To be clear, Cruz would easily be my choice if he could clear up the cloud of eligibility.
You are wrong, Trump's mother was a naturalized U. S. citizen at the time of his birth.
Our guy Cruz needs to aggressively move to clear up the eligibility question as soon as possible. I think he is trying to evade the issue because he knows he can't meet the requirements of Natural Born Citizen and he is hoping to slide by by avoiding the problem. Big mistake. A lot of potential Cruz v**ers will not v**e for him just because of the constitutional eligibility question h*****g over his head. They are the people who firmly and quietly believe that Obama is also ineligible and oppose O on principle. It the principle applies to O, it applies to Cruz.
He can't afford to lose these v**es, but he will lose them unless something is done to remove the question soon.
I want to v**e for him, but I can't as things stand right now.
You wrote:
"The Supreme Court has never ruled on exactly what constitutes a "natural born citizen," ...
This needs to be settled in the SCOTUS. Buchanan, Arthur and Obama slithering by the issue does not set a precedent. Three wrongs don't make a right. ;-)
Truly, I would like to see the question of one or two parent eligibility determined in favor of Cruz's situation, but I DO want it settled and soon.
The issue comes down to just one question. Does the "natural born citizen" clause require, at the time or his/her birth, two citizen parents or is one citizen parent sufficient? All the reading I have done clearly says "parents" ... plural. Therefore Cruz, Rubio, Jindal et. al. are not qualified under the constitution.
I think this lefty lawyer is trying to jump on the Cruz issue, using the Canadian birthplace as a red herring. If he can get the SCOTUS to focus on the PLACE of birth, he may allow them to conveniently ignore the one or two citizen parents issue. They would be more than happy to rule on the filed issue and not have to touch the real question. Again, that issue is about the fact that the constitution requires both parents to be citizens at the time of the birth, using the definitions of "natural born citizen" in place at the writing of the constitution.
If SCOTUS rules that Cruz is not eligible because he only had one citizen parent at the time of his birth then Obama is also disqualified by the same ruling. They are not going to let that happen.
Why is NO ONE bringing out this one key issue to be settled?
Note to Bill O'Reilly... is this what you call "definitely looking out for the folks"?
The Sunnis k**l the Shiites and the Shiites k**l the Sunnis. That's two positive things.
carolyn wrote:
Which president said the following..."each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. What makes us exceptional, what makes us America is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration... We hold these t***hs to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
IIRC, there was quite a dust-up about him leaving out the key words, "by their creator". He was already going down his path of deception and lies on that very inauguration day.
LAPhil wrote:
In a few more months the Republicans will have control of both houses of Congress. Then hopefully we'll get some legislation on this.
Think, Phil. This thread is all about the uselessness of the v****g process without v**er ID. The v****g process is totally corrupted, so how do you expect that there will be a change of party majority in the next e******n? It's too late.
Remember November 7, 2012 when so many ostriches woke up saying "What the hell just happened."? This November will be even worse. The progressives will take back the House and increase their majority in the Senate. Most of the gubernatorial races in the states will surprisingly swing back to the Dems too. You will wake up again on November 5th, saying, "What just happened? I can't believe it... what the hell just happened?" There is NOTHING you can do about it at the polls. Get used to it, the e******ns are no longer an avenue for change. Legitimate v**ers are far outnumbered by illegitimate or dead ones. This is why almost no one in government seems concerned about it. They know that all future e******ns are "in the bag".
It will take more stringent action at the grass-roots level if anything is to be done about our political situation... and sheep don't carry pitch forks.
Tyster wrote:
I do not support the current tax structure. But I feel the government will never support an alternative that takes away their power to manipulate the economy.
I'm afraid you are right. The best of them, if there is such an animal, will not cede an ounce of power.
I'm hoping the Fair Tax will catch fire. Just eliminating any form of income tax would be a good start.
[quote=Tyster]Actually, we don't have trouble interpreting them. The problem is that the IRS has a different perspective and interprets them differently.
