ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, December 14, 2015

The anti-nationalist conspiracy succeeds

The second-round defeat of the Front National in France is not surprising; as I said, it is going to take TWO election cycles before the nationalists can come to power. But for now, the alliance of the left and "center right", which in American terms is similar to the alliance between liberals and cuckservatives, has been sufficient to keep the Front National out of power:
France's far-right National Front (FN) has failed to win a single region in the second round of municipal polls. The party was beaten into third place, despite leading in six of 13 regions in the first round of voting a week ago.

The centre-right Republicans finished ahead of President Francois Hollande's governing Socialist Party.

FN leader Marine Le Pen said that mainstream parties had colluded to keep it from power and vowed to keep on fighting.

"Nothing can stop us now," she told supporters. "By tripling our number of councillors, we will be the main opposition force in most of the regions of France."

Ms Le Pen said the party had been "disenfranchised in the most indecent of ways by a campaign of lies and disinformation".

She had stood as a regional presidential candidate in the northern region of Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie, while her niece Marion Marechal-Le Pen was the FN's candidate in the race in Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur, in the south.

After both led with more than 40% of the vote in the first round on 6 December, the Socialist candidates in those regions pulled out so their voters could support Republican candidates in the second round.

The FN actually increased its votes in the second round to more than 6.8 million, from 6.02 million on 6 December as more people voted, according to the ministry of the interior (In French). But the FN share of the vote went down slightly from 27.73% to 27.36%.
The anti-nationalists always call the nationalists "Nazis". It's nothing more than the usual DISQUALIFY write large. But of course, through their collusion and corruption of the democratic system, the anti-nationalists ensure that the real version, the ultranationalists, will come to power through non-democratic means as soon as the nationalists realize that the will of the people is defined as automatically excluding them, stop playing the game, and throw their support to the ultras.

Labels: ,

73 Comments:

Anonymous A.B. Prosper December 14, 2015 5:37 PM  

Its an anomaly for people to willingly give up power. Its the most addictive of all drugs. In this case the ruling coalition being one party, won't easily.

This outcome was publicly stated as the likely result and as Vox said, it takes a couple of cycles for things to pick up.

Considering where the FN was a few years ago, they are doing decently well. Its not a bad outcome, only an expected outcome.

I expect of course the same thing to happen here re: Trump he'll be replaced with Cruz or Romney possibly.


In any case the ruling coalition will probably half-assed reduced immigration to dilute support hoping to increase numbers of immigrants later. It won't work though. Average Jacques and Julianes or Jacks and Jills are much smarter than the elite think.

Now if the US has an ultra-nationalist rebellion it will have rather different results, more likely the US will end up several smaller nations rather than having a rotation of the elite.

Lastly, the key mistake the Left is making and its one they cannot stop making is they assume that the Right has to respect "elections" of that it is impossible that people put having a healthy society above the farce that is elections.

Well no.

Again as Vox noted its perfectly possible for the Right to simply say "we don't care" and simply take power.

The 2nd part of the Mandate , be worthy (we are there) take power, rule. The European Right just has to do part 2. The US Right is farther behind the curve and is only marginally worthy and unwilling to take power. yet

In the end, we probably will have to though . Its sad in some ways to flush Republics but so be it, if it is broke, fix it.

Anonymous Goodnight December 14, 2015 5:42 PM  

This might be better for FN in the long run. It's obvious to everyone that the Socialists and Republicans conspired to keep FN from winning - they were quite open about it. When the real chaos hits the backlash against them will be that much great. Après Hollande le déluge.

Anonymous Machiavellian Informer December 14, 2015 5:52 PM  

Yes,

Machiavelli stated clearly that a prince should put the interests of the people ahead of the princes, for that simple reason that people don't want to be oppressed, and princes want to oppress the people.

The reason being that's it far easier to give the people what they want and not oppress them, and it's a lot easier to handle a few dozen pissed off princes than thousands and maybe millions of pissed off people.

And the only way Machiavelli said to handle corrupt princes? the exact words were "Put them to the sword".

