Lining up the dominoes

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by Flanders, Jan 31, 2012.

  1. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The dominoes may not be falling just yet, but they sure as hell are lining up:

    Whatever the outcome in Georgia, the issue is gaining traction in other states, too, including Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, New Hampshire, and even Illinois, Obama’s home political base.​

    Obama eligibility challenges spread to 6 states
    Decision in Georgia case expected soon, but ballot concerns going viral
    Published: 7 hours ago
    by Bob Unruh

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-eligibility-challenges-spread-to-6-states/

    At the same time that many Americans support a clarification of the Eligibility Clause more precise than Happersett v. Minor the Republican party seems determined to put Marco Rubio on the ticket. Rubio is the frontrunner on a ticket headed by Gingrich.

    The only way I would vote for Rubio is if he is not in the line of succession. I don’t know if an ineligible vice president is automatically removed from the line of succession or if a procedure is involved?

    NOTE: Madeleine Albright was not in the line of succession when she was secretary of state; however, she was confirmed by the US Senate not by an election.

    Questions

    Will Hispanics vote for Rubio if he is not in the line of succession? If so, the Hispanic vote could work for the Republicans as well make a definitive statement about eligibility. Or will Hispanics be insulted and vote for the Democrat?

    Should Gingrich select Rubio as his running mate and not take him out the line of succession that will show contemp for the Constitution —— contempt that is associated with the Democrat party. In addition to contempt Professor Gingrich will signify the Eligibility Clause is meaningless.

    Anyway, the Republican race is so boring the eligibility question is a welcomed relief.


    Romney-Christie, Gingrich-Rubio are most likely ticket pairings
    By David Pennock

    If you're curious why the candidates were tripping over themselves to out-praise Marco Rubio, Florida's Republican junior senator, at the last debate, look no further than the political market Intrade, where Rubio is in first place to be second fiddle with a 24 percent chance of being the eventual winner's running mate. (Meanwhile Joe Biden is the overwhelming favorite to remain Obama's choice.)

    But who gets the would-be VP nod depends greatly on who is the nominee. As Newt Gingrich's odds of winning have spiked and dissipated twice in the last two months, the market for vice presidential candidates has reacted. Because the movement happened over a fairly short time period -- I analyzed the past 90 days -- and because not much else seems to have occurred to impact the veepstakes picture during that time, we can guess that most of the changes in the VP market are driven by the shifting fates of Romney and Gingrich at the top. With this assumption, we can compute estimates of which pairings are most likely.

    If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, my model estimates that he is 25 percent likely to pick Chris Christie as his running mate, a popular moderate governor from New Jersey who himself flirted with running for president before strongly endorsing Romney. (This in spite of the fact that you'd have two Northeasterners on the ticket.) The market puts Christie's overall chance of being the VP of any Republican nominee at only 14 percent, but because his odds tend to rise in tandem with Romney's, my model boosts his chances to 25 percent in the scenario where Romney is the nominee. Rubio is a close second to be Romney's right-hand man at 22 percent. Rubio's VP odds actually drop whenever Romney's go up (they are anti-correlated), but because Rubio's such a likely overall pick, he's still the second-most likely Romney pairing. Rubio so far hasn't endorsed a presidential candidate and has repeatedly said he's not interested in the VP job. No other candidate rises above single digits as Mitt's pick for a-heartbeat-away.

    If Gingrich wins the Republican primary, he's most likely, at 30 percent, to pair up with Rubio. Christie virtually falls out of the running for VP at below 5 percent if Gingrich emerges the primary winner. Over the past 90 days, when Gingrich rose in the presidential market, Rubio tended to rise too and Christie tended to fall in the vice presidential market.

    These estimates are based solely on data unaided--and untainted--by political intuition. Using a technical analysis called logistic regression, I extrapolated to the point of a Gingrich win to derive an estimate for Rubio's chances in that scenario. I did the same for all pairs of Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates. It's important to note that what we are measuring here is a statistical correspondence, and an extrapolated one at that, not a proven cause-effect relationship.

