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens and none other!
..and the Framers didn't say 'born of this country to two citizen parents'. That was English Common Law and George Mason specifically said that US Common Law was not English Common Law.
At that, the federalist papers as well as all the comments of the framers on the subject, more closely align with simply being a citizen of at birth versus naturalized, some even state it was just to be a citizen of at least one state at birth. http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/ (http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/)
The dual parentage doesn't even fit with the founding principles of this nation. That was part of the heraldic tradition of English Common Law that was the part of what we were shedding in being a unique nation. Everything in our founding was in shedding the idea that you were bound by your parentage- that is the old caste type system- not ours.
-
No sir! You have to figure out what the men who wrote the Constitution understood that term to mean and it is quite clear that they understood it to mean those born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens and none other!
Uh no. That's wishful thinking
-
..and the Framers didn't say 'born of this country to two citizen parents'. That was English Common Law and George Mason specifically said that US Common Law was not English Common Law.
At that, the federalist papers as well as all the comments of the framers on the subject, more closely align with simply being a citizen of at birth versus naturalized, some even state it was just to be a citizen of at least one state at birth. http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/ (http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/)
The dual parentage doesn't even fit with the founding principles of this nation. That was part of the heraldic tradition of English Common Law that was the part of what we were shedding in being a unique nation. Everything in our founding was in shedding the idea that you were bound by your parentage- that is the old caste type system- not ours.
In English law there is no guestion as to who can ascend to the throne but that would not be the case in the U. S. That fact caused the founders great consternation as to how they were to prevent anyone with divided loyalties to become president and they ultimately agreed on Vattel's work to guide them. Vattel defines NBC as a person born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens.
-
I was going to post that I would vote for her because she is hot......but I see we have a good old fashion birther dumpster fire raging away. Good grief. I don't have it in me anymore to even start to argue this bullshit anymore and besides, who cares.
-
In English law there is no guestion as to who can ascend to the throne but that would not be the case in the U. S. That fact caused the founders great consternation as to how they were to prevent anyone with divided loyalties to become president and they ultimately agreed on Vattel's work to guide them. Vattel defines NBC as a person born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens.
That is not in the constitution or the law.
-
I was going to post that I would vote for her because she is hot......but I see we have a good old fashion birther dumpster fire raging away. Good grief. I don't have it in me anymore to even start to argue this bullshit anymore and besides, who cares.
You are correct @Frank Cannon . This has been argued here ad nauseum and those who argued that a mere citizen at birth is eligible to be president lost badly!
-
I was going to post that I would vote for her because she is hot......but I see we have a good old fashion birther dumpster fire raging away. Good grief. I don't have it in me anymore to even start to argue this bullshit anymore and besides, who cares.
Frank, it is so much better than the other ongoing argument. This one is almost refreshing.
-
That is not in the constitution or the law.
The Constitution IS law!
-
The Constitution IS law!
Uhhhhhhh.... it's "law" only on paper.
If today proved anything, it is that the government is no longer bound or constrained by the "law". They will make it up as they go and exonerate themselves from any criminality and wrong-doing while going after political targets of opportunity.
-
The Constitution IS law!
Sure it is. But the definition is not in the Constitution.
-
Uhhhhhhh.... it's "law" only on paper.
If today proved anything, it is that the government is no longer bound or constrained by the "law". They will make it up as they go and exonerate themselves from any criminality and wrong-doing while going after political targets of opportunity.
The written law says she's a NBC. It's only through wishful interpretation of non binding documents that its arguable she's not.
So it's hardly an equal comparison. Regardless the intent of the requirement was to ensure the person didn't have divided loyalties. It's quite clear she is loyal to America.
-
In English law there is no guestion as to who can ascend to the throne but that would not be the case in the U. S. That fact caused the founders great consternation as to how they were to prevent anyone with divided loyalties to become president and they ultimately agreed on Vattel's work to guide them. Vattel defines NBC as a person born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens.
The problem is Vattel's Laws of Nations was somewhat obscure at the time and is often confused with the philosopher Wolffe's general statement of 'the natural laws of nations' as a statement on sovereignty. This is one of those cases where the blogsphere recently found a reference to 'laws of nations' and then 1. made the assumption that it was referring specifically to Vattel's work. 2. Applied to this specific case. 3. Would be considered the over-riding law of the land.
None of the founders referred to Vattel's work in the Federalist Papers (at the time, Ben Franklin had brought just one copy into the US for the Library of Congress and Washington's own Library didn't even have a copy recorded until 1789, well after the Constitution phrase was written), at that, when referring the specific issue of NBC in the Federalist Papers, the founders themselves completely contradicted Vattel on the issue.
And finally, if we are going to use Vattel as the source meaning for that, it opens up a whole other can of worms because Vattel's Laws of Nations as a whole, is not compatible with the US system whatsoever. It is actually highly feudal and oppressive in nature. Give it a read and see if you think it was a guide for our founders. http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm (http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm)
I understand you are completely sold on this.. I had a lot of rows during the birther wars and I know once you are set on an idea, it is hard to shake it. But I do suggest reading that work as a whole (it isn't very long) and decide if you want that to be in any way used as a guide for what the Constitution means.
-
The problem is Vattel's Laws of Nations was somewhat obscure at the time and is often confused with the philosopher Wolfe's general statement of 'the natural laws of nations' as a statement on sovereignty. This is one of those cases where the blogsphere recently found a reference to 'laws of nations' and then 1. made the assumption that it was referring specifically to Vattel's work. 2. Applied to this specific case. 3. Would be considered the over-riding law of the land.
None of the founders referred to Vattel's work in the Federalist Papers (at the time, Ben Franklin had brought just one copy into the US for the Library of Congress and Washington's own Library didn't even have a copy recorded until 1789, well after the Constitution phrase was written), at that, when referring the specific issue of NBC in the Federalist Papers, the founders themselves completely contradicted Vattel on the issue.
And finally, if we are going to use Vattel as the source meaning for that, it opens up a whole other can of worms because Vattel's Laws of Nations as a whole, is not compatible with the US system whatsoever. It is actually highly feudal and oppressive in nature. Give it a read and see if you think it was a guide for our founders. http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm (http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm)
Obscure or not, there were three copies in the room at Philadelphia as the Constitution was being drafted. One English translation and two in the original French.
-
Obscure or not, there were three copies in the room at Philadelphia as the Constitution was being drafted. One English translation and two in the original French.
I'm sure they also had a copy of the classic medical guide Württembergische Hebammenordnung in the libraries at well. That doesn't mean the founders used it to define NBC as someone who was born naturally versus through the cesarean technique.
Again, one has to reference their exact words on the subject (the earlier post I made upthread) and the founders actual words did not even imply '2 parentage on land' birth but simply citizen at birth versus naturalized. We don't have to guess what they thought and try to guess it was some book in a library of about ten thousand books (at the time) they may or may not have used. They told us almost directly.
-
I'm sure they also had a copy of the classic medical guide Württembergische Hebammenordnung in the libraries at well. That doesn't mean the founders used it to define NBC as someone who was born naturally versus through the cesarean technique.
Again, one has to reference their exact words on the subject (the earlier post I made upthread) and the founders actual words did not even imply '2 parentage on land' birth but simply citizen at birth versus naturalized. We don't have to guess what they thought and try to guess it was some book in a library of about ten thousand books (at the time) they may or may not have used. They told us almost directly.
I'm done with this. Said all I have to say on the matter and you are free to believe whatever you like but keep in mind that under your definition there is absolutely nothing to prevent some radical Muslim from impregnating a woman, smuggling her into the country to give birth to the child and have that child be president of the United States a few years later. I reject the notion that the founders did not think about that and do their best to prevent it from happening.
-
I'm done with this. Said all I have to say on the matter and you are free to believe whatever you like but keep in mind that under your definition there is absolutely nothing to prevent some radical Muslim from impregnating a woman, smuggling her into the country to give birth to the child and have that child be president of the United States a few years later. I reject the notion that the founders did not think about that and do their best to prevent it from happening.
Oh you mean Obama. Yeah nothing to stop that except the voters
-
I'm done with this. Said all I have to say on the matter and you are free to believe whatever you like but keep in mind that under your definition there is absolutely nothing to prevent some radical Muslim from impregnating a woman, smuggling her into the country to give birth to the child and have that child be president of the United States a few years later. I reject the notion that the founders did not think about that and do their best to prevent it from happening.
The 14th Amendment bestowed natural born citizenship to any person born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction, which includes those born to legal immigrants. (I would argue that anchor babies of illegal aliens do not meet the "subject to its jurisdiction" criteria.)
