Massachusetts Federation of Young Republicans elect new board

Dvaid Bernstein @ The Phoenix must hate this. (5.00 / 1)

He's constantly bemoaning the lack of women in Republican politics.
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&...

It would be nice if this got a mention in the next Phoenix.

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 23:36:31 PM UTC

Congratulations! (0.00 / 0)

Congratulations to the newly elected MFYR board members!  

Despite winning the #TweetYourTicket context with my Red Sox Foundation 50/50 raffle, I regret not being able to attend the meeting this afternoon due to my previously scheduled & ticket purchased game against the Washington Nationals.

I so regret that Dice-K gave up 4 runs and that our Home Town Team lost despite Salty's 2 RBIs!!!

Fortunately, despite my upcoming birthday I still have a few more years left of being a proud Young Republican!  

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:00:13 AM UTC

How old are you Brock? (0.00 / 0)

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 16:39:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My Age, for the Record (0.00 / 0)

Since you asked, I'm still 33-years-old.  That is until my birthday on Friday!

---

by: BNCordeiro @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 20:47:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Strong showing today (0.00 / 0)

There was quite the strong showing today at the MFYR convention. It's always good to convene with fellow young republicans, and today was another great occasion for such a reunion. The MFYR elected a solid group of conservative leaders, and I look forward to being part of the newly refined MFYR!

---

by: EJD @ Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:35:36 AM UTC

Congrats to All (0.00 / 0)

It's a great time to be a Young Republican! I will be with you in spirit even if not chronology. Special congrats to the newly-elected officers. A fantastic team!

---

by: Dan Winslow @ Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:01:39 PM UTC

What is really sad is... (0.00 / 0)

...that these "young Republicans" don't know that Rubio is not eligible for the Vice Presidency.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 13:54:18 PM UTC

Sure he is! (0.00 / 0)

there are no longer any Constitutional requirements, simply seal all records!(see Obama presidency-2008)

---

by: billnick @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 15:04:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oops. Silly me... (0.00 / 0)

...and here I thought we were still abiding by the Constitution.

I stand corrected.  Rubio it is!

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 15:11:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rubio was born in the United States (0.00 / 0)

That is naturally born.

Would you argue that because my Mother was a Canadian citizen at the time of my birth that I am not a natural born citizen?


Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 15:29:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Naturally born? (0.00 / 0)

Not sure where THAT term came from but....

Neither of Rubio's parents were citizens of the US when he was born, therefore, Rubio is not a "natural born citizen".

This is a good tune up:

http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot...

As for you....I'm not biting.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 15:51:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You may (0.00 / 0)

want to do some more checking.  While I agree completely that there are often differing definitions of what "Natural born" means and who is and who isn't.  The one most agreed upon concept for purposes of political office is citizenship by virtue of being born on US soil (even within a US territory or zone).

So yes...two immigrants (legal or otherwise) can come hear have a child and by virtue of being born in the US that person is eligible for POTUS or VP.  That definition may change in time, but that is my understanding as of now (note that I did not say I was a fan of it).

BTW this is the loophole in many of the provisions designed to keep illegals off the dole.  Have a child...no one asks questions about your citizenship.  Some call it citizenship by soil some call it natural born.  Until SCOTUS weighs in we'll be stuck with what we got...and I believe Rubio would pass the litmus test today.

Suffering Battered Voter Syndrome since 8/31/1981

---

by: garyrlake @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 17:17:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gary; (0.00 / 0)

Your criticism begins with a very large flaw:

The one most agreed upon concept for purposes of political office is citizenship by virtue of being born on US soil (even within a US territory or zone).

This is completely incorrect.

If you look at the link I provided, it is laid out in excellent detail.

The founders had a clear understanding of what was meant by "natural born".  

http://newsflavor.com/world/us...

The Supreme Court, in Minor v. Happersett, in 1875 defined "natural born Citizen" under the Constitution as "being born in this country with both parents being U.S. citizens at the time the candidate was born." That is the Supreme Court's definition; it's never been overturned or challenged (that I have been able to find).

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 17:40:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then McCain wasn't eligible. (0.00 / 0)

He was born on an overseas military base, not in this country.

Of course, a court found him eligible, just like they did George Romney who was born of US citizens in Mexico.

And none of that happened after 1875.

Jeez, McCain is old!