    Interestingly, Rubio is not the VP candidate with the highest correlation with Gingrich: Romney is! Still, the chance that Gingrich would pick Romney as his running mate is only 7 percent. That's because Romney is an unlikely VP pick overall. Also, Romney as the nominee is extremely anti-correlated with Romney-as-veep, a sanity check suggesting the market and the model are producing sensible results. (As much as Romney might like, you can't choose yourself as your vice president.) Extrapolating from the co-movements of different markets isn't perfect, but it's the best we can do in the absence of true combinatorial prediction markets.

    Of the other two Republican primary candidates, Rick Santorum is the more likely vice-presidential candidate at 5.2 percent. Ron Paul, frequently mentioned by his supporters as an ideal vice-presidential candidate, is considered negligibly likely. Yet, his son, Rand Paul, is given about 1.5 percent likelihood of being the Republican VP candidate. Below is a list of candidates compiled from Intrade.

    GO TO THE LINK FOLLOWING THE ARTICLE TO VIEW THE PERCENTAGES

    In addition, the following candidates have a less than 1 in 100 chance according to Intrade: Jim DeMint, Jeb Bush, Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, Gary Johnson, Allen West, Kelly Ayotte, John Kasich, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Rudy Giuliani, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Michael Bloomberg, David Petraeus, Pat Toomey, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, JC Watts, John Kasich, Judd Gregg, George Pataki, Scott Brown, Haley Barbour, John Bolton, Dave Heineman, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Donald Trump , Bill McCollum, John Boehner, and Buddy Roemer.

    Follow the real-time numbers on Intrade or PredictWise.

    David Pennock is a Principal Research Scientist at Yahoo! Research. Follow him on twitter @pennockd.

    Chris Wilson contributed.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/...io-most-likely-ticket-pairings-123121536.html
     
  2. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    37,351
    Likes Received:
    950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    minor v happerset had exactly nothing to do with citizenship, so I'm not sure why you birthers constantly use it. rubio is just as eligibile as newt is. there is not now, nor has there ever been a requirement that even one parent must be a citizen, let alone both in order to be a natural born citizen.
     
  3. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    CORRECTION: I should have said Madeleine Albright AND Henry Kissinger were not in the line of succession when they were secretaries of state.

    The thread at the following link gives a bit more on the line of succession. Note that John Boehner replaced Nancy Pelosi on the list:


    http://www.politicalforum.com/law-justice/165302-obama-s-eligibility-line-succession.html

    As I understand it the Constitution, combined with the Presidential Succession Act, prohibits ineligible officials from becoming president should the situation arise. The problem is: The vice president is elected and is first in the line of succession. Does that mean the prohibition in The Presidential Succession Act does not apply to the V.P. because he is elected? The question is irrelevant. The Constitution would not stop Democrats from swearing in their guy —— ineligible vice president or bureaucrat; so it is unlikely the Presidential Succession Act will slow them down. If the US Constitution doesn’t stop those people it is foolish to think a law will stand in their way. Their utter contempt for the Constitution proves my case.

    An American-born vice president who is ineligible is obviously different from foreign-born bureaucrats who become naturalized American citizens. As far as I know all of the cabinet secretaries on the “ineligible” list became naturalized citizens:


    List of foreign-born United States Cabinet Secretaries

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign-born_United_States_Cabinet_Secretaries

    Bottom line: Does anyone really want George Soros, or Arnold Schwarzenegger, running for the presidency? Naturalized citizens will surely follow ineligible American-born citizens into the White House.

    Finally, I sense a trend developing that will bring on tougher rules for candidates running for Congress, and for state offices; rules that would bring State Constitutions in line with the Eligibility Clause in the US Constitution. The trend I’m sensing begins with a more detailed vetting of all candidates; i.e., the state does the vetting rather than relying on the media. If I’m reading the tea leaves correctly it would be a good thing in light of multiculturalism, and the hatred for America so many immigrants come with and never lose.

    Please do not respond and tell me I am immigrant bashing. Today’s immigrants are not the melting pot immigrants who came here to work for themselves and their families. Those immigrants understood and admired limited government, while today’s immigrants beg for more government. Many of today’s immigrants get off the boat with a list of demands; free education, free healthcare, and so on. Legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico, led by American-born citizens of Mexican descent go so far as to demand the Southwest and California be returned to Mexico.
     