Congress has authority to define natural-born citizenship however they see fit. Why? Because the Virginia legislature, in 1784 (when the Articles of Confederation gave the states more power and sovereignty over citizenship issues), legally declared the marquis de Lafayette a natural-born citizen, even though he was born in France. This was in the same decade the phrase was put in the Constitution. With that, they established that all previous English common law definitions were irrelevant and invalid; without any formal Constitutional definition, it goes down to the plain letter of the language.
In short, the federal government has the right to determine who is a natural born citizen. They granted it to persons born here and subject to its jurisdiction in 1868. Nikki Haley was born here and subject to its jurisdiction in 1972. Ergo, she is a natural born citizen.
Xenophobes and birthers are wrong, as usual.
(edited for corrections)
-
I'm done with this. Said all I have to say on the matter and you are free to believe whatever you like but keep in mind that under your definition there is absolutely nothing to prevent some radical Muslim from impregnating a woman, smuggling her into the country to give birth to the child and have that child be president of the United States a few years later. I reject the notion that the founders did not think about that and do their best to prevent it from happening.
Who knows? The Press and the rest of the Dems always seem to find the law book when it's a Republican under discussion.
-
I'll add one more little snippet on the matter. Many of the founders were Freemasons. At that, you'll find many parallels in some of the way the system is structured and the structure of the Lodge.
One of the key, most important principles of brothers is that it doesn't matter who your parents are or your situation at birth, but who you are as a man. As is confirmed by what they wrote, they were far less concerned by who one's parents were than they were about the status of that person as a man.
-
I'm done with this. Said all I have to say on the matter and you are free to believe whatever you like but keep in mind that under your definition there is absolutely nothing to prevent some radical Muslim from impregnating a woman, smuggling her into the country to give birth to the child and have that child be president of the United States a few years later. I reject the notion that the founders did not think about that and do their best to prevent it from happening.
But who that child becomes can be completely different than who his parents were. Many of our greatest Presidents and other leaders have had scoundrel parents (and conversely, many of our worst presidents had saints for parents)- who they became was on themselves, not on who their parents were. That's the entire point of our system. A Satanist, Communist, Cannibal parent can create the most Godly, wholesome child.
We don't immediately reject someone because of who bumped uglies to create them. We judge their worth on their own actions.
That's kind of one of the most important points in the American Experience. It is what has always made us unique.
-
You are correct @Frank Cannon . This has been argued here ad nauseum and those who argued that a mere citizen at birth is eligible to be president lost badly!
@Frank Cannon @Bigun
Is there ANYWHERE it HASN'T been argued until everyone's eyes got glassy from exhaustion,without even a single mind being changed?
-
ZZZZZ.
-
ZZZZZ.
Yup.
-
I remember arguing about the NBC issue when Ted Cruz was still running for President. There were even a few state court cases trying to remove Ted's name from the ballot because of the NBC issue. All of the cases were defeated, as I recall, although most of them were dismissed for reasons other than NBC. Seemed like the courts really didn't want to deal with that issue. Then once Ted was defeated for the nomination, the issue disappeared...again.
I think it's going to have to be decided by SCOTUS. Congress sure as hell isn't interested in defining NBC clearly through legislation. If Mrs. Haley decides to run, the matter can be brought up again and hopefully this time, it will be decided once and for all.
-
This might actually get to SCOTUS. A bunch of cases about Obama got tossed for lack of standing. But, now that's a Republican potential candidate, the Judges will be crawling all over each other trying to throw her out.
Even Electors in the College lacked standing, as did other Candidates.
-
This might actually get to SCOTUS. A bunch of cases about Obama got tossed for lack of standing. But, now that's a Republican potential candidate, the Judges will be crawling all over each other trying to throw her out.
Even Electors in the College lacked standing, as did other Candidates.
SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereofâ€
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
(A)ll children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
-
This might actually get to SCOTUS. A bunch of cases about Obama got tossed for lack of standing. But, now that's a Republican potential candidate, the Judges will be crawling all over each other trying to throw her out.
@Cyber Liberty
Ahhh,but the SC is more political than Congress. They won't dare make a decision without wetting their thumbs and sticking them up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing,and she is NOT equal to thee and me. She is a minority AND a woman. A political twofer. Not one chance in hell of them saying she can't run.
