Is She the New Vice President Candidate?

The Republican Presidential Race is not over (Oregon hasn’t voted yet!), but for speculators the attention has thrusted towards who will be the vice president pick? Leading those names are Marco Rubio and now South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. The second half of this interview is very powerful. A sign of things to come?

  • Ramalama

    Ms. “Women don’t care about contraception” will not be the VP nominee.

    The GOP has enough problems with women voters, they don’t need to nominate yet another clueless woman.

    Of course, finding a candidate of either sex in the GOP who is not clueless will be a big challenge.

    • Rupert in Springfield

       You know for a guy who constantly whines about invective on this blog, you certainly hurl a lot of it.

      One thing is for sure though – If it is Haley, we will see the usual pattern from the left. “She’s so stupid”. It would be nice if the left wasn’t so threatened by women who have a different ideology. Sadly, thats not the case. For pretty much the last 20 years, the standard debate tactic against any conservative or Republican woman has been to call her stupid.

      Kind of pathetic really. Would be nice to see something that requires a little more brain power, especially from the crowd that loves to tell us how smart they are.

      • Ramalama

        Rupert, do you disagree that saying that “women don’t care about contraception” is clueless? 

        I happen to think it’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard a politician say, and that’s saying a lot. It’s right up there with Sarah Palin that she’s read “all of them” about newspapers that she reads.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Rupert, do you disagree that saying that “women don’t care about contraception” is clueless?

          As far as the presidential election goes? No, I would say it’s spot on. Frankly I think the entire attempt to gin up this “war on women” thing was condescending. Women vote with their brains, not their vaginas. I have yet to meet a single woman who felt contraception was a key issue in the upcoming election.

          Did you even watch the video? Because she doesn’t say anything like what you are saying in it. Maybe you got the quote from somewhere else, but she makes herself pretty clear on the issue.

          I think what we have here is less a case of a stupid woman and more a case of someone who is so at odds with her ideas, you, that you have to go with the standard template, anyone who is a Republican and a woman must be characterized as stupid.

          Frankly its getting a little old, and frankly ineffective other than with the hard core left who buys into it.

          Get real, shes the Governor of a state, and the youngest serving governor. In no way does she come across as stupid in the video.

          She sat on the board of directors of two different chambers of commerce.

          She was the treasurer of the National Assn. of Women business Owners.

          She clearly is not stupid, however your attempt to take a perfectly logical state

          >It’s right up there with Sarah Palin that she’s read “all of them” about newspapers that she reads.

          And there you go, proving my point. Palin must be stupid because she said something fairly rational. Reading “all of them” to anyone involved in politics, as Palin is, basically means NYT, WP, possibly Boston Globe, API and UPI. Pretty simple to most. Of course to you, since she is a Republican and a woman, so anything she says has to be viewed in the context of “stupid woman”

          Frankly its sexist as hell, and it would be nice if the left could move on from this tactic.

          • Ardbeg

            OMG!! “And there you go, proving my point. Palin must be stupid because she said something fairly rational. Reading “all of them”              SHE SAID SOMETHING RATIONAL!!!!!!!! She could not name a single one! If you are going to defend Palin as a well informed individual on world affairs, economics, defense then you will lose, fair warning.  I’m prerty much an expert know-it-all on everything and you will lose.  You have been warned. Your typical right response will be proven false in 2 moves.  You’ve been warned.

          • Rupert in Springfield

             Might I suggest a little less coffee and a little more thought before posting? Thanks

          • Ardbeg

            I admit, I’ve digressed to your level. Been a long week.  My patience for your BS is at an all time low. How did I do? Good impersonation of you? Did I sound like a total JA? Now you know how you come across. My points been made, “you lose”. “I think your done here”.  “Think just for one second before you reply”. “I will beat you in 2 moves”.  “You’ve been warned”  blah, blah, blah…

          • Ardbeg

            By the way, I don’t drink coffee, must make me some sort of commie, right. Google my screen name and “educate yourself ” for a change.

          • Rupert in Springfield

             Calm down…deep breaths….Dr. Rupert is listening and cares….

        • JoelinPDX

          Ramalamadingdong agrees with Bill Maher that Palin is a c**t and Laura Ingraham is a slut. See, it’s okay to speak that way if you are a liberal and give a million bucks to the president’s re-election campaign. That protects you from charges that you are sexist.

          However, if you are a conservative and tell your radio audience that a woman who demands three thousand dollars a year so she can have sex is a prostitute and a slut, then you are clearly sexist and should be taken off the air immediately if not taken out and shot.

          Haley’s point was that women don’t care about contraception in the context of presidential politics. You will find out in November, when Americans throw Obozo out of the White House, that she is right.

          • Ramalama

            Joel, I didn’t use any of those terms, I said that Haley is clueless. Oddly enough, other women that have heard me say the same thing haven’t had any problem with that.

            By the way, you clearly have no idea what Sandra Fluke was talking about in her testimony. Instead, you got your information about her testimony from Limbaugh’s three-day attack against her.