Blogger CM December 14, 2015 6:06 PM  

TWO election cycles

In a society more concerned with iPhones and fad technology, this seems like a long time to me and that we would "get over it" by then.

But in terms of history, its a short time and even movements that last 100 years are historical "fads".

Anonymous old man in a villa December 14, 2015 6:14 PM  

I don't understand. They were leading in the first round of voting. If the socialists pulled out and threw their support to the republicans, then how did FN finish third?

Pretty certain that between now and the next election the ruling elites will do whatever they need to in order to make the FN a non-party. Not going to be a next election with these guys, that ship has sailed.

Blogger Bluntobj Winz December 14, 2015 6:39 PM  

@4 and @5

In 2012, could you have foreseen the events of 2015/2016? Yet the resistance is growing daily. The more the elite keep trying to hold onto power, the more obvious it becomes that they are the worse choice. That's going to continue through more election cycles, and the disruptions caused by islam/leftists are simply going to get worse.

Support for nationalism is not eroding, it's just beginning its ramp up.

Anonymous nil December 14, 2015 6:43 PM  

Vox, is there a reason you rarely comment on events in Italy? I think many people would like to hear about it from the perspective of a long term resident

Blogger OneWingedShark December 14, 2015 6:52 PM  

@1 "I expect of course the same thing to happen here re: Trump he'll be replaced with Cruz or Romney possibly."

Both of those will be disastrous: Romney is Obama in a Republican suit, and Cruz will prove Constitutional limits ineffectual (because he fails the natural born citizen requirement).

@2 "This might be better for FN in the long run. It's obvious to everyone that the Socialists and Republicans conspired to keep FN from winning - they were quite open about it. When the real chaos hits the backlash against them will be that much great."

This is, I think, exactly what's happening here:
* in 2008 the general population elected Obama (partly out of racial guilt, partly of wanting something different than the Bush Republican-party, and partly because of the massive swell of young new-voters) -- and the Republican party pushed John McCain.
* in 2010 we took a chunk of Congress, expecting the Republicans to actually work to repeal the Affordable Care Ace... it did not happen.
* in 2012 we were given the choice between Obama and pretty much the only person who could lose to him: Obama, er, I mean Romney.
* in 2014 is was fairly clear that the Republicans had no intention to fight against Obama and even came out being on the for side of amnesty.
* now, in the run-up to 2016, we've got tons of more-of-the-same candidates and Trump, who is at least sounding like he loves America rather than just saying "the normal republican spiel."

In 2020 we may actually get the chance to have Constitutionalists and nationalists running for President... I mean look at just how hard the Republican party keeps screwing its base over.

Blogger Nate December 14, 2015 7:05 PM  

Fools.

Fools.

OpenID basementhomebrewer December 14, 2015 7:12 PM  

@8 I am not sure it will matter in 2020. The republicans are seeing before their very eyes that their charade is evaporating. The illegals are already threatening to flood the voter roles and we know the DOJ is going to make sure no one stops them. The success of Donald Trump is going to cause the republicans to change their slow roll game on immigration into a race to flood the country with immigrants before the next presidential election. That is, after they find a way to disqualify Trump from being the nominee.

Blogger Vox IV December 14, 2015 7:16 PM  

@5 old man in a villa

FN were leading, yes, but with 27% of the vote. France is a parliamentary system, with now 3 major parties, and a large number of minor parties focused on minority or regional issues (hunting in the North, for instance). So when the party that can draw 27% is ganged up on by the parties that can draw 25% and 20% respectively, their combined 45% wins.

Blogger dienw December 14, 2015 7:20 PM  

Denninger is also discussing this.
Perhaps someone should cross pollinate the comments with the cuckservative meme.

Blogger VD December 14, 2015 7:20 PM  

Vox, is there a reason you rarely comment on events in Italy?

Yes, most of my readership is American.

Anonymous Sledge Fisthammer December 14, 2015 7:23 PM  

It just rips the curtain back both here and there. The elites are running a smoke and mirrors show and it doesn't matter which party wins they just split the spoils and use their people like cattle.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 14, 2015 7:49 PM  

@6 "In 2012, could you have foreseen the events of 2015/2016?"