This is America,where everyone is equal,but some are more equal than others.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Ahhh,but the SC is more political than Congress. They won't dare make a decision without wetting their thumbs and sticking them up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing,and she is NOT equal to thee and me. She is a minority AND a woman. A political twofer. Not one chance in hell of them saying she can't run.
This is America,where everyone is equal,but some are more equal than others.
You make a good point. Mine was the rules are different for Republicans than Democrats.
-
SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereofâ€
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
(A)ll children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
I find it discouraging that all cases were thrown out over Standing during the Obastard rein of terror. We don't have any recent cases that were decided on Merit.
-
I think that all of this has been quite clearly laid out in the Supreme Court ruling Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. where they stated that if a Presidential candidate is A) smokin' hot and B) has eaten carrots in the last 20 years they are eligible for to run for that office regardless of where their parents came from.
(https://i.huffpost.com/gen/575902/thumbs/o-NIKKI-HALEY-VOGUE-900.jpg?4)
-
I always found the one good use of lawyers is to interpret the laws. I let them do the research
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen)
Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII. The constitution does not expressly define “natural born†nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled precisely upon its meaning. One can be a citizen while not being a "natural born" citizen if, for example, they gained their citizenship through the process of naturalization.
Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark; 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court noted in Perkins v. Elg that this is true even of citizens who were born in the United States yet grew up in foreign countries.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ (https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/)
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen†means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law
3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888).
and enactments of the First Congress.
4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).
Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen†includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/# (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#)!/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility
Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President.
-
I always found the one good use of lawyers is to interpret the laws. I let them do the research
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen)
Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII. The constitution does not expressly define “natural born†nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled precisely upon its meaning. One can be a citizen while not being a "natural born" citizen if, for example, they gained their citizenship through the process of naturalization.
Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark; 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court noted in Perkins v. Elg that this is true even of citizens who were born in the United States yet grew up in foreign countries.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ (https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/)
While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen†means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law
3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888).
and enactments of the First Congress.
4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).
Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen†includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/# (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#)!/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility
Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President.
Patently false!
-
Thanks @driftdiver I remember both of these treatises from the fight over Ted Cruz's eligibility.
Unfortunately, neither really settles the specific issue as to a presidential candidate. As I said before, this is just going to have to be laid at SCOTUS' feet.
Of course, we are getting ahead of ourselves. There is, as yet, no indication Nikki Haley is even interested in a presidential run.
-
Thanks @driftdiver I remember both of these treatises from the fight over Ted Cruz's eligibility.
Unfortunately, neither really settles the specific issue as to a presidential candidate. As I said before, this is just going to have to be laid at SCOTUS' feet.
Of course, we are getting ahead of ourselves. There is, as yet, no indication Nikki Haley is even interested in a presidential run.
@Applewood
See my reply #50 above.
-
Thanks @driftdiver I remember both of these treatises from the fight over Ted Cruz's eligibility.
Unfortunately, neither really settles the specific issue as to a presidential candidate. As I said before, this is just going to have to be laid at SCOTUS' feet.
Of course, we are getting ahead of ourselves. There is, as yet, no indication Nikki Haley is even interested in a presidential run.
Yep but I doubt it will ever get that far.
I'm more disturbed that she has covered up her background. I never imagined that she is of Indian parents. I might have said American Indian but not the other. Here I thought she was Italian all this time.
-
Yep but I doubt it will ever get that far.
I'm more disturbed that she has covered up her background. I never imagined that she is of Indian parents. I might have said American Indian but not the other. Here I thought she was Italian all this time.
Hmmm. I don't know that she covered up her ethnicity. First time I heard of Mrs. Haley, I looked up her bio and there it was.
-
Hmmm. I don't know that she covered up her ethnicity. First time I heard of Mrs. Haley, I looked up her bio and there it was.
Ok I confess, I never looked up her bio. I was too busy looking at her legs.
-
Yep but I doubt it will ever get that far.
I'm more disturbed that she has covered up her background. I never imagined that she is of Indian parents. I might have said American Indian but not the other. Here I thought she was Italian all this time.
DD, she hasn't "covered up" her background.
-
DD, she hasn't "covered up" her background.
Of course she hasn't. She has a decent ass. Why not show it off?
(https://reddogreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/nikki-haley-speaking.jpg)
-
Ok I confess, I never looked up her bio. I was too busy looking at her legs.
Hey I won't fault you for that. She is a looker. Great combination -- looks, brains and toughness when necessary.