      • Ardbeg

        “It would be nice if the left wasn’t so threatened by women who have a
        different ideology. Sadly, that’s not the case. For pretty much the last
        20 years, the standard debate tactic against any conservative or
        Republican woman has been to call her stupid.” –are you FRICKIN HIGH. Thank you conservatives for running on JOBS, JOBS, JOBS and then making your stand on Unions, women’s health, and abortion. Conservative true colors are showing and any woman (republican or democrat) would have to be stupid to vote for a republican.  What kind of freak would propose a law forcing an invasive vaginal exam of a woman?  Oh, that’s right-A REPUBLICAN.  And not just one republican-a whole bunch of them. You really do live in your own world.  I think your done here!  Why are there  24/39 women in the senate that are democrats. Why are republicans so unwilling to elect women to the senate? Hillary came darn close to the nomination.  Why haven’t the republicans put up a women or someone of color for the presidency? 

        • Rupert in Springfield

           >Conservative true colors are showing and any woman (republican or democrat) would have to be stupid to vote for a republican.

          QED, thank you.

          • Ardbeg

            Right back at ya! And only you use QED, do you think your being hip? Funny? Intellectual? Rupert, QED? really? What a joke…..a BAD joke!  Is that some sort of geek humor? What, if you say something in Latin it makes you smart, right? The air is thin in Rupertville!

  • Just so long as it isn’t Rubio (of Jindal). . .

    Neither Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal will
    ever be either Veep or POTUS. Here’s why. . .

    Both men’s parents were foreign nationals, they were not U.S. citizens so
    neither man is a natural born citizen.

    Don’t bother arguing that point – it is acknowledged that they were born on
    U.S. soil and are, therefore, citizens but they are not natural born citizens
    as required by Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 and the 12th Amendment of the
    Constitution. Your arguments will fail because we do not agree with your arguments
    and never will. Ergo, if either man gets the nod to run on a presidential
    ticket, two things will happen. . .

    First, lawsuits will fly and we will totally embarass the GOP as the hypocrites
    they are and. . .

    Second, we (and trust me there are many, many ‘we’s who feel this way) will
    vote third party or stay home enmasse. That will hand the election to the
    Democrats. So, my fellow conservatives, be careful of what you wish for as it
    may bite you in the ass. Choose wisely.

    • Rupert in Springfield

       Oh wow, interesting, I hadn’t considered that. You have to be a natural citizen to be pres, but not vice pres. So if foreign born VP, and something happens to the president, I guess succession would skip over the VP?

      Huh, now aint that a kick in the head?

      • Ignorance is bliss, isn’t it, Rupert?  Now that you’ve made a fool of yourself, grab a copy of the Constitution and read the 12th Amendment.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          I paid you a complement because you brought up a scenario that frankly I doubt very many people had considered. As an intellectual excersize I found it interesting and thought I would say so.

          I understand that you are an ill mannered sort who probably cannot recognize that, and thus your troglodyte response.

          Hopefully in the future you will acquire better verbal skills.

          • Rupert in Springfield

             By the way, you might want to check the 12th amendment yourself. I don’t think it says what you think it says.

            The 12th amendment term limits the presidency, thats about it.

            You might also want to check out your logic here on some of your points.

            Sorry but I can’t resist:

            You said

            “Neither Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal will
            ever be either Veep or POTUS. Here’s why. . .

            Both men’s parents were foreign nationals, they were not U.S. citizens soneither man is a natural born citizen.”Wrong. Having foreign born parents does not mean you are not a natural born citizen. I am kind of stunned you would think this was the case because to be ignorant of this fact after all we went through with the Obama birther thing this is hardly uncommon knowledge. Your parents do not have to be US citizens for you to be a natural born US citizen. Let’s take Marco RubioRubio was born in Miami Florida, his parents were Cuban who later became naturalized citizens. Sound familier?It should Do you know who the president is now? His name is Barak Obama. He was born in the US. He is an American citizen even though his father never became a US citizen. Other presidents you might be familiar with? Andrew Jackson – He had two immigrant parents.Thomas Jefferson – One immigrant parent. 

            James Buchanan – One immigrant parent. Woodrow Wilson – ditto

            Herbert Hoover – ditto.Ok – So are we all clear now on this point? We went through this with Obama, I can’t believe some people still are ignorant of it, but the fact is, your parents being foreign nationals does not mean you cannot be a natural born citizen.

          • “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

            The rest of that tripe I’ll ignore as irrelevant.  Put Rubio or Jindal on the ticket and prepare to lose the election.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >The rest of that tripe I’ll ignore as irrelevant. 

            Probably for the best as it totally decimates your contention that having foreign born parents makes one ineligible for the presidency.

            When the current president and plenty of past presidents have had immigrant parents, it pretty much blows you out of the water.

          • I can’t believe that you are really that incapable of understand my simple arguments.  I said nothing about immigrant parents so you have said notihng that touches my position.

          • 3H

            Jefferson and Jackson don’t count. 

            Article II. Section I of the Constitution provides an exception for colonists who were already alive at the time of the Constitution before the United States legally existed:  “… or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” 

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Its sort of irrelevant. Jefferson and Jackson both got elected, so obviously one doesn’t lose elections based on immigrant parents. Which was part of Smiths ridiculous contention.

            the other part – that one is inelgibale to be president if ones parents are immigrants is easily disproven by the fact that Obama is president, and his father wasn’t even a citizen, and the plenty of others I listed besides Jefferson and Jackson.

            In other words my point still stands.

          • Ramalama

            The 12th amendment has nothing in it about term limits.

          • Rupert in Springfield

             You are completely correct. I was looking at my copy wrong and looked up XX11 instead of X11

            My mistake.

          • Ramalama

            Right, because if you had actually read the 12th amendment, you would have seen this part:

            “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

          • Ardbeg

            “DUDE” you can even get conservatives to back your play.  Give it up. Go away.

          • Rupert in Springfield

             I dont have to, as the law clearly does.

            Should I put you in the column of yet another person who is unaware that Obamas father was not born in this country and he is president?

          • Ardbeg

            Why would I bother replying to you about anything I know?  No matter what I know or what opinions I have, they are obviously stupid according to you if they don’t agree with your views on the subject. Everyone else is uninformed unless they agree with King R.

      • 3H

        Requirements to be Vice President are the same as the requirements to be President.

        “Natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution.  Mr. Smith may claim may claim that they are not natural born citizens, but many believe that being born in the United States, even if both parents are foreign nationals (except, evidently, for diplomats), makes them natural born United States citizens.  

        • valley person

           I’m just enjoying seeing Rupert hoisted high up on his own constitution petard. How does it feel up there Rupert?

          As for Nikki Haley, she is probably as good a choice as any for Romney. I mean, there are so many places this guy’s ticket needs balancing, it almost doesn’t matter as long as he doesn’t choose another rich out of touch white guy. Which, given the nature of his party, might be difficult to avoid.   So why not just go for broke and pick one of the Kochs?

          • Rupert in Springfield

             >I’m just enjoying seeing Rupert hoisted high up on his own constitution petard. How does it feel up there Rupert?

            Pretty good actually, although I have no idea how I was hoisted on my petard.

            Paul Smith was wrong. Simple as that.

          • Ardbeg

            Clueless in Springfield

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Considering how I demolished Smiths point with a long list of presidents who had immigrant parents, I would say your observation is particularly absurd.

          • You couldn’t fight your way out of a wet paper bag.  List of parents{snicker}

          • Ardbeg

            Dude on High, and you must be high. I’ve never said that occasionally you don’t have a good point, sometimes I’ve even posted in agreement of your point.  My ramblings tonight are just a cumulative annoyance with your attitude. In your mind 99.9% of the time you are right and everyone else needs to “inform themselves.  Your arrogance knows no limits. Even when your clearly beaten you refuse to admit it. You become very tiresome to listen to.  If you could only see yourself through eyes not shaded in their own rose color. Just for S & G try this just once; “I understand your point of view but in my opinion……….”.  Really, just try it once and I promise to do the same. I too can be very opinionated about by beliefs.  Like you I sometimes insist my view is the correct one. It’s easy in a text format to forget about acknowledging the other persons point of view before expanding our own.  Unfortunately for you (and possibly myself also) by only focusing on the rebuttal portion of your text, you often come across as a know-it-all unwilling to listing to an opposing perspective. I hope that is not actually the case. Regardless, it’s Friday and the week is done.  Have a good weekend. Ardbeg

          • 3H

            I believe what VP is referring to is your sometimes unwillingness to be as charitable to others for what they don’t know, as you are willing to excuse your own lapses of knowledge.

            You sometimes come across as overbearing when you express disbelief that someone doesn’t know something that happened that was reported in the news.

            You may have come off a wee bit condescending during the discussion of the Second Amendment when you offered to buy VP a copy of the Federalist Papers so he could study it. 

            Yet, you don’t know a basic provision of the Constitution.  Given the tenor of many of your responses to some of us, the temptation to find it humorous is irresistible.

            Think of how you would have responded if I had, in my first post, offered to buy you a copy of the Constitution.

          • Rupert in Springfield

             >I believe what VP is referring to is your sometimes unwillingness to be
            as charitable to others for what they don’t know, as you are willing to
            excuse your own lapses of knowledge.

            Actually no, since I am the one person here who freely and unequivocally admits when I am wrong.

            Where I get uncharitable is when someone wont give the same courtesy.

            I have admitted to VP on two separate occasions when I was completely wrong, and done so in a forthright manner.

            He has never done the same,  therefore I am not charitable to him in this sort of thing.

            >You may have come off a wee bit condescending during the discussion of
            the Second Amendment when you offered to buy VP a copy of the Federalist
            Papers so he could study it.

            Thats because you dont know the history of VP and my discussions regarding the FP’s

            VP once made the ridiculous assertion that the framers left us precious little to go on regarding their thinking and reasoning with the constitution.

            This is obviously an absurd contention because for one thing they left the FP’s

            They also left plenty of other documentation as to their thinking, but the FP’s are basic high school knowledge and VP clearly had no knowledge of their existence, otherwise he wouldn’t have said the framers left us nothing to go on.

            Would VP admit he was wrong? No, of course not.

            S, when the 2nd amendment discussion came up, and it was clear VP still had zero knowledge of the FP’s vis a vie the 2nd amendment it was getting ridiculous.

            Virtually every question he was asking in that regard was answered in the FP’s I cited during that discussion.

            So, since you did not know the history I can understand why you took it the way you did. However you did not see the whole picture there.

            >Yet, you don’t know a basic provision of the Constitution.

            Yes, you are correct, I did not know the qualifications for VP were the same as for P. Quite true.

            However I did know another basic provision of the constitution that apparently nobody else here knew either – that having immigrant parents does not disqualify you from being pres and that in fact plenty of presidents have had immigrant parents.

            Considering that I could at least admit I was uninformed on the former, and no one seems to be able to admit they were wrong (Mr. Smiths case) or uninformed (others) on the latter that should clue you in a bit as to why I am not particularly charitable with boobs who expect me to admit a mistake, but will never admit their own.