Specifically, no. I have however been of the opinion that the more the Republican party fails to stand for anything, the more irrelevant it will be -- I think what we're seeing is the general public coming to that realization.

In the 2012 election I noticed how the Republican party was acting and made a brochure about it, this was before the term 'Cuckservative' was coined and completely describes the behavior... prior to that, I noted how a win in 2010 could be a bad thing ans ultimately led to the 2012 behavior, which is [IMO] directly behind the phenomenon that is driving the Trump campaign: voters are saying F- you! to Democrats/GOP-establishment/lobbyists/political-correctness... they want their representatives to be about something.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 14, 2015 7:53 PM  

@10 "I am not sure it will matter in 2020. The republicans are seeing before their very eyes that their charade is evaporating."

I didn't say it would be Republicans: I said nationalists and Constitutionalists... that, of course, is barring things coming to civil war.

"The success of Donald Trump is going to cause the republicans to change their slow roll game on immigration into a race to flood the country with immigrants before the next presidential election."

That might be an excuse, but I seem to remember the Republicans pushing amnesty right before the 2014 election -- if they do throw wide those gates, there will [almost certainly] be war.

Blogger Tano December 14, 2015 7:55 PM  

Why assume that this is only a temporary setback for the nazis? Do y'all not recall that Papa LePen made it to the second round of a presidential election? We had the same coming together of the sane left and sane right and he was buried. And it did not set up a victory next time out....

Despite the fluctuations of protest voting, the general populace is not so nutso as to actually elect this scum, nor will they succeed in overthrowing the government.

Anonymous bw December 14, 2015 8:02 PM  

http://americafirstparty.org/

Wait, you're talking last 6 decades of ZOG?
Oh shit.

Anonymous Roundtine December 14, 2015 8:05 PM  

Sweden Democrats are the largest party in Sweden now, after they were shut out of government. Party for Freedom in Holland was also an outsider, now it polls the same as center-right and center-left parties combined.

Blogger 1337kestrel December 14, 2015 8:56 PM  

Isn't it likely that by withdrawing, the Socialist have alienated some of their own members, who will now defect to the Nationalist party?

Blogger The Other Robot December 14, 2015 8:57 PM  

RT thinks its a bad thing that Anti-Muslim attack are occurring in record numbers across the US.

Blogger Vox IV December 14, 2015 9:01 PM  

@21
Remember, as much as many here admire Putin, his goal and the goal of the Russian government is the betterment and prosperity of the Russian people. If we are ascendant, they will tear us down. And RT mainly employs disaffected American Libs, so double that effect.

Anonymous Godfrey December 14, 2015 9:03 PM  

Why do they keep calling everybody National Socialists? I'm not a socialist. I've never been a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Anonymous Godfrey December 14, 2015 9:10 PM  

This is not a surprise at all.

Those on the "Left" have been controlled mindless useful stooges for the crony establishment oligarchs since Bismark.

The real threat to "the system" is from the "right". Just look how viscously and relentlessly the oligarch establishment media attacks the "right".

Blogger dc.sunsets December 14, 2015 9:15 PM  

Look, European and US stock indices are still near all time nominal highs while 1st world interest rates remain at extreme complacency lows.

The real tsunami of change is yet to arrive, but arrive it will. Armies cannot resist an idea, any idea, whose time has come.

Blogger Rambam December 14, 2015 10:19 PM  

USA makes it to Nov 8, 2016, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Blogger Harsh December 14, 2015 10:19 PM  

We've already hit peak SJW both here and in Europe. There will be a power stalemate for a few years and then the nationalists will take over.

Blogger Harsh December 14, 2015 10:19 PM  

We've already hit peak SJW both here and in Europe. There will be a power stalemate for a few years and then the nationalists will take over.

Blogger Groot December 14, 2015 10:39 PM  

Maybe this is ultimately good for Europe. Maybe their real problem is not enough non-white people. They look around and think, "We're all white people. You're dark, but my experience is that all people are white, so you're probably just a white person who is dark." Like people in Wisconsin or Vermont or attending an Obama or Hillary rally.

