The pound is stronger against the Euro than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Canadian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Australian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Indian Rupee than any time before 2014. The pound is stronger against the Yen than at any time between 2009-2013. The pound is weaker against the Dollar than most but not all times between 2009-2014.
Spot the odd one out. The dollar has risen against all FX due to the Fed raising rates. It has nothing to do with the pound being weak.
I forget the name of the technique you're using: let's call it "cherrypicking" for the moment, tho' no doubt it has another name. Listing the dates which suit your argument is not sufficient: it merely points out that there were times in the past where the current situation did or did not pertain. This does not make the current situation tolerable nor desirable.
IMHO the fall in GBP/USD is undesirable and the level it is now hitting is rare enough to merit attention. You may disagree. But listing past levels will not make a difference.
It's undesirable if you've gambled on Sterling rising against the dollar and it's going in the opposite direction. Otherwise, it's not much of an issue.
Bad news if you are reselling crap from china on amazon or ebay I guess. Or going on a US holiday. But we import too much junk.
@Viewcode EURGBP affects my company due to the fact most of our sales are in Euro. Apologies for the outburst earlier, are you an importer ?
So now would be a good time for me to visit the UK?
Yep! Anyone earning dollars is doing well right now, especially if they have outgoings in pounds or euros.
Goody - I'm seriously considering a trip there in the next month or so. I have 300,000 frequent flier miles just aching to be used up.
300,000! Wow, I thought I did lots of travelling - won't that many miles get you a round the world trip in First?
The pound is stronger against the Euro than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Canadian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Australian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Indian Rupee than any time before 2014. The pound is stronger against the Yen than at any time between 2009-2013. The pound is weaker against the Dollar than most but not all times between 2009-2014.
Spot the odd one out. The dollar has risen against all FX due to the Fed raising rates. It has nothing to do with the pound being weak.
I forget the name of the technique you're using: let's call it "cherrypicking" for the moment, tho' no doubt it has another name. Listing the dates which suit your argument is not sufficient: it merely points out that there were times in the past where the current situation did or did not pertain. This does not make the current situation tolerable nor desirable.
IMHO the fall in GBP/USD is undesirable and the level it is now hitting is rare enough to merit attention. You may disagree. But listing past levels will not make a difference.
Picking every single major currency is cherrypicking?
No only picking the only one that suits your agenda is cherrypicking. Ignore the other currencies at your peril, it just betrays your ignorance. Again. As for dates I chose the recent past.
No, picking the dates was cherrypicking.
IMHO the drop in GBP/USD is not unremarkable nor desirable. You may disagree, but that does not change what I find remarkable or desirable.
You should probably ask your relatives to campaign for either Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders. Either should give a decent run for the GBP against the USD.
Hmm...which POTUS would be better from the point of view of GBP vs USD? There's an interesting question.
The pound is stronger against the Euro than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Canadian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Australian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Indian Rupee than any time before 2014. The pound is stronger against the Yen than at any time between 2009-2013. The pound is weaker against the Dollar than most but not all times between 2009-2014.
Spot the odd one out. The dollar has risen against all FX due to the Fed raising rates. It has nothing to do with the pound being weak.
I forget the name of the technique you're using: let's call it "cherrypicking" for the moment, tho' no doubt it has another name. Listing the dates which suit your argument is not sufficient: it merely points out that there were times in the past where the current situation did or did not pertain. This does not make the current situation tolerable nor desirable.
IMHO the fall in GBP/USD is undesirable and the level it is now hitting is rare enough to merit attention. You may disagree. But listing past levels will not make a difference.
Picking every single major currency is cherrypicking?
No only picking the only one that suits your agenda is cherrypicking. Ignore the other currencies at your peril, it just betrays your ignorance. Again. As for dates I chose the recent past.
No, picking the dates was cherrypicking.
IMHO the drop in GBP/USD is not unremarkable nor desirable. You may disagree, but that does not change what I find remarkable or desirable.
You should probably ask your relatives to campaign for either Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders. Either should give a decent run for the GBP against the USD.
Hmm...which POTUS would be better from the point of view of GBP vs USD? There's an interesting question.
Cruz. He's going to abolish income tax ! Bernie has big spending plans.
POTUS Trump would be entirely unremarkable I think
Will be most amusing when President Trump retroactively declares his predecessor ineligible, and his "presidency" void...
There is such a thing as the constitution, even the Donald cannot interpret it to suit his own whims!
The Constitution and the Framers and the SCOTUS have all been clear about what an NBC is.
Barry is not eligible to be an intern, never mind POTUS.
Son of a Brit (Kenyan)...
He was born in Hawaii a US state and the SCOTUS have never made one ruling he was ineligible
His case has never got as far as the SCOTUS, so they wouldn't have made any ruling on him specifically.
However, when the SCOTUS has opined on the subject, it's clear he's not eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..." Minor v Happersett (1874)
cf.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." From Obama's own website/and FactCheck [2008]
So Obama, Senior was never a US citizen, and no-one claims he was. Therefore, his children could not be natural born citizens of the US, irrespective of whether they were born within the territory of the US or not...
Negative campaigning works. As I have constantly said, 'Leave' need to fight fear with fear. They need to frame 'Remain' as a POSITIVE COMMITMENT to the EU, as a binding contract, as underwriting a loan, carrying the can etc. The fear case is just as strong against committing to continued membership as it is against leaving. The biggest thing people need to be made to fear is giving the EU a huge mandate - what if it's a walkover, what will they do then? They should be encouraged to give the EU a kicking if only to send a message that all is not well.
If fear goes both ways, at the very least weak remainers will stay at home - they have no additional reason to vote remain. Actual passionate remainers (ie Lib Dem activists) can car share on the way to the polling booth.
And bloody unite for pity's sake, surely we all want to get out of the EU enough to pretend to like each other for a couple of months.
I think this is a very good point.
My starting position is to vote REMAIN, primarily because of the fearful economic leap into the unknown dark that is associated with voting LEAVE. But if LEAVE can counter that fear by making the opposing argument that there is a substantial economic risk in voting REMAIN then potential undecideds like me might well reconsider.
An interesting perspective. My starting point is Leave because the direction of travel within the EU is clear. They wish to be a single country and don't like the UK getting in the way of that ambition, as was made quite clear to the PM as he tried to renegotiate last week.
The pound is stronger against the Euro than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Canadian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Australian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Indian Rupee than any time before 2014. The pound is stronger against the Yen than at any time between 2009-2013. The pound is weaker against the Dollar than most but not all times between 2009-2014.
Spot the odd one out. The dollar has risen against all FX due to the Fed raising rates. It has nothing to do with the pound being weak.
I forget the name of the technique you're using: let's call it "cherrypicking" for the moment, tho' no doubt it has another name. Listing the dates which suit your argument is not sufficient: it merely points out that there were times in the past where the current situation did or did not pertain. This does not make the current situation tolerable nor desirable.
IMHO the fall in GBP/USD is undesirable and the level it is now hitting is rare enough to merit attention. You may disagree. But listing past levels will not make a difference.
It's undesirable if you've gambled on Sterling rising against the dollar and it's going in the opposite direction. Otherwise, it's not much of an issue.
Sean F. You used to do excellent regular articles for PB when you were a Tory party member - and now of course you are UKIP.
I would be very interested in reading a PB Thread article written by you setting out the case for LEAVE if you were willing to submit one and if Mike felt it would be appropriate.
Many thanks. I think Mike would prefer to focus on likely outcomes, and betting implications, rather than arguments for or against one side. If Mike thinks articles for and against Leave are appropriate, then I'd willingly submit one.
FWIW, I think Remain will win, by 53-57% to 43-47%. Beating the establishment is extremely difficult.
I started with the view that REMAIN will win and I agree it's the likelier outcome. But I'm much less certain and I expect there will be a fair amount of to and fro in the polls and the betting between now and voting day.
Negative campaigning works. As I have constantly said, 'Leave' need to fight fear with fear. They need to frame 'Remain' as a POSITIVE COMMITMENT to the EU, as a binding contract, as underwriting a loan, carrying the can etc. The fear case is just as strong against committing to continued membership as it is against leaving. The biggest thing people need to be made to fear is giving the EU a huge mandate - what if it's a walkover, what will they do then? They should be encouraged to give the EU a kicking if only to send a message that all is not well.
If fear goes both ways, at the very least weak remainers will stay at home - they have no additional reason to vote remain. Actual passionate remainers (ie Lib Dem activists) can car share on the way to the polling booth.
And bloody unite for pity's sake, surely we all want to get out of the EU enough to pretend to like each other for a couple of months.
I think this is a very good point.
My starting position is to vote REMAIN, primarily because of the fearful economic leap into the unknown dark that is associated with voting LEAVE. But if LEAVE can counter that fear by making the opposing argument that there is a substantial economic risk in voting REMAIN then potential undecideds like me might well reconsider.
I'm not sure what economic horrors I could conjure up, if we Remain. The likeliest outcome, slow stagnation, isn't really a horror story. The Euro could blow up, of course, but that would hurt us in or out.
Whereas, it's very easy to argue that if we Leave, we'll be treated as a pariah State, and have to eat bits of dog and cat to survive.
Will be most amusing when President Trump retroactively declares his predecessor ineligible, and his "presidency" void...
There is such a thing as the constitution, even the Donald cannot interpret it to suit his own whims!
The Constitution and the Framers and the SCOTUS have all been clear about what an NBC is.
Barry is not eligible to be an intern, never mind POTUS.
Son of a Brit (Kenyan)...
He was born in Hawaii a US state and the SCOTUS have never made one ruling he was ineligible
His case has never got as far as the SCOTUS, so they wouldn't have made any ruling on him specifically.
However, when the SCOTUS has opined on the subject, it's clear he's not eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..." Minor v Happersett (1874)
cf.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." From Obama's own website/and FactCheck [2008]
So Obama, Senior was never a US citizen, and no-one claims he was. Therefore, his children could not be natural born citizens of the US, irrespective of whether they were born within the territory of the US or not...
Will be most amusing when President Trump retroactively declares his predecessor ineligible, and his "presidency" void...
There is such a thing as the constitution, even the Donald cannot interpret it to suit his own whims!
The Constitution and the Framers and the SCOTUS have all been clear about what an NBC is.
Barry is not eligible to be an intern, never mind POTUS.
Son of a Brit (Kenyan)...
He was born in Hawaii a US state and the SCOTUS have never made one ruling he was ineligible
His case has never got as far as the SCOTUS, so they wouldn't have made any ruling on him specifically.
However, when the SCOTUS has opined on the subject, it's clear he's not eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..." Minor v Happersett (1874)
cf.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." From Obama's own website/and FactCheck [2008]
So Obama, Senior was never a US citizen, and no-one claims he was. Therefore, his children could not be natural born citizens of the US, irrespective of whether they were born within the territory of the US or not...
You persist in thinking that "natural born citizen" means anything but "citizen at birth".
The pound is stronger against the Euro than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Canadian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Australian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Indian Rupee than any time before 2014. The pound is stronger against the Yen than at any time between 2009-2013. The pound is weaker against the Dollar than most but not all times between 2009-2014.
Spot the odd one out. The dollar has risen against all FX due to the Fed raising rates. It has nothing to do with the pound being weak.
I forget the name of the technique you're using: let's call it "cherrypicking" for the moment, tho' no doubt it has another name. Listing the dates which suit your argument is not sufficient: it merely points out that there were times in the past where the current situation did or did not pertain. This does not make the current situation tolerable nor desirable.
IMHO the fall in GBP/USD is undesirable and the level it is now hitting is rare enough to merit attention. You may disagree. But listing past levels will not make a difference.
Picking every single major currency is cherrypicking?
No only picking the only one that suits your agenda is cherrypicking. Ignore the other currencies at your peril, it just betrays your ignorance. Again. As for dates I chose the recent past.
No, picking the dates was cherrypicking.
IMHO the drop in GBP/USD is not unremarkable nor desirable. You may disagree, but that does not change what I find remarkable or desirable.
You should probably ask your relatives to campaign for either Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders. Either should give a decent run for the GBP against the USD.
Hmm...which POTUS would be better from the point of view of GBP vs USD? There's an interesting question.
Cruz. He's going to abolish income tax ! Bernie has big spending plans.
POTUS Trump would be entirely unremarkable I think
There is a part of me that wants to see POTUS Trump. There is a possibility he might be good. Admittedly there is also a possibility he may be disasterous, but...
The pound is stronger against the Euro than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Canadian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Australian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Indian Rupee than any time before 2014. The pound is stronger against the Yen than at any time between 2009-2013. The pound is weaker against the Dollar than most but not all times between 2009-2014.
Spot the odd one out. The dollar has risen against all FX due to the Fed raising rates. It has nothing to do with the pound being weak.