          • valley person

            My comment had nothing to do with your “charity” or lack thereof. It had to do with you being hoisted on the petard of a constitutional argument by someone who appears to think he is more constitutional than thou.

            Thou being our resident constitutional scholar and all. 

          • 3H

            That would only make sense if VP was the only person you treated that way.  It is not.  

            I know for a fact that you rarely admit when you are wrong.  

            I’ve also seen you react to people who are not VP in a very condescending manner even when their post is reasonable.  Simply, presumably, on the basis that they disagree with you, and you consider some of their facts wrong.

            Even if what you say about VP is true, so what?  You decide how to react and how not to react.  Own up to your actions, and don’t blame other people for the things you do.  Take ownership.

            And yes, that includes me.  I have been less than charitable on occasion.  That is my fault and problem, and  something I need to work on.

          • Ramalama

            “Actually no, since I am the one person here who freely and unequivocally admits when I am wrong.”


          • JoelinPDX

            Geez VP, unhinge your funny bone. Oh, that’s right, you’re a liberal and don’t have a funny bone. You’d much rather hear Obozo’s lies.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            I’m not sure its a case of humorlessness so much as it is insecurity. VP can never admit when he is wrong, I can and do when it happens. I have even done so to VP on two occasions where he has been right and I have been wrong.

            VP knows this and for some reason cannot resist any possibility of chiming in when I might be wrong on something. His complete inability to ever admit when he, or anyone on his side is wrong, compels him to.

            It’s kind of childish, but it is what makes Dean kinda special around here – The man who can never admit when he is wrong.

          • valley person

            Seriously Rupert, your challenge is you are wrong so often that if you recognized the magnitude you would do nothing but admit error every other day for what you said all the day before.  Either that or place an asterisk on every post: *The author does not admit to objective reality.

            Krugman for example.  Were you wrong in thinking he actually was recommending that the US fake an invasion by space aliens? Or are you sticking by that story?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Im not sticking by anything – I saw Krugman say it, you clearly did not and it sure didn’t seem like a joke to anyone on set given how Krugman elaborated on his contention.

            Your problem is you cant admit with any grace whatsoever when you are wrong.

            The closest you ever came was when you claimed illegals had no standing in the supreme court. But even then you couldn’t admit t in any sort of forthright manner.

            You simply are incapable of just admitting when you are wrong – its childish.

          • valley person

             Yes, he said it Rupert, that is well established and on tape. But you are about the only person on earth who thinks he literally meant the US should fake an invasion by aliens.

            What is childish is you insisting on your position. I take that back. It isn’t childish if you actually believe it. It is however, bizarre.

          • Ramalama

            VP, Rupert insisted that the U.S. Senate had conducted an investigation of John McCain’scitizenship, long after Lars Larson’spost asserting just that was taken down, becauseit’s obviously false.

            And Rupert has NEVER admitted that he was wrong about that.

          • Ardbeg

            How pathetic is it that the only person to back your play is Joelbozo….Hilarious!

          • Rupert in Springfield

            I will remind you – the people backing your play think having foreign born parents makes you ineligible for the presidency.

            That’s hilarious on its own.

            The fact that you think you are with the clever crowd makes it only more so.

            Hint – Obama is the president – his dad was not a US citizen.

            Got it now?

            Think a bit, even you can figure this one out.

        • You’re right, 3H, many people do wrongly believe the way you do – but many people believe the way I do.  Is putting Rubio or Jindal on the ticket worth the split that will result?

          • 3H

            If they are the best candidate for Vice-President, I think so.   At the very least it would settle the question of “natural-born” citizen.

            We’ve managed to accept that natural-born does include having at least only one parent being an american citizen.

          • “At the very least it would settle the question of “natural-born” citizen.”
            No it won’t.  They will continue to ignore the issue.

            “We” have not accepted your definition.  If you want to lose in November, go for it.

          • 3H

            I’m not sure who “We” is… and you are certainly welcome to your opinion, as all of us are, but simply because you believe they are ineligible does not make it so.  

            You simply could be wrong.  That is a possibility that all of us face when we voice opinions (of course we always think it’s more likely that the other person is wrong)>

            There are cases, including at least once Supreme Court case, where the decision upheld the belief that “natural born” meant that the person was born within the legal borders of the United States.

          • You’re going to find out who “we” is if an ineligible candidate gets on the ticket.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            I guess we’ve lost the  “Thomas Jefferson? Barack Obama? who are they?” vote.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >I’m not sure who “We” is…

            I would imagine “WE” is people who don’t read books, who are unaware BO’s father was not a US citizen, and who would be unfamiliar with the name Thomas Jefferson.

            On the upside they probably have a really sweet video game console set up.

          • Ardbeg

            How’s the alien invasion argument working for you? Still waiting for the list of all the 100k Janitors in PPS. That’s it, I think your done here. You and Joelbozo can live happily ever after.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Oh good lord – That was Krugmans argument.

          • JoelinPDX

            Hey 3, welcome to the party.

          • 3H

            Case law also seems to be against you.   In the end, it seems to me, the courts are unlikely to rule against precedent on this issue.

          • A.)  You say that as if it’s going to make a difference in November.  It won’t.

            B.)  Minor v. Happersett and the 25 other cases that cite it say you’re wrong.

          • 3H

            Minor v. Happersett did not address the question of “natural born” it addressed the question of whether or not women had a right to vote.  

            The case did not address the issue of a child born in the United States to foreign born parents.

            Your example is faulty, and does not address the issue we are discussing.

          • Sorry, you’re wrong.  While not the focus of the suit, Mv.H did address ‘natural born citizen’ and did establish stare decisis law which, as I said, was cited 25 times.

          • ..

          • Rupert in Springfield

             >but many people believe the way I do.

            No they don’t. We have had a whole slew of presidents who served who had immigrant parents.

            Can you cite one example of a president being ousted from office or being disqualified from running because his parents were immigrants?

            Because I can give and have given a long list of presidents who have served on that exact basis, including the current one.

          • You don’t know what you’re talking about but it’s not relevant anyway.  We will NOT vote for a ticket that includes an ineligible candidate  —  and there are LOTS of “us”.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >You don’t know what you’re talking about

            Obviously I do, since I can list presidents who had foreign born parents, thus totally invalidating your contention such persons are ineligible.

            Tends to blow your theory out of the water.

            >We will NOT vote for a ticket that includes an ineligible candidate

            You think having foreign born parents makes one ineligible. you are clearly wrong.

            Therefore you don’t know what makes a candidate eligible or not.






            All had at least one foreign born parents. All were president.

            Get it through your head – having foreign born parents does not make one ineligible for the presidency.

          • You are one incredibly dense man.  What do you not understand about: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHERE PARENTS ARE BORN OR WHERE THEY ARE FROM?  It’s irrelevant.  The only factor is whether or not parents are US CITIZENS when the child is born.  Sheesh!

        • Rupert in Springfield

          > Mr. Smith may claim may claim that they are not natural born citizens

          And Mr. Smith is clearly wrong on this point, as the current president proves.

          >but many believe that being born in the United States, even if both
          parents are foreign nationals (except, evidently, for diplomats), makes
          them natural born United States citizens. 

          Well, many people believe that because it is the facts and has been found so and evidenced by the numerous people who have been elected and served as president with this exact situation in hand.

          • It doesn’t matter if we’re wrong, Rupert.  We aren’t voting for an ineligible candidate.  What don’t you understand about that?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            you have made it clear you make up laws that don’t exist and vote on that basis.

            Fine – Republicans will have lost the “I make up laws in my head” vote.

            Not sure thats much of a loss but I am also not sure how much of a gain it is to kow tow to people who make up non existent law and vote on that basis.

            Frankly , considering your social graces when someone pays you a complement, as I did, I would imagine the “WE” that constitutes your circle is exceedingly small.  

          • valley person

             But if you add in all the Republicans who make up their own reality, and they (you) stay home, you are in big trouble.

          • Ramalama


            I’m finding it deliciously amusing to see you trying to have a rational argument with someone behaving in a manner that you often do.

    • Third Grade Rocks

      I love the “I didn’t get my pick so I am taking my ball and going home” side of our party.  I mean it does take me back to the playground when I was in 3rd grade… Ah, the good ‘ole days…

      • I guess you can read it that way if you like.  Or, you can read it for the fact that it is.  Put Rubio or Jindal on the ticket and kiss Novermer goodby.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >and kiss Novermer goodby.

          Um why? Because Republicans might lose the “I don’t know what the law is” vote?

          Plenty of presidents had immigrant parents. Clearly you can win an election with foreign born parents, Obama sure did, and Jefferson, and Jackson, and Arthur, and Hoover and several others.

          • Nobody said anything about immigrant parents.  Where parents are from is immaterial – only that they are U.S. citizens when the candidate was born.

          • 3H

            Does it have to be both, or is one sufficient?

          • Both.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Are you asking actual law? Or Paul Smith law?

          • 3H

            I was asking Paul.  His response to me puts him pretty squarely in the birther camp.

          • Proudly for the past four years as are many, many others.  Obama has released three forged Certificates of Live Birth, works from fraudulent social security documents and much more.  Shefiff Joe is about to bust this wide open.

          • The SCOTUS says both.

          • Rupert in Springfield

             First of all you are the one who said it. Here’s the quote:

            >Both men’s parents were foreign nationals, they were not U.S. citizens so
            neither man is a natural born citizen.

            Second of all no, the parents do not have to be US citizens when the child is born.

            Case and point Obama. His father was not a US citizen.

            Got it now?

            I mean this is really simple stuff.

          • My facts are correct.  Parents must be U.S. citizens.  I’ve said that consistently while attempting to point out that where they are from is irrelevant.  They could be from Mars – so long as they’re U.S. citizens the child is natural born.

            Obama?  He’s a usurper and a traitor.  Got it now?

          • “I mean this is really simple stuff.”
            I agree; why are you finding it so hard to understand?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Because what you are saying is not true. Parents do not have to be citizens for the child to be a natural born citizen. Been plenty of court cases on it.

          • OK, NAME ONE!  Minor v. Happersett says a person born on the soil of citizen parents is a natural born citizen.  Show me one that gives a different definition.

          • Ramalama

            What language in Minor v. Happersett clearly states that one must have parents who are citizens in order to be a “naturalborn citizen”?

          • I did not say that.  You’re avoiding.  Prove your assertions.

    • JoelinPDX

      What’s it like, keeping you head up there where the sun don’t shine? I would think it would be kind of smelly but then you’ve got your head up your ass…so maybe it smells okay. Kind of like how you are never bothered so much by your own farts.

