« "The die is cast" WINEP | Main | Obama should not exaggerate about guns »

07 January 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



The media/GOPe/Cuck/Borg establishment is mad as hell at Trump because he had this discussion NOW versus when they wanted to, in October 2016 with CNN blasting questions about Cruz's eligibility at the top of every hour.

The Beaver

Following what has been happening and said on that subject since 2008, I wonder what the nationalist Americans would say about a dual national who joined another country's military in lieu of the US.

Reason: There are many young Americans who are following in the foot steps of Rahm Emanuel, Golberg or the progeniture of Ethan Bronner and David Brooks. Those same kids come back with ideas to be politicos afterwards.
Anyway, who could forget Sara Netanyahu's words about Bibi: "has he been born in the U.S., he would have been elected president there "


The problem that I see with Cruz's qualifications is this: It derives thru his mama. And had she formally renounced her American citizenship in Canada?


Who is responsible for checking the eligibility of candidates and enforcing the rules? Could a sitting 'President' be removed if found to be ineligible after inauguration? Would his actions be automatically reversed? What actually makes him President; is it taking the oath of office even if ineligible to do so? Might there be competing claims to be the valid President or True King? Is it the function of the Supreme Court to sort out or prevent such squabbles about legitimacy?


Nice to see you mention Jennifer G. I thought her speech nominating Obama was great, and I looked up her Dating Game appearances in the 70's. Real cute and real smart.



Scott Adams on Trump's Canadian Gambit



I haven't given much thought as to how we could go about actually having another constitutional convention in our present political environment. That as opposed to voting on a single amendment to the constitution.

Wiki does a pretty good job of outlining the provisions in the constitution itself. Link below.

It's hard to imagine enough good will being present in the current parties (GOPee, Borgistas, Debbie WSites, etc.) to allow for a sane process to be followed to adjust the constitution to our current era. IMO, it would be a very good thing to bring that document up to speed. There is much that could be pruned out, including the 13th amendment as an example. We simply have no need of it in our age.

I agree that the natural born requirement is an antique requirement, based on the threats and worries of a bygone age.



Since Citizens United, the wording is needed as never before, perhaps? Since a corporation is deemed to be a person what's to stop a properly domiciled citizen corporation throwing its incorporeal hat into the ring? Fundraising? Pschaw! That's so XX Century!


It is a question that should be addressed by the Supreme Court and put to rest once and for all. Tump's solution "Declaratory Judgement" is a good one and Cruz should move forward quickly or the Congress should vote on a response for the upcoming election, also quickly.


I agree with pl's opinion on this.


If we changed the qualifications for president in this way, wouldn't this be another signal that American citizens born to long term American families are inadequate and that we'd be better off with an immigrant in the White House?

That is not meant to be anti-immigrant, my concern is with the increasing impulse to reject the people born here as inadequate.

Trey N

Ostensibly, the Founding Fathers were meeting in Philadelphia to bring the Articles of Confederation "up to speed." They ended up scrapping the Articles entirely and writing a completely new Constitution.

Whether the Constitution is a much better document than the original Articles is debatable and beside the point here. The issue is whether a body of citizens meeting today to merely "bring the current Constitution up to speed" would scrap that document entirely and come up with -- God knows what.

I do know that the infamous 1% would have bought up all the delegates to ensure that their agenda is enshrined in the new governing document. As much as our current Bill of Rights has been shredded in the name of the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, etc etc, it still is a powerful bulwark against unwarranted governmental (ie, the 1%)power. That's why they hate it so, and constantly seek to undermine it.

As alluring as the PTB try to make it sound, a Constitutional Convention would be an absolute disaster for the citizens of the United States. It would almost certainly result in the end of what's left of the Republic as we've known it.

And I can positively guarantee you that there would be no equivalent of 2nd Amendment rights anywhere in the new governing document (or the 1st, 4th and 5th, for that matter).


I agree with PL. It would allow me to run for high office.

My apologies to some of the posters here. I know I won't be getting your vote.



Albayim, I am pleasantly surprised to see your opinion on the native born restriction for presidency of the United States, that he or she be a born within United States to be eligible to become president. What difference does it make in this day and age, my best friend was born in Ireland in a USAF base, whose father was a serviceman, and mother Irish, but he and his family lived off base, smack in rural Ireland until he was 6. Should he be disqualified from running for presidency? Obama was born in Hawaii, which was US territory at the time, but what difference would it have made if he was born 50 years previously? Can someone born in Puerto Rico, a US territory, become president? And if Virgin Islands became the 51st state in the next 10 years, can someone who was born there 20 years ago become the president?

Like I posted here on a different subject, the conditions under and during The Constitution were written has changed tremendously, and that the Constitution is flexible. US is an immigrant country, and always has been, and it has been her strength. I would like to think that changing demographics of United States could have never been anticipated by the founding fathers, but to integrate into it the spirit of an inherent flexibility for the coming centuries has been. So in short, a not within US continental mass born, but a true American, should be able to become the president, giving hope to and aspiration to more than 70 million Americans, as the highest achievement the land can offer, as it should be in the world's most inclusive country. And as I wrote here before, I know many Americans who were born within US borders who have nothing in common with Americans, or even a trace of Americanness under their skin. Merit and true demonstration of adherence to American ideals should be the real test.



I do not believe the Constitution is "flexible." Like Cruz I do not think it is a "first draft." It is a statement of governing principles that are unchanged and should remain unchanged. "my best friend was born in Ireland in a USAF base, whose father was a serviceman, and mother Irish, but he and his family lived off base, smack in rural Ireland until he was 6." If your friend's father was American your friend is eligible. All the other examples you mention are eligible. pl



If you are naturalized American you are already eligible to hold high office except for president and vice president. that was not on the naturalization test? pl



There would not be a requirement to elect an immigrant. As you probably have read I had five ancestors on the Mayflower so this cannot be thought of as a case of immigrant special pleading. pl


I think the elite is happy, anytime, to have nonsense like birtherisms take front and center over genuine issues.



I believe that many of those at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 were the 1% of the time nor were they motivated solely by money.


No, I didn't think you meant we had to elect an immigrant. But how can we, a nation of over 300 million, not have enough qualified people to run?

Also, if I were going to make any changes about immigration in the Constitution, I would much prefer to make changes to restrict automatic birthright citizenship. The present system of handing out American citizenship to every child born here is simply crazy in today's world.

Babak Makkinejad

Col. Lang:

I disagree with your position.

There are already US citizens, some naturalized and many not, with rather dubious loyalty to the United States - in my opinion.

What you are proposing only makes it easier for such ones to gain control of parts of the US Government.

In fact, this fear permeates many Science Fiction movies & stories produced in US.



What would be your criteria for birthright citizenship? Perhaps it should be restricted to people whose ancestors have been in the country a hundred years? Kunuri implies we should screen out some of the native born. Heinlein suggested in "Starship Troopers" (the book) that the franchise should be restricted to those who have risked their lives for the common weal. That would suit me just fine. pl



Do I understand that as well as being opposed to allowing naturalized Americans to be elected to the office of president that you think someone should judge whom among the native born should be eligible. perhaps these people should be denied the franchise as well? pl

Babak Makkinejad

I think you meant "Babak" and not "Kunari" here.

I am not suggesting some sort of adjudication process to decide eligibility to stand for office - only that which I have observed.


Thru his purported mama. If he was switched at birth, he is not an American citizen.

In the spirit of past demands for the long form, isn't it high time we see the results of maternity testing for Ted? He is only an American citizen if his DNA matches hers.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad