By popular demand, we created this forum to cover almost any topic your heart desires. The Forum name, "Open Mike" refers to the tradition that some comedy and music clubs have of offering all comers the opportunity to perform live impromptu at their establishments, with any material they come up with that is consistent with the theme and policies of that organization (in our case, the Mission statement in "Read Me" section), We'll even consider stuff not consistent, if you can persuade us that changes are needed.
Note to readers/posters: Reader comments are in chronological, indented sequence, with the newest ones on the higher-numbered pages below. You must be registered on this site to post. You may have to scroll/page down to get to where you want to be.
If the Demorats maintain a majority in the Senate this year the people will have no representation for many years if ever. We can not afford to lose this election in November. If we do lose, it is over for We The People.
There are too many Republirats to take a chance that they will not support We The People if they stand a chance of eviction by stirred up ignorant and ACORN style voters. Obummer has screwed up so many times that those voters who pay at least some attention will vote correctly in November.
We really can't afford stirred up Hispanic, African-American and low-information voters in the mid term elections.
Typical RINO excuse, Don- frozen into inaction for 6 years while the Marxist usurper destroys the country and they help him. Inexcusable. I am DONE with excuses.
None of the previous Republican ploys that were supposed to work have helped. It is because of the Tea Parties that the House is now in Republican hands, NOT because of Karl Rove, Boehner, etc.
Getting rid of "Obama" is necessary for the survival of our nation, in case you haven't noticed Don. Even with the House in Republican hands, Boehner caves even when he doesn't have to.
If Trey Goudy doesn't do something significant on Benghazi or some other impeachable offense, we are FINISHED.
If we can't get something done civilly and peacefully, rougher men will replace us and do it by FORCE.
I agree with all of this BUT there is NO WAY that Obama will be convicted by the current Senate and if Dingy Harry keeps to his practice he will not even allow the trial to begin.
Consider what will happen if the toxic facts are exposed in House hearings and hit the news, night after night -- and the blogsphere and pundits start to turn on him. With his repeated Constitutional flouting and other impeachable acts, he is perilously close to that now, with even Chris Matthews, NY time and some Democrat groups attacking him. At least two Dem groups will be at the 6/14 UCI Commencement.
Don, Please use you considerable writing skills to help boost protest participation of that event. We can't just sit by passively and allow the Obama syndrome to destroy our nation.
I can give one example of why this country is in big trouble and it has to do with the California election of two days ago:
Leland Lee, a Democrat from San Francisco was running for "Secretary of State" and was on the June 3, 2014 ballot. He is an allegedly corrupt politician, who was indicted on corruption and gun-trafficking charges. Unfortunately, these charges came after the deadline to remove his name from the ballot. AND IN SPITE OF THESE CHARGES LELAND LEE RECEIVED 287,590 VOTES (10%).
This goes to show how stupid the American voters are. Sorry to say, but they appear to be brain dead and uninformed.
Brain Dead members of the Hive Mind.
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Entering to the sound of riotous and raucous applause, Senator Ted Cruz stormed the Texas GOP Convention amid calls welcoming him as the next president of the United States. May it be so. Cruz crushed Rand Paul and Rick Perry in the straw poll held at the convention. It wasn’t even close. 43% went to Cruz, with a distant second place of 12.2% going to Ben Carson. Rand Paul came in at 12.1% and Rick Perry at 11.7%.
The convention rocked with thunderous calls of “Run, Ted, Run!” and “Cruz! Cruz!” The event became a massive display of grassroots support for the Senator from Texas and the Tea Party. So much for the much decried demise of the Tea Party… we have only begun to fight. The Tea Party ruled the roost at the TX GOP Convention and struck a hard line over immigration. 7,000 delegates put the kibosh on a guest worker program for illegal aliens, entitled the ‘Texas Solution,’ that was an addition to the Republican platform only two years ago. The tide is turning and not in favor of the Progressives. The language was poorly disguised Amnesty and this time around, Conservatives proclaimed, enough! It’s about damn time.
You have just got to love Texans – they are a breed apart with spines to match:
This time, the convention had appeared poised to pass a plank including a compromise removing a specific call for a guest-worker program but creating a work-permit plan that essentially did the same thing once the U.S.-Mexico border was fully “secured.”
That initially passed, but then collapsed as the tea party flexed its muscles — the latest sign that grass-roots activists have pushed the always conservative Texas GOP even further to the right.
Delegate Jack M. Finger of San Antonio walked the floor with a hand-scrawled sign reading “No! Not even a hint of amnesty!”