      • Ardbeg

        Joelalamadingdong again with the anal references. You seem to be fixated. Come out of the closet man. As JS said “not that there is anything wrong with it” don’t be ashamed man, embrace it, be gay, proud and loud!

        • Joebozo

          Damn Ardberg, that’s twice you sided with Paul Smith…people are really going to doubt even you if you keep it up.

          As for the anal reference, it isn’t my fault that Paul Smith has his head up his butt.It isn’t my fault that you are so concerned about anal references either.

          • Ardbeg

            Hey sailor-that isn’t one of my favorite video’s post below and the one YOU like to watch

          • Ardbeg

            Damn Ardberg, that’s twice you sided with Paul Smith…people are really going to doubt even you if you keep it up………Who? Have you been reading the words coming out of my mouth? I have only responded to you and R in S. Rupert because I’m tired of his arrogance, and you because I’m tired of the name calling. And no, it doesn’t bother me a bit to reduce myself to your levels to make a point.  Hey, I don’t care if those are the kinds of videos you like to watch, I could care less.  My problem is with all the ‘conservatives’ who rail against equality of marriage while being in the closet with you. It’s called hypocrisy!

      • Ardbeg
    • Wow! I watched the video and could not figure out how it could possibly generate nearly 100 comments already until I discovered there is a xenophobe from Tomball, Texas throwing bombs and playing fantasy Conlaw giver. Like Hammurabi, Paul Smith and the statistical rounding error sized block of voters who share his priorities shall decide what “naturally born” citizenship means. Serously! To say the Republican Party would be torn in two if this rarefied fringe were not satisfied would be like saying that when you scratch your forehead and a few skin cells fall off your body has been torn in two. 

      It is the judicial branch that interprets the law, so if Paul thinks “naturally born” is vague, he should look and see what the courts have accomplished in their constitutional role of defining that term. The court has never needed to directly weigh in on this issue in regards to the presidency in an actual case. The many times a US president has not met Paul’s preferred definition was a non-issue since the term naturally born citizen has been clearly defined for immigration purposes for quite some time. Natural born citizenship is anyone who is entitled with citizenship at birth. There are two ways to become a naturally born US citizen. The way Barack Obama and most of the rest of us earned it, by being born on US sovereign territory or the way John McCain earned his by being born outside the United States by at least one naturalized parent. 

      In a nation of immigrants, this has been a non issue for most of our history. The first time this issue came up was an influential New York state case Lynch v. Clark whose opinion served as the basis for the first Supreme Court ruling on this issue in US v. Wong Kim Ark which overturned an anti Chinese immigration law helping to forestall the first wave of mass anti-immigration sentiment. In 1939, despite strong New Deal political pressure to restrict immigration this doctrine was confirmed by Perkins v Elg. 

      Both those cases were easy decisions and Perkins v. Elg remains the unchallenged stari decisis doctrine on this issue. It rests on solid ground due to our inheritance of the English common law doctrine of Jus soli and the very first sentence of the 14th Amendment which reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.” 

      Apparently Paul thinks that Minor v Happersett is his ticket. Which is a laughable stretch for three reasons. First, if we are going to try to curtail long established rights of citizenship, why limit ourselves to Minor v Happersett when Dread Scott and Plessey v Ferguson also dangle in the historical winds of American jurisprudence? 

      Second, precedent is only set by the constitutional question of the decision of the case. Virginia Minor’s citizenship was never a question of law in this case, so Minor v Happersett us unable to rule on the issue on the nature of citizenship. When this case was sited in following opinions, it was cited for its actual decision regarding the limits of the privileges and immunities clause (in the Slaughterhouse cases particularly). People who reject Perkins v. Elg which did rule directly on citizenship, vainly cling to Chief Justice Waite’s moot digression on the nature of citizenship. 

      Third, not only was Minor’s digression on citizenship moot, it did not even take the position that citizenship required two naturalized parents at the time of birth. It merely said that no one would question the citizenship of such a person, and then Waithe mentioned that some would question the citizenship of a person born on US soil without naturalized parents. Because he is not ruling on this issue, he did not weigh in on whether or not the court sided with such doubts. He mentions the controversy in passing without taking a side.

      This is not even close. The courts’ recognition of Jus soli as natural born citizenship is so consistent and clear, there is no wonder why litigation on this matter never gets granted its first appeal let alone waste the Supreme Court’s time. 

      • That was an interesting but virtually empty response.

        “This is not even
        close. The courts’ recognition of Jus soli as natural born citizenship is so
        consistent and clear”

        Now all you have to do is show us the court cases, founder’s words and other evidence that that statement is more than your unfounded opinion.  Waiting. . .

        • 3H

          Which Founder’s words are you referring to?   And precisely what did they say?

          (Sorry.. can’t help myself).

          • John Jay provides a good start and his words show a clear distinction between ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ as follows:

            “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

        • 3H

          What is wrong, in your opinion, with Perkins v. Elg?   Why doesn’t that case apply?

          • Actually it applies very aptly. . .

            “who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here”

            Miss Elg’s parents were U.S. citizens therefore she was a natural born citizen.

        • 3H

          So, what about the cases Eric cited.  Why aren’t those significant?

      • P.S.  Your diatribe will not change the facts with which we agree and many, many people will NOT vote for a ticket that includes an ineligible candidate.  So why take that chance?

      • 3H

        LOL.. nice try.  Paul Smith’s response is why I dropped it.  It doesn’t matter what facts you bring to the table, he’s not going to believe it. 