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 17:57:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thus proving that of course it's about the parents (0.00 / 0)

not about where the birth took place.

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 21:49:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

oh, hadn't read V's comment closely (0.00 / 0)

I see, you're right, that Supreme Court decision would indicate that McCain wasn't eligible, unless we consider the Canal Zone "in the US." I think what matters is whether the US citizen parents who are abroad when their child is born are still maintaining their US citizenship, or are they expatriots in the process of naturalizing in some other country.

I think Rubio could be considered a natural born US citizen because his parents had no choice to go back (hmm, though perhaps they would have if Castro had been overthrown, so maybe they were always considering themselves Cubans-in-exile up until they naturalized.) Will there be a "right of return" for Cuban exiles if the Castro regime is replaced by a capitalist system? Maybe Rubio could be the next El Presidente of Cuba?

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 22:48:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not disagreeing (0.00 / 0)

But what should happen and what does happen in practice are two different things. And I'm not saying it was overturned...just interpreted more broadly.

The 'commonly accepted' definition as taught a grammar schools and law courses (courses that meet the MA Constitutional requirement for the state college system BTW)  are using 'born in the US' that as a litmus test.  I gotta figure if my college professor working in a state school system can make a compelling argument that a seasoned constitutional scholar can to SCOTUS and could prevail.

I am no constitutional scholar but it seems many who want to use this definition more narrow really intent to say "Second generation" citizens.  I think the authors had the where-with-all to be able to write those words or unambiguous words to that effect.  When left vague it becomes open to interpretation.

As I said I am a lay person but the 14th amendment seems plain.  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States". And given that they were born IN the US...that is their natural place of birth.  I'm having a hard time seeing SCOTUS disqualifying Rubio.

Using the cite you did McCain would not have been eligible also BOTH parent must be US citizens...prior to OBAMA there have been presidents who did not have 2 US citizens for parents (not to mention it assumes we could identify BOTH parents....somewhat of a challenge these days...and will be more complicated with surrogates, adoptions and IVF)

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish.

Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England,

James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers,

More recently

Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) whose mother was born in England.

Herbert Hoover (1929-1933),mother were born respectively Canada.

I am unsure of the citizenship status of the respective parents at the birth of the president.

Clearly this issue will be debated for some time until a definitive "You must be XYZ and have <0 1 or 2> US citizen parents...and be born in ABC" comes from SCOTUS.  

I personally would favor a very narrow definition that would require both parent to at least be permanent residents and be born in the US a territory or diplomatic zone.

Suffering Battered Voter Syndrome since 8/31/1981

---

by: garyrlake @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 19:04:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hmm (0.00 / 0)

really intent to say "Second generation" citizens.  I think the authors had the where-with-all to be able to write those words or unambiguous words to that effect.

Good point, they could have saved us some trouble. But it didn't seem necessary, because at the time of the Constitution we still considered people to be born as the same nationality of their parents, no matter where they were born. Remember, whole families often immigrated with small children and pregnant women. They would all have to naturalize, and only those children born after the family became citizens of the US were born as citizens of the US, aka natural born citizens. That's the way it should be again.

Andrew Jackson should have had to have been born after his parents became citizens. It does seem arbitrary, but the act of naturalizing is also the cut-off for when someone can turn around and go back where they came from and still be a citizen, along with all their children.

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 22:05:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, what you ALL are saying is.... (0.00 / 0)

That Vlad Putin could come to the US and have a child.  THAT child, by virtue of being born in the us, becomes a "natural born citizen".

THEN, Vlad raises his son to love Marxism and HATE the US.  As he grows and is educated, young Vlad Junior is groomed to become an American politician....say....a State Senator.

THEN young Vlad is financed to run as a US Senator and then quickly he runs for US President.  Because there is no time or inclination, the media does not vet young Vlad and the people, who are wholly ignorant of what is going on, become willing accomplices to the virtual takeover of their government by Marxist forces...

All from within....and all because the people have no understanding of the term...."natural born citizen".

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:12:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Practically speaking (0.00 / 0)

Yes...and Vlad doesn't need to raise the child here.

The US is one of the few places in the civilized world that has a birthright citizenship based where on the map you were born.  It is almost non existent elsewhere.

There have been (and I am sure there will be) discussions on removing or changing 'birthright' citizenship provisions.  The idea was originally (historically) to encourage population growth and then out of tradition....but I see it as a giant magnet in the illegal immigration issue now.