Whoops. I just thought of another group which would probably be against any kind of Fair Tax or Flat Tax... Tax Accountants. Sorry, Tyster. In your industry how many people do you think would support the Flat Tax on principle and worry about changing careers later?
I have a good friend who is a tax accountant. Dang. I haven't asked him where he stands on this issue. Come to think of it, my taxes went up unexpectedly this year when he figured them. Maybe he already knows where I stand. Hmmmm.
Have you read SB-25? Visit fairtax.org for the clear information.
A few points...
Everybody would get a "prebate" on the fair tax to pay the taxes on basic necessities such as food, clothing, housing etc. People at the bottom of the financial ladder would pay very little tax.
Only new automobiles would be taxed, not used ones (several more little goodies like this one.)
The IRS would be abolished immediately.
ALL Federal taxes would be gone. Ever notice what you pay in "fees" on your phone and utility bills? No more "death taxes", capital gains taxes... it gets better all the time.
Only two groups of people are against the Fair Tax: The folks who haven't read up on the details and... (here's the rub)...
Politicians, who would immediately lose their power to control and manipulate things for their own social engineering ends. Any income tax would leave them with this power including a flat income tax. Not good. Dehorn the bastards by demanding the passage of the Fair Tax. Listen to them screech. I love that beautiful noise.
faithistheword wrote:
In Hawaii at the time, all you had to do to get a birth announced was submit your own information. His Mother wanted him to have the advantage of American citizenship, so she had the announcement posted. Almost as easy as putting lies on OPP !
Thank you, faithistheword. I understand they still do that in the local papers in Hawaii.
You wrote:
"Obama's birth certificate was published on the internet and even Glenn Beck and Donald Trump are aware that it is a genuine copy of the original certificate. What do you think the odds are that you are right and everyone else is wrong?
That would be funny if it wasn't pitiful.
Back to your lies again, genius?
If Beck and Trump are "aware" a genuine birth certificate, just document them saying so.
The birth certificate that you says was posted on the internet has been taken apart by a host of computer graphics professionals. They found it, using technology such as Adobe Photoshop and others, to be a compilation of several overlays to make a complete document. This technology didn't exist at the time of Obama's birth nor for several years after. These professional investigators say that it is not even very well done... like your lies... amateurish.
Go away.
Your wrote that these issues are "easily refutable":
B******i, the IRS thing, Obama's birth certificate, Obama is a Muslim, Obama h**es America...
OK, genius, let's see your refutations. "Easily refutable" is a lie, your refutations could only be lies also. Your silly offer of a $100 reward is a lie too. You would find some other lie to avoid paying it.
Start with the birth certificate... mountains of professional opinion and evidence say it a clumsy and obvious forgery. Prove it is NOT a forgery. You can't prove a negative. That goes for the rest of your list.
Put up or shut up.
Your opinion that Obama is in defiance of international law is just a red herring or shiny object to distract people from stop looking at the facts of "B******i, the IRS thing, Obama's birth certificate, Obama is a Muslim, Obama h**es America". It may or not be true but is surely is just your opinion so far. One you have established yourself as a liar, your opinions are of the same value as your lies.
quote=halthecomish]Where in the constitution does it give the president excutive powers?If not-where does it give congress the power to give it to the president?[/quote]
Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a
President of the United States of America.
and:
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take
the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear
(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States."
et. al.
Bigmac495 wrote:
I would like to add : It was ruled a "Law Bill " by the Supreme Court ruling . The constitution says only the House can generate tax bills on Americans. However this President doesn't follow the laws , constitution , rules etc.
What is a "law bill"?
nightstalker wrote:
Well said.
I would also add to my first response"can you say $17,000 Billion dollars of debt. Who do you think has to pay for all these "great" gov. programs the Dems DEMAND we (the taxpayers) MUST fund.
Nope, but I can say 17 TRILLION dollars. I can't imagine it, but I can pronounce it. Can you?