  4. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    37,351
    Likes Received:
    950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    did you want to respond to my post, which completely refuted yours? or did you want to continue to act like this forum is your own personal blog, and run away any time someone tries to engage you in a debate.
     
  5. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,804
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please do not respond and tell me I am immigrant bashing.

    Okay- and then you go ahead and post this:

    Today’s immigrants are not the melting pot immigrants who came here to work for themselves and their families. Those immigrants understood and admired limited government, while today’s immigrants beg for more government. Many of today’s immigrants get off the boat with a list of demands; free education, free healthcare, and so on. Legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico, led by American-born citizens of Mexican descent go so far as to demand the Southwest and California be returned to Mexico.

    Yep- immigrant bashing.

    One of the reasons Republicans have lost most of the Latino vote- who otherwise would fit more comfortably with the Republican Party.

    And seriously- I don't know of any immigrant that is harder working than Chinese Americans.

    This is just ignorant, xenophobic pap.
     
  6. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To SFJEFF: Hussein’s aunt personifies the attitude that is common among today’s immigrants. Immigrants who came before the welfare state never asked the government to take from others and give it to them. And no one knows how many decent-people in foreign are saying to themselves “Why the hell emigrate to America when the government forces me work for everybody else?”

    Clarification: My use of decent-people as a compound word should not be taken as a moral judgement. It is simply a way to identify individuals who do not want to control anyone’s life and resources except their own.

    Notice that Aunt Zeituni demands the citizenship that legal immigrants eventually get:


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nKdUu6zwDiI

    And do not be so sure every Chinese immigrant is a hardworking legal immigrant. As a group they are no different than anyone else:

    Aunt Zeituni’s case puts the lie to the old canard that all criminal immigrants are here to work. She gets a stipend from a city program, along with her housing. In fact, as the Center for Immigration Studies points out, illegal immigrant households are far more likely to be on the dole than the average American. She also highlights the obvious truth of the Heritage Foundation study that our 12 million illegal immigrants are a $2.2 trillion net drain on the taxpayers over the course of their lifetimes.​

    The State of Hawaii’s liberal birth registration policies was an invitation to provide documentation to Chinese illegals after China went communist. Hawaii had a large legal Chinese population; so the infrastructure for winking at Chinese illegals was already in place in the halls of government.

    Before accepting your sly reverse racism, I’d like to know how many Chinese students have their higher education paid for by taxpayers? I refuse to believe that all of the Chinese students one hears about in colleges and universities came from families wealthy enough to pay their tuition.


    Obama’s auntie still freeloading
    By Michael Graham | Thursday, February 4, 2010

    Here’s another Obama sweetheart deal you won’t see on C-SPAN.

    This morning, the fate of Boston’s most infamous illegal immigrant, Zeituni Polly Onyango (also known as “Aunt Zeituni”) will be determined in a closed-door hearing.

    Why in secret? Because Auntie’s saga reveals every embarrassing truth that amnesty advocates and open-borders liberals like Mayor Tom Menino and Gov. Deval Patrick try to hide.

    The most important being that illegal immigrants don’t get that way without first doing something, well, illegal.

    President Barack Obama’s Aunt Zeituni admits she illegally overstayed her visa. Instead of obeying the law, she went to a judge in 2003 with a bogus request for asylum. She was turned down. She ignored the deportation order and instead filed an appeal. She was told again: It’s illegal for you to stay.

    She’s still here.

    Aunt Zeituni donated $260 to her nephew’s campaign for president - which is also against the law because she’s not a U.S. citizen. How against the law is it? Remember when the president launched his unprecedented attack against the Supreme Court during his State of the Union? His complaint was that foreigners might donate money to influence U.S. elections.

    All these crimes extend from the first crime - violating our immigration laws. It is simply impossible to stay in this country illegally without committing other crimes, like tax fraud and identity theft.

    But it’s not the illegal stuff that Aunt Zeituni’s doing that’s so outrageous. It’s what she’s apparently able to do legally and openly.

    She is shamelessly - and happily - living in taxpayer-subsidized housing intended for citizens and legal immigrants. Is there some poor American veteran living in a shelter because she’s got this apartment? Aunt Zeituni doesn’t care - why should she? Menino and the Boston Housing Authority don’t.