I forget the name of the technique you're using: let's call it "cherrypicking" for the moment, tho' no doubt it has another name. Listing the dates which suit your argument is not sufficient: it merely points out that there were times in the past where the current situation did or did not pertain. This does not make the current situation tolerable nor desirable.
IMHO the fall in GBP/USD is undesirable and the level it is now hitting is rare enough to merit attention. You may disagree. But listing past levels will not make a difference.
Picking every single major currency is cherrypicking?
No only picking the only one that suits your agenda is cherrypicking. Ignore the other currencies at your peril, it just betrays your ignorance. Again. As for dates I chose the recent past.
No, picking the dates was cherrypicking.
IMHO the drop in GBP/USD is not unremarkable nor desirable. You may disagree, but that does not change what I find remarkable or desirable.
You should probably ask your relatives to campaign for either Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders. Either should give a decent run for the GBP against the USD.
Hmm...which POTUS would be better from the point of view of GBP vs USD? There's an interesting question.
Cruz. He's going to abolish income tax ! Bernie has big spending plans.
POTUS Trump would be entirely unremarkable I think
There is a part of me that wants to see POTUS Trump. There is a possibility he might be good. Admittedly there is also a possibility he may be disasterous, but...
And, if you'll excuse me, I have an elsewhere to be. Goodnight.
Will be most amusing when President Trump retroactively declares his predecessor ineligible, and his "presidency" void...
There is such a thing as the constitution, even the Donald cannot interpret it to suit his own whims!
The Constitution and the Framers and the SCOTUS have all been clear about what an NBC is.
Barry is not eligible to be an intern, never mind POTUS.
Son of a Brit (Kenyan)...
He was born in Hawaii a US state and the SCOTUS have never made one ruling he was ineligible
His case has never got as far as the SCOTUS, so they wouldn't have made any ruling on him specifically.
However, when the SCOTUS has opined on the subject, it's clear he's not eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..." Minor v Happersett (1874)
cf.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." From Obama's own website/and FactCheck [2008]
So Obama, Senior was never a US citizen, and no-one claims he was. Therefore, his children could not be natural born citizens of the US, irrespective of whether they were born within the territory of the US or not...
He gets his citizenship from birth by both being born in the US and by his mother. Father is irrelevant twice over.
The pound is stronger against the Euro than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Canadian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Australian dollar than at any time between 2009-2014. The pound is stronger against the Indian Rupee than any time before 2014. The pound is stronger against the Yen than at any time between 2009-2013. The pound is weaker against the Dollar than most but not all times between 2009-2014.
Spot the odd one out. The dollar has risen against all FX due to the Fed raising rates. It has nothing to do with the pound being weak.
I forget the name of the technique you're using: let's call it "cherrypicking" for the moment, tho' no doubt it has another name. Listing the dates which suit your argument is not sufficient: it merely points out that there were times in the past where the current situation did or did not pertain. This does not make the current situation tolerable nor desirable.
IMHO the fall in GBP/USD is undesirable and the level it is now hitting is rare enough to merit attention. You may disagree. But listing past levels will not make a difference.
Picking every single major currency is cherrypicking?
No only picking the only one that suits your agenda is cherrypicking. Ignore the other currencies at your peril, it just betrays your ignorance. Again. As for dates I chose the recent past.
No, picking the dates was cherrypicking.
IMHO the drop in GBP/USD is not unremarkable nor desirable. You may disagree, but that does not change what I find remarkable or desirable.
You should probably ask your relatives to campaign for either Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders. Either should give a decent run for the GBP against the USD.
Hmm...which POTUS would be better from the point of view of GBP vs USD? There's an interesting question.
Cruz. He's going to abolish income tax ! Bernie has big spending plans.
POTUS Trump would be entirely unremarkable I think
There is a part of me that wants to see POTUS Trump. There is a possibility he might be good. Admittedly there is also a possibility he may be disasterous, but...
For all the campaigning bluster I think he might actually be an okay president. The entrepreneur in him would rather try something and see how it goes, rather than the more Establishment types (Rubio, Clinton) that want power for its own sake and don't really want to change anything.
2. An explicit Naturalization Act. Intended (obviously) for those who were NOT natural born citizens...
3. Clearly can not - and does not - make anyone an NBC. It's very language confirms that. "...shall be considered as a natural born citizen..." NOT made into an NBC.
4. Repealed in 1795, in any case, and no Naturalization Act since has ever mentioned NBC.
A man-made statute law may say you are "considered as" the son of your adoptive father. It cannot, and would not, say you are the natural son of your father if you were not - and if you were the natural son, such law would have no reason to be written...
I forget the name of the technique you're using: let's call it "cherrypicking" for the moment, tho' no doubt it has another name. Listing the dates which suit your argument is not sufficient: it merely points out that there were times in the past where the current situation did or did not pertain. This does not make the current situation tolerable nor desirable.
IMHO the fall in GBP/USD is undesirable and the level it is now hitting is rare enough to merit attention. You may disagree. But listing past levels will not make a difference.
Picking every single major currency is cherrypicking?
No only picking the only one that suits your agenda is cherrypicking. Ignore the other currencies at your peril, it just betrays your ignorance. Again. As for dates I chose the recent past.
No, picking the dates was cherrypicking.
IMHO the drop in GBP/USD is not unremarkable nor desirable. You may disagree, but that does not change what I find remarkable or desirable.
You should probably ask your relatives to campaign for either Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders. Either should give a decent run for the GBP against the USD.
Hmm...which POTUS would be better from the point of view of GBP vs USD? There's an interesting question.
Cruz. He's going to abolish income tax ! Bernie has big spending plans.
POTUS Trump would be entirely unremarkable I think
There is a part of me that wants to see POTUS Trump. There is a possibility he might be good. Admittedly there is also a possibility he may be disasterous, but...
For all the campaigning bluster I think he might actually be an okay president. The entrepreneur in him would rather try something and see how it goes, rather than the more Establishment types (Rubio, Clinton) that want power for its own sake and don't really want to change anything.
He went to Wharton at Penn so you know he is a really smart guy. He has built a successful worldwide company, so you know he's a good businessman. When his casinos didn't work out he put them in Chapter 11, so he's able to take tough decisions.
3. Clearly can not - and does not - make anyone an NBC. It's very language confirms that. "...shall be considered as a natural born citizen..." NOT made into an NBC.
When you decide to use honest stats it may be worth it.