But for those who have benefited from an education in vibrancy, perhaps even had a conversation with someone whose entire outlook on life, causes of pride, and prestige within one's community orbits around an eyebrow-raising criminality and moral retardation, this outlook seems not only naïve but verging on the criminally negligent.

The optimist speaks: the upside to chimp-outs.

Anonymous kjj December 14, 2015 10:44 PM  

@8 @OneWingedShark

Every time I see "Cruz" here, I can expect to find a post from you, and only from you, challenging his citizenship. Do you know something that literally no one else in the world knows? Or are you hoping that if you repeat it 100 times everyone will just forget what they know about law and go with your version?

Blogger Derrick Bonsell December 14, 2015 10:47 PM  

While I won't declare that these results are undemocratic, France has one of the least proportional electoral systems in the developed world. Makes the GOP having control of the House with 1 million less votes after 2012 seem proportional.

I just won't go as far to declare this as undemocratic. The French people united to shut out FN. That's perfectly legitimate.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales December 14, 2015 10:52 PM  

@31

So, in other words, it's legitimate for a democracy to destroy itself by shutting out the only people willing to do what needs to be done in order to save it from a civilization that wants to see its imminent destruction.

If such a thing is a 'democracy,' no wonder we're in this mess.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell December 14, 2015 10:56 PM  

@19: That's not true at all. What is true is that in some polls they're polling higher than the Socialists, who are in the lead otherwise. When it comes to actual seats in Parliament the Sweden Democrats are a distant 3rd.

Interestingly the Socialists took power in the last election but only because the right lost power, people didn't actually turn to them. It's given them a weak government. If the center-right "Alliance" is willing to work with the SD on certain issues then the government would be screwed. According to wiki, the Alliance actually has 3 more seats than the government so I'm not sure why they're in opposition. Only thing I can figure is that the Alliance won't work with the SD on anything, and The Left's 12 MPs could support them if need-be.

There was almost an election after the SD sided with the Alliance's budget proposal but the Alliance sold out to prevent future elections. Anyway, even if the SD got the largest number of seats in an election held today, it wouldn't be able to form a government, it would just make the ruling faction have a much harder time than before.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell December 14, 2015 10:58 PM  

@32: Well why isn't it democratic? Socialist Party voters were enough to swing the elections for The Republicans to succeed. If they're willing to vote for their chief rivals to prevent a party further to the right from gaining power why wouldn't they?

I agree that the results aren't proportional, but neither is the Anglosphere's First-Past-the-Post system.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell December 14, 2015 11:00 PM  

@33: Make that early elections, they're sure not suspending them indefinitely.

Blogger bob k. mando December 14, 2015 11:01 PM  

30. kjj December 14, 2015 10:44 PM
Every time I see "Cruz" here, I can expect to find a post from you, and only from you, challenging his citizenship.



a - wrong
b - would you like to address the assertion? or do you just intend to name call?

cause i'll warn you now, that ain't gonna cut it here.

Blogger Unknown December 14, 2015 11:07 PM  

@30 kjj, do you know what the legal definition of "natural citizen" was when Cruz was born? I ask because I don't.

Anonymous Were-Puppy December 14, 2015 11:15 PM  

I am curious about Cruz birth as well.

OT Markku can you check this post, i'm trying something different

Blogger The Hammer December 14, 2015 11:29 PM  

Doug Wilson has a good line on the current cultural moment of the West.

"But we need to be done with leaders who want to be like Jesus, only not so bloody. When that gracious gift is finally given, then God will raise up leaders who can look at the chaos of our battlefield and see a straight line path to victory. If God does not give it, then our particular cause is lost, and see you in the Resurrection. We can look at all the game film then — and we will be able to handle that because there will be no tears there (Rev. 21:4O)."
-https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/110018.html

Blogger Hen December 14, 2015 11:32 PM  

Anti-Muslim attacks in that story (#21) look like false flags to me. Did you read that press coverage? I can't imagine even someone in grade school defacing a Mosque by writing the name of Jesus on the wall because I would not degrade the name of Christ that way. But one who did not respect the Lord would...hmm, now who would do that as a matter of their religion?