        • That is partially correct.  You have no ‘facts’.  We have the constitutional authors, the author of the 14th Amendment, John Jay’s letter to Washington, Minor v. Happersett (and the 25 other cases that cite it) and many more references that prove beyond a doubt that ‘natural born’ is a person born on the soil and of citizen parents.  Rubio and Jindal are ineligible and we won’t vote for a ticket that includes them.  Choose wisely.

      • 3H

        Nice try, but it won’t make a difference.  He’s not going to be open to other ideas or even evidence.

    • So here I am taking an undeserved break from work, to check and see what our friend from Texas has to say about that rather strait forward account of the stare decisis that I pulled right out of my old Conlaw textbook. Should I be surprised that the comments section shows “100 of 118 comments?” Nothing like immigration to bring out the best in us.

      Immigration policy and all of its various symbolic spin-offs like this matter, is one of my favorite policy areas because it seems to jump out from an alternative universe where on a matter of largely economic policy, conservatives tend to demand heavy handed government regulations and progressives seem to prefer individual liberty. So on the matter of the free movement of labor across artificial sovereign borders, we are here talking about the ability of people to immigrate into the United States and stand for the office of the presidency. Of all the many jobs anti-immigrant folks want to exclude “them daggon foreigners” from, this one seems to attract the most passion. 

      Of course no immigrant can be a natural born citizen, so all immigrants are excluded. That is not in question. This is about their children. The children of immigrants who are born on US sovereign territory are not immigrants; they are natural born citizens. This common law doctrine of Jus Soli is shared throughout the English speaking world and remains core to our Lockean notions of liberty. The anti-immigrant lobby would prefer we turn away from that long Albion heritage and adopt the German tradition of Jus Sanguinis. It is a challenge enough for them to argue that our laws SHOULD reflect their desires. Attempts to argue that our law actual DOES requires a certain seedy birther-like grasp on reality.

      Arguments regarding legislative intent have a role to play in interpreting the law, but like anything else such arguments require evidence and hold a burden of proof. There are many times that the intent of lawmakers is not clear enough to prove one’s point so the judicial branch must step in and forge a workable interpretation of the law. In a common law legal system such as our own, the court’s role is to craft out a clear guidance for future interpretation. 

      So when trying to prove legislative intent for the constitution, how about this simple question: who are the legislators? Are they the folks at the convention? So if we can divine their understanding of a particular passage we are done? How do we do that anyway? There were 55 delegates at the constitutional convention. If a litigant has documentation about what two of them thought the text meant has he met the burden of proof? How do we know what the other 53’s potentially different interpretation was? But then maybe the voters who ratified the constitution were legislators too. How does a litigant PROVE what the voting public thought the text meant?

      With a healthy understanding of the limits of using legislative intent to argue the interpretation of a text, let’s consider what little we actually have here. The language started off using only the term “citizen.” In the course of the convention, John Jay submitted a letter to George Washington that included this phrase: “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and 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.” A committee later added the words “natural born” to the text. There is no record of any debate, nor any interpretation of what “natural born citizen” meant. More importantly since the common law doctrine of Jus Soli was in effect before, during, and after the convention, what the anti-immigrant litigant needs is proof that the legislative intent was for natural born citizen TO NO LONGER BE DETERMINED BY THE JUS SOLI DOCTRINE. That is to say what is missing is any indication of any kind that children born on US soil from non-citizen parents should no longer be considered naturally born citizens. 

      We don’t need John Jay to tell us that there is a distinction between naturally born citizen and a naturalized citizen. We already knew that. What we need is evidence that the founders wanted us to no longer consider the children of non-citizens born on US soil TO BE naturally born. No such evidence exists primarily because the founding generation was as open immigration orientated as can be. 

      Regarding Perkins v Elg, the facts of the case were that Elizabeth Elg was born on US soil at the time that her parents were still citizens of Sweden. Her parents later naturalized to US citizenship, but soon after renounced their citizenship returning to Sweden with their daughter who was still a minor. The court ruled in no uncertain terms that Elizabeth was from birth a citizen regardless of the fact that her parents were not yet naturalized. Indeed the very first sentence of Chief Justice Hughes’ majority opinion reads: “a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States.” It cites the precedent of US v Wong Kim Ark which had cited Lynch v Clark, the 14th Amendment, and English common law. This is settled law for the courts, despite those who would fantasize we have a different legal tradition on this matter than the one we have always had.

      Regarding the 14th Amendment, the language is so clear, that to challenge it, anti-immigrant advocates must again get stuck in the swamps of legislative intent. They try to argue that even though the language of the amendment, like common law, does not add any additional requirements beyond being born here, they try to argue that the people who passed the 14th amendment thought birthright citizenship was now suddenly supposed to include decent from naturalized parentage. This of course begs the question, if they really wanted to overturn centuries of common law tradition, why not expressly include that language in the text? Someone arguing that the folks who ratified the 14th amendment thought it meant more than what it said hold a heavy burden of proof to meet, but trying to divine why a senator voted for a particular constitutional amendment and what he thought a particular passage meant at the time can be as accurate as trying to divine what Senate Democrats were thinking when nearly all of them voted for the Iraq War and then tried to explain later what they thought their vote meant. But again who are the legislators on whose intent the interpretation of the text must hinge? Is it just the guy who submitted the language with no consideration as to what the people voting on it though the text meant? Is it only the US Senate, or must the anti-immigrant’s burden of proof include proving that the majority of the state legislators who ratified the amendment thought the clearly worded text meant something other than the way it reads? They are all impossible hurdles to meet, so why not go with what the text actually says?