“There is language that allows us to slide toward amnesty,” Finger said of the plan that eventually was defeated. “Guest worker, visa permit, all that puts us on a road to make our citizenship meaningless.”
Indeed, the hall was enveloped in applause when delegate Ivette Lozano, of Dallas, took a microphone to liken a softer immigration stance to negotiating with terrorists.
Right on, right on! Ding, ding, ding!! Give that Texan a prize. To hell with the all hat and no cattle approach. The boos and catcalls against Amnesty were deafening and the party chairman had to continuously call for civility. Time’s up for that crap and Katie bar the gate, because that bronco is long gone. Amnesty and all its evil facets were voted down – decisively. Good times. Go Texan or go home.
In the midst of a Conservative maelstrom, Ted Cruz was treated like the rock star he is. Promising another ‘Reagan Revolution,’ Cruz swept through the convention and dominated the stage.
Huffpo and the Progressive Marxists would like you to believe that Cruz running for the presidency is a sheer gift to Hillary Clinton and ensures her win as the next president of the United States. After I finished laughing over that one and picked myself up, I took time to wonder over their propaganda and/or delusions. Ted Cruz is Hillary’s worst nightmare. She couldn’t even begin to compete if she was pristine politically — which, as we all know, she is not. Between Benghazi, Bergdahl and a whole host of scandals, Hillary Clinton is about as useful as an old, tattered, hole-ridden shoe and just about as attractive to Americans. Texas casts a long shadow over the Clinton stain.
Both sides of the Progressive aisle keep telling America that the Tea Party and Ted Cruz represent a vocal minority. They are lying. They represent Conservative and Constitutional principals and the majority of Americans. Cruz is for defending ALL of the Bill of Rights and exposing the evil mischief being conducted by those in power — he stands for those rights and is working to drag those Progressives hiding in the dark into the light, exposing them for all to see. For all of us who have stood against Obamacare, Common Core, the IRS, abortion; for all of us who have stood for religious freedom, for our guns, for our privacy, for state rights and on and on… Cruz is the leader we have waited for and now is his time.
Cruz is energizing millions of Americans to fight back. He is willing to stand in front of them and take the heat and keep on fighting. He is strong on national defense at home and abroad. Securing our borders and strengthening our military in a time of war, are things he strongly believes in. He wants to restore us to world leadership and make us strong once again — freedom is everything to Cruz. Cutting the debt and ACTUALLY balancing the budget are also among his passions.
Ted Cruz is a principled man, who chooses his friends carefully and makes his endorsements judiciously. He doesn’t mince words – he is unapologetically pro-Israel and anti-Communist. He stands against radical Islam and will stop nuclear encroachment. Cruz is a Christian who doesn’t believe in cutting deals with terrorists… he believes in standing up for persecuted Christians across the globe. So, while the Obamas are jetting across the globe, partying and golfing, Cruz is doing what a real president does… speaking to the important issues of our time and taking a stand. Obama should take notes, but he won’t. Cruz rightly asks America, “Where is the president of the United States?”
In a much-anticipated speech on Friday, Cruz hammered those present over the â€œgreat stagnationâ€ and â€œcrushing regulationsâ€ of the Obama administration, calling on Texans to â€œstand up and lead the fight to defend our freedom.â€ In typical Texas fashion, he elicited laughter and applause by asserting that gun control in Texas means â€œhitting what you aim at.â€ Indeed.
Cruz is blacklisted among the Washington politically elite and loving it — all the way to the White House. The Democrats may think that Texas is their new stomping ground, but they couldn’t be more wrong. As goes the great state of Texas, so goes the nation. As Rafael Cruz put it, “I lost my freedom once, I’ll die before I lose it again.”
- Born in Canada
- Of a foreign father
NOT eligible for the Presidency.
Sarah Helene Duggin from the Catholic University of America looks at potential foreign-born presidential candidates like Ted Cruz and a possible emerging consensus among scholars about their eligibility for the White House.
The 2016 presidential election is more than three years away, but potential candidates and their supporters are already contemplating the next campaign.
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas—now well-known for his role in the recent federal shutdown—and California’s celebrity former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are among those whose names are circulating. But neither Cruz nor Schwarzenegger was born in the United States, and the Constitution provides that “[n]o person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
For Cruz, Schwarzenegger, and a number of other potential candidates, the Natural Born Citizenship Clause raises a critical question: Is anyone born outside the United States constitutionally eligible to serve as president?
Senator John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, faced the same question with respect to his natural-born citizenship status in his 2008 presidential bid, and purported concerns about President Obama’s constitutional qualifications led “birthers” to file lawsuits challenging his natural-born credentials on the basis of a variety of far-fetched theories during the last several years. A new natural-born citizenship debate is already simmering, and it seems likely to heat up a great deal before the 2016 election takes place.