...and just when I thought I'd managed to get to bed. Thinks furiously: long version or short version? Oh, let's do short version....
I did not use dishonest stats.
There you go. Should keep you occupied for a few seconds. Please feel free to post a rejoinder which due to pressure of sleep[1] I will not respond to, although I think it's safe to say I will disagree with you. Goodnight.
It just gets better - asked about today's federal court ruling that Judicial Watch can depose people at the State Department regarding her email server, Hillary Clinton repeated the tired old line that it's part of a right wing conspiracy to get the Clintons.
Unfortunately the judge who made the ruling was appointed by Bill Clinton.
When you decide to use honest stats it may be worth it.
...and just when I thought I'd managed to get to bed. Thinks furiously: long version or short version? Oh, let's do short version....
I did not use dishonest stats.
There you go. Should keep you occupied for a few seconds. Please feel free to post a rejoinder which due to pressure of sleep[1] I will not respond to, although I think it's safe to say I will disagree with you. Goodnight.
[1] And for that matter, sanity
You are cherrypicking GPB/USD only and assigning the change to domestic UK issues rather than where it belongs, the Fed. Looking at a basket of currencies shows the USD has risen against all and GPB has not noticeably fallen relative to recent years against any other than USD.
Until you stop dismissing all other currencies and the Fed you are being dishonest. You may have previously been ignorant but your ignorance if it exists should have been cleared up by now.
It just gets better - asked about today's federal court ruling that Judicial Watch can depose people at the State Department regarding her email server, Hillary Clinton repeated the tired old line that it's part of a right wing conspiracy to get the Clintons.
Unfortunately the judge who made the ruling was appointed by Bill Clinton.
she probably forgot about it under pressure of enemy sniper fire
Will be most amusing when President Trump retroactively declares his predecessor ineligible, and his "presidency" void...
There is such a thing as the constitution, even the Donald cannot interpret it to suit his own whims!
The Constitution and the Framers and the SCOTUS have all been clear about what an NBC is.
Barry is not eligible to be an intern, never mind POTUS.
Son of a Brit (Kenyan)...
He was born in Hawaii a US state and the SCOTUS have never made one ruling he was ineligible
His case has never got as far as the SCOTUS, so they wouldn't have made any ruling on him specifically.
However, when the SCOTUS has opined on the subject, it's clear he's not eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..." Minor v Happersett (1874)
cf.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." From Obama's own website/and FactCheck [2008]
So Obama, Senior was never a US citizen, and no-one claims he was. Therefore, his children could not be natural born citizens of the US, irrespective of whether they were born within the territory of the US or not...
Obama's mother was born in KS
So what. The word is "parents", and under the doctrine of coverture applicable when the Constitution was written (and under Vattel's treatise, from whence it originated) Obama's parents' citizenship was unified under that of his father, namely British/Kenyan, and thus not American at all...
Will be most amusing when President Trump retroactively declares his predecessor ineligible, and his "presidency" void...
There is such a thing as the constitution, even the Donald cannot interpret it to suit his own whims!
The Constitution and the Framers and the SCOTUS have all been clear about what an NBC is.
Barry is not eligible to be an intern, never mind POTUS.
Son of a Brit (Kenyan)...
He was born in Hawaii a US state and the SCOTUS have never made one ruling he was ineligible
His case has never got as far as the SCOTUS, so they wouldn't have made any ruling on him specifically.
However, when the SCOTUS has opined on the subject, it's clear he's not eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..." Minor v Happersett (1874)
cf.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." From Obama's own website/and FactCheck [2008]
So Obama, Senior was never a US citizen, and no-one claims he was. Therefore, his children could not be natural born citizens of the US, irrespective of whether they were born within the territory of the US or not...
Obama's mother was born in KS
So what. The word is "parents", and under the doctrine of coverture applicable when the Constitution was written (and under Vattel's treatise, from whence it originated) Obama's parents' citizenship was unified under that of his father, namely British/Kenyan, and thus not American at all...
The word is "children". If it meant both parents it would say so, either explicitly or as "any child [...] parents".
Will be most amusing when President Trump retroactively declares his predecessor ineligible, and his "presidency" void...
There is such a thing as the constitution, even the Donald cannot interpret it to suit his own whims!
The Constitution and the Framers and the SCOTUS have all been clear about what an NBC is.
Barry is not eligible to be an intern, never mind POTUS.
Son of a Brit (Kenyan)...
He was born in Hawaii a US state and the SCOTUS have never made one ruling he was ineligible
His case has never got as far as the SCOTUS, so they wouldn't have made any ruling on him specifically.
However, when the SCOTUS has opined on the subject, it's clear he's not eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..." Minor v Happersett (1874)
cf.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." From Obama's own website/and FactCheck [2008]
So Obama, Senior was never a US citizen, and no-one claims he was. Therefore, his children could not be natural born citizens of the US, irrespective of whether they were born within the territory of the US or not...
Obama's mother was born in KS
So what. The word is "parents", and under the doctrine of coverture applicable when the Constitution was written (and under Vattel's treatise, from whence it originated) Obama's parents' citizenship was unified under that of his father, namely British/Kenyan, and thus not American at all...
Bullshit. Plus this ignores much other case history such as United States v Wong Kim Ark
There is such a thing as the constitution, even the Donald cannot interpret it to suit his own whims!
The Constitution and the Framers and the SCOTUS have all been clear about what an NBC is.
Barry is not eligible to be an intern, never mind POTUS.
Son of a Brit (Kenyan)...
He was born in Hawaii a US state and the SCOTUS have never made one ruling he was ineligible
His case has never got as far as the SCOTUS, so they wouldn't have made any ruling on him specifically.
However, when the SCOTUS has opined on the subject, it's clear he's not eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..." Minor v Happersett (1874)
cf.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." From Obama's own website/and FactCheck [2008]
So Obama, Senior was never a US citizen, and no-one claims he was. Therefore, his children could not be natural born citizens of the US, irrespective of whether they were born within the territory of the US or not...
Obama's mother was born in KS
So what. The word is "parents", and under the doctrine of coverture applicable when the Constitution was written (and under Vattel's treatise, from whence it originated) Obama's parents' citizenship was unified under that of his father, namely British/Kenyan, and thus not American at all...
Bullshit. Plus this ignores much other case history such as United States v Wong Kim Ark
This is one of Rod's hobby horses. It doesn't matter how you marshal the facts and present the argument, you won't change him. Stop trying - you'll feel so much better.