    And now she’s back in court, using taxpayer resources with another bogus bid for asylum. She says she can’t go back to Kenya because of “political turmoil.” Sorry lady, but if that’s the basis for an appeal, nobody would have been allowed back in the White House since Scott Brown’s election.

    Aunt Zeituni’s case puts the lie to the old canard that all criminal immigrants are here to work. She gets a stipend from a city program, along with her housing. In fact, as the Center for Immigration Studies points out, illegal immigrant households are far more likely to be on the dole than the average American. She also highlights the obvious truth of the Heritage Foundation study that our 12 million illegal immigrants are a $2.2 trillion net drain on the taxpayers over the course of their lifetimes.

    All of which ignores the most obvious and angering question: Why are Boston taxpayers stuck taking care of the aunt of the president of the United States?

    She’s got a millionaire in the family right now, one who also happens to live in public housing, by the way. He’s got room, too. Worst case scenario, Joe Biden can bunk with Bo.

    Instead we get another secret deal that’s almost certain to keep the taxpayers on the hook. Mr. President, here’s a problem you can solve with a phone call. Get your aunt a plane ticket to Kenya, or D.C., or hey - how about Nebraska?

    Call it the Ben Nelson version of immigration reform. We pay for their Medicaid, Omaha pays for your aunt.

    http://bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20100204obamas_auntie_still_freeloading
     
  7. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    37,351
    Likes Received:
    950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    come on flanders, don't run away.
     
  8. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,804
    Likes Received:
    252
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Please do not respond and tell me I am immigrant bashing."


    Yep- you are immigrant bashing.

    One of the reasons Republicans have lost most of the Latino vote- who otherwise would fit more comfortably with the Republican Party.

    And seriously- I don't know of any immigrant that is harder working than Chinese Americans.

    This is just ignorant, xenophobic pap.
     
  9. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To SFJEFF: You’re going in circles. See #6 permalink.
     
  10. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,086
    Likes Received:
    325
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Happersett v. Minor is about voting rights NOT citizenship.
     
  11. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
  12. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,086
    Likes Received:
    325
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wordpress is a lousy source.. Go directly to the statutes. natural born citizen is defined in Title 8 of the 14 Amendment.

    The case you are citing has nothing to do with defining citizenship.

    Good Lord.. Donofrio is a loon.. he's a failed lawyer, druggy, rocker and stalker.

    Read the source material for yourself.
     
  13. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, Flanders, the Judge in Georgia ruled ON THE MERITS that Obama is (1) a natural-born citizen and (2) is eligible to be on the ballot.

    The birthers had yet another day in court and lost.

    What say you?

    Flanders calls the Judge corrupt in 3.... 2.... 1....
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    12,125
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63

    What merits?

    no real investigation, discovery, strictly prima facia.

    BC is good enough for me! LOL
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    12,125
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63

    try the 1802 statutes at large, THE dejure law of the land, never been repealed or modified immigration laws. No court would dare duck that one. that is he is not even eligible period.
     
  16. Flanders

    Flanders New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To Kokomojojo: I’m still waiting for the SCOTUS to clarify singular and plural parent(s) and whether or not natural-born means both parent must themselves be American citizens when the child is born in order for that child to be eligible for the presidency. Hussein, Rubio, and Jindal do not meet that requirement.

    I repeat from another thread:

    That’s me sitting on the bench in the painting:


    Controversial Artist Depicts Obama Trampling The Constitution
    By Peter V. Milo
    February 3, 2012 1:08 PM

    http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/0...ist-depicts-obama-trampling-the-constitution/
     
  17. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    37,351
    Likes Received:
    950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol, immigration statutes have no relevance here. obama was born in the US. that's why he's eligible. that's why he's POTUS, and why you birhters have lost every single legal challenge to date.
     
  18. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    37,351
    Likes Received:
    950
    Trophy Points:
    113


    you don't need to wait. you've been shown the decision in wong kim ark. and of course obama, rubio, and jindal meet the requirements.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    12,125
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    no he is potus because you all refuse to read the law I told you to read.

    its under and "with" immigration
     
  20. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    37,351
    Likes Received:
    950
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope. He's potus because the law you are trying to cite, doesn't apply in th is case.
     

Share This Page