There is also the reverse of the situation too that is never dicussed...I have a relative who is a dad to a American citizen in Germany.  His mother for some reason wanted her future child to have the benefit of being a US citizen and needed to find a willing volunteer to have sex (not a tough task)...once born she flew the coop with the kid and achieved her goal (and the relative figured out he was scammed)...never to be seen again. I'd like to think that was a fluke but something tells me it's not. There is absolutely no reason some 40 years later this German could not appear with a US passport and rise to the WhiteHouse.  

Suffering Battered Voter Syndrome since 8/31/1981

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 14:21:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah, but there IS gary... (0.00 / 0)

...."birthright citizenship" isn't the same thing as being a "natural born citizen".

The Founding Fathers were well versed in the meaning of the term "natural born" and used it with purpose.  They (scholars seem to agree) utilized Emerich de Vattel's definition in his book "the Law of Nations":

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

"Birthright Citizenship" seems to be a product of the 14th Amendment.  I think if you read the fourteenth amendment in strict terms, it is apparent that it only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship.

It states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

It does not say "are natural born citizens of the United States".

It does not say that because there was an understanding of what was meant by "natural born" in Article II Section I.  The 14th Amendment wasn't written to define "natural born citizen".  It was simply one of the reconstruction era amendments passed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves.  

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 14:56:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As I said (0.00 / 0)

I get that.  And you and I can agree in principle that is the case.  

But in real life assume Rubio was the pick for the sake of discussion.  Who is qualified to rule on his eligibility?  SCOTUS of course.  Do you honestly see them getting involved in this or ruling him disqualified?  I think they run for the hills and avoid the whole question.  Which in effect lets the grammar school definition become the law of the land.

Suffering Battered Voter Syndrome since 8/31/1981

---

by: garyrlake @ Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 21:16:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Only if we let it. (0.00 / 0)

If we are wrong Gary, it's time someone set us straight.

I'm certainly no constitutional scholar, but I can read.  

In this case, the only people who disagree with us are the ill-informed (and we're doing our best to correct that) and the people who are up to no good.

I think Rubio should set everyone straight and come out and SAY he isn't qualified under the Constitution.  He knows it as well as we do.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 12:35:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even better..... (0.00 / 0)

they CANNOT get involved in determining the qualification of Rubio....after NOT getting involved in the same with the current elected President.

The only way they could say that Rubio is to determine that "natural born" means "born of 2 citizens".....which is what was intended by the Founders.  "Born of 2 citizen parents....unless you were already alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution"

Just think....SCOTUS disqualifies Rubio....and then looks over at the current POTUS.....

They won't touch it....

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 14:59:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yup (0.00 / 0)

They'd avoid that like the plague

Suffering Battered Voter Syndrome since 8/31/1981

---

by: garyrlake @ Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 15:39:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So is Obama's birth location the only issue? (4.00 / 1)

Or was Barack's father being an actual US Citizen another issue? I always believed you simply needed to be born here.

---

by: billnick @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 17:44:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

billnick (0.00 / 0)

As I understand it, the fact that Obama's father was a British Subject and his mother was too young to confer citizenship on her son are the factors with him.  IF all is to be believed.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 11:02:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This in addition to (0.00 / 0)

the questionable Birth Certificate that was not produced initially?
What I find so hard to comprehend is the fact that we have so few prerequsites for most of the candidates that we elect into positions of power and yet one of the few positions, (and perhaps the most powerful position in the World), that the Constitution specifically requires the individuals be born in this Country; documentation is not immediately produced and confirmed before Nomination papers can even be taken out.  

---

by: billnick @ Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 19:38:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How about two tourists? (0.00 / 0)

The parents, at least the father, should have to be a citizen at the time their child is born, so that their children have no optional dual loyalty. Natural born citizens can only be claimed by one country, that of their father. It's an important principle, who claims a child, the father or the state where the child is born.

Also, natural born should preclude genetically modified people, who would not have a father and mother and would owe their existence to a lab that was responsible for their genome and their implantation and gestation and birth, from ever being president. In fact, such people should be precluded from existing all together, we should prohibit creating people by any means other than natural born children who should share citizenship with their father, and naturalize with their father only if he naturalizes (or their mother if the father died while in the process of naturalizing.)

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 21:48:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]