Certainly a helluva lot better than Hillary.
-
Thanks @driftdiver I remember both of these treatises from the fight over Ted Cruz's eligibility.
Unfortunately, neither really settles the specific issue as to a presidential candidate. As I said before, this is just going to have to be laid at SCOTUS' feet.
Of course, we are getting ahead of ourselves. There is, as yet, no indication Nikki Haley is even interested in a presidential run.
@Applewood
Uh,huh. Good point! After all,we know she not the tiniest bit ambitious or interested in politics.
-
Yep but I doubt it will ever get that far.
I'm more disturbed that she has covered up her background. I never imagined that she is of Indian parents. I might have said American Indian but not the other. Here I thought she was Italian all this time.
@driftdiver
Dot Indian,Italian,or Mongolian. What difference does it make where her ancestors came from? Some of mine were already here when the British landed,and committed the first massacre on British citizens here. Others came later,and one only stopped by as a temporary visitor.
Nobody has any say or control over who their ancestors are,only over who THEY are.
BTW,how did she cover up her background? The very first time I remember hearing her name she was identified as the daughter of immigrants from India. If it was supposed to be a secret,it's right up there with being one of the worst kept secrets in history.
-
Yep but I doubt it will ever get that far.
I'm more disturbed that she has covered up her background. I never imagined that she is of Indian parents. I might have said American Indian but not the other. Here I thought she was Italian all this time.
She doesn't 'cover up' her background. Some people simply don't wear their ancestor's heritage on their sleeve. Her parents were Sikh, but she is a Christian so she obviously doesn't choose to wear Sikh garb or observe all their traditions. (she had an article about this in Christianity Today a few years ago).
I'm mostly Native American, but I don't go around wearing feathers and bear claws. (mostly). :)
-
This might actually get to SCOTUS. A bunch of cases about Obama got tossed for lack of standing. But, now that's a Republican potential candidate, the Judges will be crawling all over each other trying to throw her out.
Even Electors in the College lacked standing, as did other Candidates.
It was an issue with a Republican candidate- McCain. It was a minor blip.
-
She doesn't 'cover up' her background. Some people simply don't wear their ancestor's heritage on their sleeve. Her parents were Sikh, but she is a Christian so she obviously doesn't choose to wear Sikh garb or observe all their traditions. (she had an article about this in Christianity Today a few years ago).
I'm mostly Native American, but I don't go around wearing feathers and bear claws. (mostly). :)
OK I get it, she didn't cover it up. I just never realized it. sheesh
-
@driftdiver
Dot Indian,Italian,or Mongolian. What difference does it make where her ancestors came from? Some of mine were already here when the British landed,and committed the first massacre on British citizens here. Others came later,and one only stopped by as a temporary visitor.
Nobody has any say or control over who their ancestors are,only over who THEY are.
BTW,how did she cover up her background? The very first time I remember hearing her name she was identified as the daughter of immigrants from India. If it was supposed to be a secret,it's right up there with being one of the worst kept secrets in history.
@sneakypete
I don't care what a persons ethnicity is, however when people seem to hide it then I get suspicious.
She's very ambitious, that much is obvious.
-
@sneakypete
She's very ambitious, that much is obvious.
@driftdiver
Of course she is. No one reaches the political positions she has held and does hold that isn't uber ambitious.
Nobody in politics even understands what the word "shy" means.
-
It was an issue with a Republican candidate- McCain. It was a minor blip.
It also came up with Romney. His dad was born in Mexico or some shit like that.
-
How successful were we in keeping "irregardless" out of the dictionary?
Heh heh.
Or "hopefully" out of near everyone's discourse?
-
She was born in the U.S. and her parents 'emigrated' from India. That term is from Wiki .... so she was born on American soil. However, her parents were not U.S. citizens. Same scenario for Rubio who ran in '16.
Haley was born Nimrata Randhawa in Bamberg, South Carolina, on January 20, 1972 to an Indian American Sikh family. She had always been called "Nikki" by her family. Her father Ajit Singh Randhawa, and mother Raj Kaur Randhawa, emigrated from Amritsar District, Punjab, India...........
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Haley
-
Heh heh.
Or "hopefully" out of near everyone's discourse?
Let us not forget what the last thing out of Pandora's Box was.
:pondering:
-
I gotta admit the only reason I
looked Leapt at this thread was I the outrage I felt Thinking it was going to be about Kamala Harris.