The Constitution does not define the term natural born citizen. Even so, Governor Schwarzenegger is clearly out of the running. Given that he was born in Austria to Austrian parents, there is no basis for arguing that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
For Senator Cruz—who was born in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father—the question is more complicated. There is a strong argument that anyone who acquires United States citizenship at birth, whether by virtue of the 14th Amendment or by operation of federal statute, qualifies as natural born. The Supreme Court, however, has never ruled on the meaning of the natural-born citizenship requirement. In the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling—or a constitutional amendment—the parameters of the clause remain uncertain.
The origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause date back to a letter John Jay (who later authored several of the Federalist Papers and served as our first chief justice) wrote to George Washington, then president of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25, 1787. At the time, as Justice Joseph Story later explained in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution, many of the framers worried about “ambitious foreigners who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.”
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen,” Jay wrote.
Washington thanked Jay for his hints in a reply dated September 2, 1787. Shortly thereafter, the natural-born citizenship language appeared in the draft Constitution the Committee of Eleven presented to the Convention. There is no record of any debate on the clause.
While it is possible to trace the origins of the Natural Born Citizenship Clause, it is harder to determine its intended scope—who did the framers mean to exclude from the presidency by this language? The Naturalization Act of 1790 probably constitutes the most significant evidence available. Congress enacted this legislation just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, and many of those who voted on it had participated in the Constitutional Convention. The act provided that “children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
There is no record of discussion of the term natural born citizen, but it is reasonable to conclude that the drafters believed that foreign-born children of American parents who acquired citizenship at birth could and should be deemed natural born citizens.
Although subsequent naturalization acts dropped the natural born language, members of later Congresses proposed many bills and resolutions designed to clarify, limit, or eliminate the Natural Born Citizenship Clause; none succeeded. In April 2008, however, amid challenges to Senator McCain’s eligibility to serve as president, the Senate passed a resolution declaring that “John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”
The resolution—co-sponsored by a number of McCain’s Senate colleagues, including rival presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—undoubtedly offered Senator McCain some comfort, but it had no real constitutional significance.
Challenges to presidential qualifications are not new. In 1964, for example, questions arose as to the natural-born credentials of Republican nominee Senator Barry Goldwater, because he was born in Arizona prior to statehood. In 1968, legal actions were threatened against former Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents in Mexico, when he sought the Republican nomination.
Despite the shadow that lawsuits may cast over a presidential bid, the obstacles to successful litigation of natural-born citizenship challenges are formidable. These matters raise a wide array of justiciability concerns. Standing issues led to the dismissal of lawsuits filed in federal courts in New Hampshire and California challenging Senator McCain’s natural-born status in 2008 (Hollander v. McCain, Robinson v. Bowen), as well as to the dismissal of claims brought by a Guyana-born naturalized citizen who argued that the Fifth and 14th Amendments effectively repealed the natural born citizenship clause (Hassan v. Federal Election Committee).
Standing is not the only obstacle to adjudication of natural-born citizenship issues. Claims that a candidate lacks the requisite natural-born citizenship credentials are unlikely to ripen until a nominee is chosen, or perhaps even elected, and federal courts may be reluctant to delve into the merits of challenges to a candidate’s natural-born citizenship status on political question grounds.
What can we expect if Senator Cruz or another similarly situated candidate runs for president in 2016? Undoubtedly, the controversy will continue with passionate advocates on both sides of the issue. A scholarly consensus is emerging, however, that anyone who acquires citizenship at birth is natural born for purposes of Article II.
This consensus rests on firm foundations. First, given Jay’s letter and the language of the 1790 naturalization act, it seems evident that the framers were worried about foreign princes, not children born to American citizens living abroad. Second, the 14-year residency requirement Article II also imposes as a presidential prerequisite ensures that, regardless of their place of birth, would-be presidents must spend a significant time living in the United States before they can run for office.
Finally, the natural born citizenship clause is both an anomaly and an anachronism. The way in which the clause differentiates among United States citizens is contrary to the overall spirit of the Constitution; the risk that foreign nobility will infiltrate our government is long past; and place of birth is a poor surrogate for loyalty to one’s homeland in our increasingly mobile society and our ever more interconnected world. The best solution would be to amend the Constitution, as many legislators on both sides of the aisle have proposed over the years. In the absence of an amendment, the clause should be narrowly interpreted.
Sarah Helene Duggin is Professor of Law and Director of the Law and Public Policy Program for the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America. She has authored several academic articles on the natural-born citizenship proviso.