      • You just don’t get it, do you, Eric?  You aren’t going to change anyone’s mind.  We know that a ‘natural born citizen’ is a person born on U.S. soil AND of citizen parents.  We will vote based on that definition.  If Rubio or Jindal are on the ticket, we will NOT vote for that ticket.  Now what do you not understand about that?

        P.S. The word is ‘straight’.

        • I think I get it rather well. When the only thing from my post you can correct is a typo, perhaps that is how you admit you were wrong on questions of law. You understand that current law does not reflect what you want “natural born citizen” to mean. 

          On questions of value, (your normative position), you have not and will never change your mind about how you would like to see the law CHANGED. Good luck with that buddy! You and the four other people who vote based on this issue alone have a lot of work to do.  

          • I have no interest in ‘correcting’ your post, Eric.  Current law does not address ‘natural born citizen’ and the foundational documents, contemporary notes and intervening SCOTUS words on the subject produce the defiinition given.  You have nothing that will ‘change our minds’.  The presumption you make that there are only five who will not vote for an ineligible candidate is wrong but that, too, is irrelevant.  Do you seriously want to take the chance that it’s not five million?  If so, go for it but don’t be surprised when Obama gets reelected.

  • JoelinPDX

    Nikki Haley will not be the GOP Veep nominee. She has said clearly that she doesn’t want the job and will turn it down if offered. There is a very good reason for that…in addition to the fact she promised the people of South Carolina she would finish her term. 

    There is a succession problem: Because the Lt Governor position is currently unfilled, she would be succeeded by the President of the Senate…who she happens to dislike intently. By stepping aside to be VP, Haley would be turning the governorship over to someone she can’t stand.

    It ain’t gonna happen.

    • Ramalama

      Credit where it’s due: This is a thoughtful, well-reasoned comment, Joel.

  • 3H

    I think what Paul Smith is claiming, and he should feel free to correct me here, is that he, and people who agree with him, won’t vote for a ticket that includes Rubio or Jindal because they don’t believe either of those two men to be eligible for the reasons he has stated.  

    I don’t think he cares what the courts have decided, or if everyone else, the courts included, consider Rubio or Jindal natural-born citizens and are fine with them as VP candidates.  It is a personal statement that in his opinion they are not eligible, and he won’t vote for a Republican that has either of those two men on it.

    Sadly, as a liberal, I have to believe that the vast majority of Republicans, as crazed as they are on other issues, will not follow him off that particular cliff, and destroy the chances of Romney being elected.  

    Hopefully, I won’t be embarrassed by the appearance of a small, but noisy, group of liberals who decide to create a circus similar to the one centered on Obama should, and I can barely bring myself to type this, Romney be elected with Rubio or Jindal as Vice-President.   Or if they did, they were only doing it out of a sense of retribution (although I hope it would be short lived and they would disappear quickly and just shut up.  One Orly Taitz is enough). 

    • You’re close, 3H.  There is no question that Rubio and Jindal, like Obama, are ineligible and many, many people understand that simple fact.  Therefore they will not vote for them and I absolutely promise you that is a fact.  If Rubio or Jindal end up on a presidential ticket, the GOP will split in two and Obama will be a shoo-in.  While we hate Obama with every fiber of our being, we hate hipocracy more.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      I think you have pretty much got it right here. At first I thought Paul Smith was actually under the impression that there was legal precedent for his claim that having foreign born parents disqualifies one from P or VP.

      After a while I realized he had no actual basis for this opinion, as history and legal precedent clearly prove him wrong.

      In other words, Paul Smith is operating on the basis of made up law he might wish exists, but clearly does not.

      Considering how Paul Smith responded to my complement on his initial post, I think Paul Smith probably operates on a whole slew of interesting and out of the norm propositions.

      So what’s the bottom line here?

      Paul Smith says there is a vast contingent, referred to by him as the “WE”, that makes up laws and decides whom to vote for on the basis of that fiction.

      Are we to believe this is a lot of people?

      Paul Smith insists that is true.

      But then again Paul Smith also insists his made up law is true and responds to complement with insult. Does that sound like someone who is very convincing to most people? I tend to doubt it.

      Most people operate on the verifiable, and since Smiths contention is so readily disproved I think few will follow him.

      There will always be a few. I mean lets face it, some guy got a handful of people to buy new sneakers and off themselves for Hale Bop, I am sure Paul Smith will have a contingent of made up law believers.

      • Liar.  Idiot.  No, I take that back, idiots can learn.  You’re just plain stupid. 

  • Rupert in Springfield

    If I break 100 on this article, do I get a free ship and smart bombs on the next wave?

  • HurtinginOR

    Let me help you out by posting number 100!!!
    Note that this woman has accomplished far more than any of the posters here including me.
    Just sayin’

  • gwen

    To be eligible for the office of VP, the same requirements apply as to the presidency. The point of foreign nationals giving birth to a future president…if they are naturalized American citizens at the EXACT time of the child’s birth, then the child IS a Natural Born Citizen. The parentS MUST be American citizens at the time of the birth to bestow NBC…not one hour, day, month or one year later. The child IS an American citizen per the 14th Amendment (which I have a problem with) but NOT NBC.