3. Clearly can not - and does not - make anyone an NBC. It's very language confirms that. "...shall be considered as a natural born citizen..." NOT made into an NBC.
Oh, come on. That's simply pathetic.
You need to do some more research.
What the Founders considered "entirely artificial" was the idea of subjectship and the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.
They went so far as fighting a war and sacrificing much blood and treasure to prove their point, and establish a new form of republican government. That new government was informed by the Age of Reason, and in particular the treatise "The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns" by Emer de Vattel (Swiss), from whence they obtained their definition of a natural born citizen...
"§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
You will notice the highlighted words are virtually word for word that given by the SCOTUS in 1874...
You can sling as many impotent insults at me as you like. You can't change the historical facts, or the law.
There is such a thing as the constitution, even the Donald cannot interpret it to suit his own whims!
The Constitution and the Framers and the SCOTUS have all been clear about what an NBC is.
Barry is not eligible to be an intern, never mind POTUS.
Son of a Brit (Kenyan)...
He was born in Hawaii a US state and the SCOTUS have never made one ruling he was ineligible
His case has never got as far as the SCOTUS, so they wouldn't have made any ruling on him specifically.
However, when the SCOTUS has opined on the subject, it's clear he's not eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..." Minor v Happersett (1874)
cf.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." From Obama's own website/and FactCheck [2008]
So Obama, Senior was never a US citizen, and no-one claims he was. Therefore, his children could not be natural born citizens of the US, irrespective of whether they were born within the territory of the US or not...
Obama's mother was born in KS
So what. The word is "parents", and under the doctrine of coverture applicable when the Constitution was written (and under Vattel's treatise, from whence it originated) Obama's parents' citizenship was unified under that of his father, namely British/Kenyan, and thus not American at all...
Bullshit. Plus this ignores much other case history such as United States v Wong Kim Ark
This is one of Rod's hobby horses. It doesn't matter how you marshal the facts and present the argument, you won't change him. Stop trying - you'll feel so much better.
Neither you nor anyone else has so far present any facts or arguments.
Just half-baked assertions gleaned from the MSM, and picayune insults when they are demonstrated to be ill-founded...
You will notice the highlighted words are virtually word for word that given by the SCOTUS in 1874...
You can sling as many impotent insults at me as you like. You can't change the historical facts, or the law.
I also noticed you ignoring the more recent and thus relevant case of 1898 that settled that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. Even those children of those who are not citizens.
Will be most amusing when President Trump retroactively declares his predecessor ineligible, and his "presidency" void...
There is such a thing as the constitution, even the Donald cannot interpret it to suit his own whims!
The Constitution and the Framers and the SCOTUS have all been clear about what an NBC is.
Barry is not eligible to be an intern, never mind POTUS.
Son of a Brit (Kenyan)...
He was born in Hawaii a US state and the SCOTUS have never made one ruling he was ineligible
His case has never got as far as the SCOTUS, so they wouldn't have made any ruling on him specifically.
However, when the SCOTUS has opined on the subject, it's clear he's not eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..." Minor v Happersett (1874)
cf.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." From Obama's own website/and FactCheck [2008]
So Obama, Senior was never a US citizen, and no-one claims he was. Therefore, his children could not be natural born citizens of the US, irrespective of whether they were born within the territory of the US or not...
Obama's mother was born in KS
So what. The word is "parents", and under the doctrine of coverture applicable when the Constitution was written (and under Vattel's treatise, from whence it originated) Obama's parents' citizenship was unified under that of his father, namely British/Kenyan, and thus not American at all...
Bullshit. Plus this ignores much other case history such as United States v Wong Kim Ark
You will notice the highlighted words are virtually word for word that given by the SCOTUS in 1874...
You can sling as many impotent insults at me as you like. You can't change the historical facts, or the law.
I also noticed you ignoring the more recent and thus relevant case of 1898 that settled that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. Even those children of those who are not citizens.
Would you like to demonstrate your ignorance of this case?
Defined him as naturally born a citizen by virtue of being born in the US despite parents who were not and could not be naturalised as citizens.
As I said. You are inventing again.
It defined Wong as a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment - not a natural born citizen, which (obviously) pre-existed the 14th Amendment, and which status was unchanged by the 14th Amendment (both Wong and Minor agreed on this).
viz.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868...
Minor was 1874... Wong 1898...
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that..." [Minor held; Wong approved]
When both courts spoke, the Constitution included the 14th Amendment. Therefore both courts agreed the 14th Amendment does not say who shall be NBCs.
[The Congress which passed the Civil Rights Act and promulgated the 14th Amendment also stipulated that it made no change to existing rights of citizenship]
So the 14th Amendment cannot help Barry, or Rubio...
Defined him as naturally born a citizen by virtue of being born in the US despite parents who were not and could not be naturalised as citizens.
As I said. You are inventing again.
It defined Wong as a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment - not a natural born citizen, which (obviously) pre-existed the 14th Amendment, and which status was unchanged by the 14th Amendment (both Wong and Minor agreed on this).
viz.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868...
Minor was 1874... Wong 1898...
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that..." [Minor held; Wong approved]
When both courts spoke, the Constitution included the 14th Amendment. Therefore both courts agreed the 14th Amendment does not say who shall be NBCs.
[The Congress which passed the Civil Rights Act and promulgated the 14th Amendment also stipulated that it made no change to existing rights of citizenship]
So the 14th Amendment cannot help Barry, or Rubio...
It defined him as a citizen from birth and thus has been affirmed by multiple courts since to demonstrate that such is a natural born citizen, including many court cases that were settled in Obama's favour that SCOTUS had an opportunity to overturn and chose not to. So sorry, you are inventing.
We are talking about massive ballot-stuffing and double voting in Nevada right now. Everyone is going to cry foul.
Pleased I've not got any money on the result, it's going to be a nightmare for the bookies if the result gets challenged!
The results, if and when published, will be challenged I think.
Will it get challenged, or will everyone just move on to Super Tuesday? I imagine no-one will be dropping out tomorrow on the basis of the result though, Jeb! must be a little peeved.
We are talking about massive ballot-stuffing and double voting in Nevada right now. Everyone is going to cry foul.
Pleased I've not got any money on the result, it's going to be a nightmare for the bookies if the result gets challenged!
The results, if and when published, will be challenged I think.
Will it get challenged, or will everyone just move on to Super Tuesday? I imagine no-one will be dropping out tomorrow on the basis of the result though, Jeb! must be a little peeved.
It will be challenged, the results might take days or even a week to be published, in 2012 with less than half today's turnout took 3 days to complete the count.
We are talking about massive ballot-stuffing and double voting in Nevada right now. Everyone is going to cry foul.
Pleased I've not got any money on the result, it's going to be a nightmare for the bookies if the result gets challenged!
The results, if and when published, will be challenged I think.
Will it get challenged, or will everyone just move on to Super Tuesday? I imagine no-one will be dropping out tomorrow on the basis of the result though, Jeb! must be a little peeved.
It will be challenged, the results might take days or even a week to be published, in 2012 with less than half today's turnout took 3 days to complete the count.
Very pleased not to be betting on it then! Let's hope it's a clear enough result for it to be beyond doubt.
Defined him as naturally born a citizen by virtue of being born in the US despite parents who were not and could not be naturalised as citizens.
As I said. You are inventing again.
It defined Wong as a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment - not a natural born citizen, which (obviously) pre-existed the 14th Amendment, and which status was unchanged by the 14th Amendment (both Wong and Minor agreed on this).
viz.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868...
Minor was 1874... Wong 1898...
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that..." [Minor held; Wong approved]
When both courts spoke, the Constitution included the 14th Amendment. Therefore both courts agreed the 14th Amendment does not say who shall be NBCs.
[The Congress which passed the Civil Rights Act and promulgated the 14th Amendment also stipulated that it made no change to existing rights of citizenship]
So the 14th Amendment cannot help Barry, or Rubio...
It defined him as a citizen from birth and thus has been affirmed by multiple courts since to demonstrate that such is a natural born citizen, including many court cases that were settled in Obama's favour that SCOTUS had an opportunity to overturn and chose not to. So sorry, you are inventing.
"Citizen from birth" is not the same as a natural born citizen. A citizen from birth, or "at birth" may also be a naturalized citizen at birth, such as Cruz [see SCOTUS decisions not limited to Montana v Kennedy (1961), Rogers v Bellei (1971), Miller v Albright (1998)] or may be a citizen at birth by virtue of the 14th Amendment, e.g. Obama and Rubio, if US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) applies to them.
The reason, if such exist, that the SCOTUS chose not to consider a challenge, was on grounds of "standing", etc. of the plaintiffs.
To date, the binding precedents of Minor and Wong remain undisturbed as the the law of the land. Thus, the common law (Law of Nations) understanding of natural born citizen, as expounded by Vattel, in 1758, and adopted by the Founders, remains the definition.
We are talking about massive ballot-stuffing and double voting in Nevada right now. Everyone is going to cry foul.
Pleased I've not got any money on the result, it's going to be a nightmare for the bookies if the result gets challenged!
The results, if and when published, will be challenged I think.
Will it get challenged, or will everyone just move on to Super Tuesday? I imagine no-one will be dropping out tomorrow on the basis of the result though, Jeb! must be a little peeved.
It will be challenged, the results might take days or even a week to be published, in 2012 with less than half today's turnout took 3 days to complete the count.
Very pleased not to be betting on it then! Let's hope it's a clear enough result for it to be beyond doubt.
Delegates are assigned proportionally, so even if a clear result they might fight over the delegate count. Caucuses are a terrible thing.
We are talking about massive ballot-stuffing and double voting in Nevada right now. Everyone is going to cry foul.
Pleased I've not got any money on the result, it's going to be a nightmare for the bookies if the result gets challenged!
The results, if and when published, will be challenged I think.
Will it get challenged, or will everyone just move on to Super Tuesday? I imagine no-one will be dropping out tomorrow on the basis of the result though, Jeb! must be a little peeved.
It will be challenged, the results might take days or even a week to be published, in 2012 with less than half today's turnout took 3 days to complete the count.
Very pleased not to be betting on it then! Let's hope it's a clear enough result for it to be beyond doubt.
Chill folks. In much the same way as South Carolina is known for rough and tumble politics, the Nevada Caucuses are known for incompetent organization. The Nevada operation is relatively new. There is a move gathering pace to ditch caucuses and make everything a primary.
Caucuses are run by the individual political parties, whereas primaries are organized by the states, which means better organization, oversight and execution.
"Citizen from birth" is not the same as a natural born citizen. A citizen from birth, or "at birth" may also be a naturalized citizen at birth, such as Cruz [see SCOTUS decisions not limited to Montana v Kennedy (1961), Rogers v Bellei (1971), Miller v Albright (1998)] or may be a citizen at birth by virtue of the 14th Amendment, e.g. Obama and Rubio, if US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) applies to them.
The reason, if such exist, that the SCOTUS chose not to consider a challenge, was on grounds of "standing", etc. of the plaintiffs.
To date, the binding precedents of Minor and Wong remain undisturbed as the the law of the land. Thus, the common law (Law of Nations) understanding of natural born citizen, as expounded by Vattel, in 1758, and adopted by the Founders, remains the definition.
False and false again. Cruz and Obama are natural born citizens and no court has found otherwise, in fact multiple courts on multiple levels have taken up cases and settled on the matter (not just rejected the cases on standing grounds). While no court has reversed or rejected these rulings. Thus under the law all evidence is that they are allowed. Which is why Obama was inaugurated and has served as President. To suggest that the court cases that have settled this matter should be overlooked due to some view of common law you believe is right from 300 years ago is simply not the way the law works and flies in the face of common law.
Obama incidentally was not the first POTUS in his situation either and no court has ruled predecessors in his situation weren't natural born citizens either.
Furthermore there are multiple pieces of evidence of natural born citizen (or subject) meaning the opposite to what you wish it meant at times before the signing of the constitution.
I'm watching the coverage on about a 30 minute delay (commercials) and I can't help but notice that there is a preponderance of very overweight people who sweat profusely even on cold days.
OK. I am now officially convinced Trump is going to win the nomination and be the next POTUS. If TImB is thinking of ticking his box - and many of my other US friends too whom I would never have thought would. Their reasoning - he may not be perfect, but he is a good manager, will recruit the best, and will have US interests at heart. And most importantly, he is not a politician.
Hillary's problems will not go away. The latest email episode:
"Hillary Clinton’s email problems continued to haunt her presidential campaign Tuesday after a federal judge ruled that aides to the former secretary of State should be questioned in a lawsuit that alleges the private server set up in her home may have been intended to dodge federal transparency laws."
Judicial Watch is the party bringing suit, and the Judge concluded that how State has handled the Clinton server issue has created 'at least a reasonable suspicion' that open-records laws were violated.
OK. I am now officially convinced Trump is going to win the nomination and be the next POTUS. If TImB is thinking of ticking his box - and many of my other US friends too whom I would never have thought would. Their reasoning - he may not be perfect, but he is a good manager, will recruit the best, and will have US interests at heart. And most importantly, he is not a politician.
Hillary's problems will not go away. The latest email episode:
"Hillary Clinton’s email problems continued to haunt her presidential campaign Tuesday after a federal judge ruled that aides to the former secretary of State should be questioned in a lawsuit that alleges the private server set up in her home may have been intended to dodge federal transparency laws."
Judicial Watch is the party bringing suit, and the Judge concluded that how State has handled the Clinton server issue has created 'at least a reasonable suspicion' that open-records laws were violated.
His chances of getting the nomination are 90% now in my estimation. As for President he has a 60% chance if Hillary is his opponent, if Bloomberg comes in those chances rise to 80%.
Goodnight.
As for Rubio, he lost Hispanics by 12 points to Trump who's supposedly hated by hispanics, and Nevada was Rubio's supposed firewall, full with mormons, the Romney establishment and him being hispanic.
OK. I am now officially convinced Trump is going to win the nomination and be the next POTUS. If TImB is thinking of ticking his box - and many of my other US friends too whom I would never have thought would. Their reasoning - he may not be perfect, but he is a good manager, will recruit the best, and will have US interests at heart. And most importantly, he is not a politician.
Hillary's problems will not go away. The latest email episode:
"Hillary Clinton’s email problems continued to haunt her presidential campaign Tuesday after a federal judge ruled that aides to the former secretary of State should be questioned in a lawsuit that alleges the private server set up in her home may have been intended to dodge federal transparency laws."
Judicial Watch is the party bringing suit, and the Judge concluded that how State has handled the Clinton server issue has created 'at least a reasonable suspicion' that open-records laws were violated.
Trump will not be POTUS but will gift the presidency to Hillary whereas Rubio might have beaten her. Hillary's email situation has been going on for months and yet still she beats Trump in most polls helped by his abysmal rating with minorities
OK. I am now officially convinced Trump is going to win the nomination and be the next POTUS. If TImB is thinking of ticking his box - and many of my other US friends too whom I would never have thought would. Their reasoning - he may not be perfect, but he is a good manager, will recruit the best, and will have US interests at heart. And most importantly, he is not a politician.
Hillary's problems will not go away. The latest email episode:
"Hillary Clinton’s email problems continued to haunt her presidential campaign Tuesday after a federal judge ruled that aides to the former secretary of State should be questioned in a lawsuit that alleges the private server set up in her home may have been intended to dodge federal transparency laws."
Judicial Watch is the party bringing suit, and the Judge concluded that how State has handled the Clinton server issue has created 'at least a reasonable suspicion' that open-records laws were violated.
His chances of getting the nomination are 90% now in my estimation. As for President he has a 60% chance if Hillary is his opponent, if Bloomberg comes in those chances rise to 80%.
Goodnight.
As for Rubio, he lost Hispanics by 12 points to Trump who's supposedly hated by hispanics, and Nevada was Rubio's supposed firewall, full with mormons, the Romney establishment and him being hispanic.
In general election polls Rubio gets double the Hispanic vote Trump does winning Hispanics in a GOP caucus
Will be most amusing when President Trump retroactively declares his predecessor ineligible, and his "presidency" void...
There is such a thing as the constitution, even the Donald cannot interpret it to suit his own whims!
The Constitution and the Framers and the SCOTUS have all been clear about what an NBC is.
Barry is not eligible to be an intern, never mind POTUS.
Son of a Brit (Kenyan)...
He was born in Hawaii a US state and the SCOTUS have never made one ruling he was ineligible
His case has never got as far as the SCOTUS, so they wouldn't have made any ruling on him specifically.
However, when the SCOTUS has opined on the subject, it's clear he's not eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..." Minor v Happersett (1874)
cf.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." From Obama's own website/and FactCheck [2008]
So Obama, Senior was never a US citizen, and no-one claims he was. Therefore, his children could not be natural born citizens of the US, irrespective of whether they were born within the territory of the US or not...
That does not rule out those born in the U.S. either
Will be most amusing when President Trump retroactively declares his predecessor ineligible, and his "presidency" void...
There is such a thing as the constitution, even the Donald cannot interpret it to suit his own whims!
The Constitution and the Framers and the SCOTUS have all been clear about what an NBC is.
Barry is not eligible to be an intern, never mind POTUS.
Son of a Brit (Kenyan)...
He was born in Hawaii a US state and the SCOTUS have never made one ruling he was ineligible
His case has never got as far as the SCOTUS, so they wouldn't have made any ruling on him specifically.
However, when the SCOTUS has opined on the subject, it's clear he's not eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..." Minor v Happersett (1874)
cf.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." From Obama's own website/and FactCheck [2008]
So Obama, Senior was never a US citizen, and no-one claims he was. Therefore, his children could not be natural born citizens of the US, irrespective of whether they were born within the territory of the US or not...
That does not rule out those born in the U.S. either
Once again, Rod making the argument that 'All x are y means that all z are not y"
Comments
Bernie has big spending plans.
POTUS Trump would be entirely unremarkable I think
However, when the SCOTUS has opined on the subject, it's clear he's not eligible.
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners..." Minor v Happersett (1874)
cf.
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children." From Obama's own website/and FactCheck [2008]
So Obama, Senior was never a US citizen, and no-one claims he was. Therefore, his children could not be natural born citizens of the US, irrespective of whether they were born within the territory of the US or not...
Whereas, it's very easy to argue that if we Leave, we'll be treated as a pariah State, and have to eat bits of dog and cat to survive.
2. An explicit Naturalization Act. Intended (obviously) for those who were NOT natural born citizens...
3. Clearly can not - and does not - make anyone an NBC. It's very language confirms that. "...shall be considered as a natural born citizen..." NOT made into an NBC.
4. Repealed in 1795, in any case, and no Naturalization Act since has ever mentioned NBC.
A man-made statute law may say you are "considered as" the son of your adoptive father. It cannot, and would not, say you are the natural son of your father if you were not - and if you were the natural son, such law would have no reason to be written...
He can't be any worse than what we have now.
Part of me is curious to see POTUS Trump, I admit
"Undecided, whoever puts HRC in jail" man in the caucus line.
So clearly a Trumper.
I did not use dishonest stats.
There you go. Should keep you occupied for a few seconds. Please feel free to post a rejoinder which due to pressure of sleep[1] I will not respond to, although I think it's safe to say I will disagree with you. Goodnight.
[1] And for that matter, sanity
Unfortunately the judge who made the ruling was appointed by Bill Clinton.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb8eXRCUkAAKNTx.jpg
Until you stop dismissing all other currencies and the Fed you are being dishonest. You may have previously been ignorant but your ignorance if it exists should have been cleared up by now.
Trump fans counting the votes....
60% - Stay in EU
30% - Leave EU
NB. Not official referendum question - but British Social Attitudes which had 5 options.
Interestingly it finds 65% are "Eurosceptic" - but far fewer actually want to leave.
If this is right it's a landslide.
See link for John Curtice article. Curtice says economic arguments will decide it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12171049/Revealed-Two-thirds-of-British-voters-are-Eurosceptics-but-they-arent-convinced-we-should-leave.html
What the Founders considered "entirely artificial" was the idea of subjectship and the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.
They went so far as fighting a war and sacrificing much blood and treasure to prove their point, and establish a new form of republican government. That new government was informed by the Age of Reason, and in particular the treatise "The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns" by Emer de Vattel (Swiss), from whence they obtained their definition of a natural born citizen...
"§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
You will notice the highlighted words are virtually word for word that given by the SCOTUS in 1874...
You can sling as many impotent insults at me as you like. You can't change the historical facts, or the law.
Just half-baked assertions gleaned from the MSM, and picayune insults when they are demonstrated to be ill-founded...
It defined Wong as a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment - not a natural born citizen, which (obviously) pre-existed the 14th Amendment, and which status was unchanged by the 14th Amendment (both Wong and Minor agreed on this).
viz.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868...
Minor was 1874...
Wong 1898...
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that..." [Minor held; Wong approved]
When both courts spoke, the Constitution included the 14th Amendment. Therefore both courts agreed the 14th Amendment does not say who shall be NBCs.
[The Congress which passed the Civil Rights Act and promulgated the 14th Amendment also stipulated that it made no change to existing rights of citizenship]
So the 14th Amendment cannot help Barry, or Rubio...
Everyone is going to cry foul.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/donald-trump-crashes-glen-beck-nevada-caucus-219703?lo=ut_a1
"Donald Trump crashed the caucus location where conservative talk show host Glenn Beck was speaking on behalf of Ted Cruz."
38% over 65.
Shares my values 30
Can win in November 25
Can bring change 22
Tells it like it is 21
Evangelicals 32%
And 58% are angry with the government.
https://twitter.com/CBSPolitics/status/702331696524468224
Late deciders 31
Early deciders 69
CBS entrance poll
Late deciders 24
Early deciders 76
Looks very good for Trump.
On average the CNN and CBS entrance composition are 10 points better for Trump than usual in the earlier states.
Also:
86% white
8% hispanic
6% black.
Ideology
V.Concervative 40
Somewhat Conservative 43
Moderate 15
Liberal 2
75% are over 50.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/historic-new-scotland-funding-deal-agreed
Hang on.....Independence was going to cost £200 million.......oh well, better than the £600million Nicola was asking for......
The reason, if such exist, that the SCOTUS chose not to consider a challenge, was on grounds of "standing", etc. of the plaintiffs.
To date, the binding precedents of Minor and Wong remain undisturbed as the the law of the land. Thus, the common law (Law of Nations) understanding of natural born citizen, as expounded by Vattel, in 1758, and adopted by the Founders, remains the definition.
Caucuses are a terrible thing.
With 0% in
Rubio 37
Trump 34
Cruz 15
Kasich 8
Carson 6
http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/nevada-republican-caucus/
Caucuses are run by the individual political parties, whereas primaries are organized by the states, which means better organization, oversight and execution.
Among those angry with the government Trump 51%.
Among evangelicals Trump 43%.
Rubio is leading with late deciders and electability.
Full numbers with those angry (58% of voters):
Trump 51
Cruz 22
Rubio 20
Carson 4
Trump looks like he is leading by a lot in the entrance poll.
I am open to suggestions.
Evangelicals (32% of voters)
Trump 41
Cruz 27
Shares my values (30%)
Cruz 42
Rubio 23
Trump 19
Carson 8
Depends on the state.
Well I would just look what the endorsements are, and vote for the guy who doesn't get any.
Obama incidentally was not the first POTUS in his situation either and no court has ruled predecessors in his situation weren't natural born citizens either.
Furthermore there are multiple pieces of evidence of natural born citizen (or subject) meaning the opposite to what you wish it meant at times before the signing of the constitution.
Glen Beck has been fasting for him.
Cruz 37%
Trump 32%
From another 3 precincts.
Trump 12
Rubio 5
Cruz 1 votes.
Trump 64%
Rubio 23%
Cruz 19%
Trump 84
Rubio 42
Cruz 23 votes
From a Las Vegas high school
Trump 47%
Cruz 38
Want experience (33%)
Rubio 55
Cruz 28
Trump 5
Latinos (8)
Trump 41
Rubio 29
Cruz 16
Trump has won big if he's leading by that much with Latinos.
From CNN, a Las Vegas high school result:
Trump 58%
Rubio 28
Cruz 9
From another one
Trump 44
Cruz 31
Rubio14
From another precinct
Trump 51
Rubio 24
Cruz 19
I'm calling it Trump has won the Nevada caucus.
Fox News projects Trump wins.
Second place too close to call.
CNN entrance poll
Trump 45
Rubio 25
Cruz 20
Carson 5
Kasich 4
Bush 0.5 (he's still on the ballot)
Trump 42
Cruz 23
Rubio 22
Carson 10
Kasich 3
Hillary's problems will not go away. The latest email episode:
"Hillary Clinton’s email problems continued to haunt her presidential campaign Tuesday after a federal judge ruled that aides to the former secretary of State should be questioned in a lawsuit that alleges the private server set up in her home may have been intended to dodge federal transparency laws."
Judicial Watch is the party bringing suit, and the Judge concluded that how State has handled the Clinton server issue has created 'at least a reasonable suspicion' that open-records laws were violated.
As for President he has a 60% chance if Hillary is his opponent, if Bloomberg comes in those chances rise to 80%.
Goodnight.
As for Rubio, he lost Hispanics by 12 points to Trump who's supposedly hated by hispanics, and Nevada was Rubio's supposed firewall, full with mormons, the Romney establishment and him being hispanic.