Anonymous kjj December 15, 2015 12:08 AM  

The term is never formally defined. As best anyone can figure, it means "citizen from the moment of birth, based on the circumstances of birth". If an act of congress bestowed citizenship on a living person, it would be natural-ized, not natural.

Going back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 , we have "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States". I haven't seen anything in any of the more recent versions that contradicts this.

Cruz's father was a resident for several years, attending the University of Texas at Austin on a 4-year student visa.

If Ted had been born in 1789, that Act of 1790 would have made him natural-ized, but since he was born in 1970, it makes him natural.

Barry Goldwater, John McCain, Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal have all faced some version of this. In no case has any challenge to a candidate on these grounds been successful, though I think that the Rubio and Jindal cases should have been, and will be if Jus Soli is recognized as having never had any legislative basis. Given the ambiguity, absent a direct message from God or Thomas Jefferson, written in 15-foot flaming letters in the sky, the Supreme Court is not going to rule against Cruz at this point. 4 or 5 of them are inches away from mob justice as it is, and they have to know that they are alive only because their thumb is rarely seen to on the scale so directly and personally.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 15, 2015 12:17 AM  

@30 "Every time I see "Cruz" here, I can expect to find a post from you […] challenging his citizenship. Do you know something that literally no one else in the world knows?"

Maybe it is that I am not willing to nod along at the emperor's new clothes, in most pro-Cruz eligibility articles they use lawyering saying things like "What does it mean to be a natural born citizen? Most legal experts contend it means someone is a citizen from birth and doesn’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen." and "There […] argument that anyone who acquires United States citizenship at birth, whether by […] operation of federal statute, qualifies as natural born" and "However, under the McCarran-Walter Act, he was still born a citizen, which makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen." – Notice change of framing: instead of sticking to natural born citizen, they equate 'citizen at birth' thereunto. (Or diverting attention to the inapplicable [because he was not born in the US, nor subject to its jurisdiction*] 14th Amendment.)

The issue is the claim that being a citizen by circumstances of birth, by federal law, qualifies as natural born. – At the very simplest, the question may be phrased as such: "May the Congress, via normal legislative procedure, alter the meaning of the Constitution?"

The obvious answer is NO; and indeed, the case https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137 says exactly this: "The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is […] alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.[…]If […] the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. [… otherwise] It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual."

Having established that a normal legislative act cannot alter the Constitution, we are left with the question of Congress's jurisdiction over citizenship, bearing in mind that they do not have power over the definition of natural born citizen (for if they do, then they can via normal operation alter the the Constitution), and we see it spelled out in Art 1, Sec 8: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States – here we see no limit on requirement, or process, so long as such a rule be uniform… Congress could say that (e.g.) all persons with red hair are citizens, or that all persons serving 10+ years in the military are, or that persons born in certain conditions are.

This last possibility is the case, and the above pro-eligibility articles even mention it: McCarran-Walter Act, 1952… says, in its own table of contents: Title III-Nationality and Naturalization
Chapter 1-Nationality at Birth and By Collective Naturalization


So by applying federal naturalization law to Cruz, we see that he is a citizen naturalized by/at birth and that undermines any claim that he is a natural born citizen.

* – If the jurisdiction is applicable, then how could Bill Clinton have avoided the draft, which is obviously an exercise of the jurisdiction, by hiding in Canada?

Anonymous kjj December 15, 2015 12:18 AM  

@40

I only skimmed the story, but it looked like CAIR was the single source for the article. Lots of the anecdotes were of the "someone was mean to me, out on a dark desert highway with no witnesses" variety. Plenty of no-flag to go with the false-flag. Some are probably legit though. I'm hearing dark rumblings from unexpected places.

Blogger Phillip George December 15, 2015 12:19 AM  

all the nations we are talking about were brought up in/ steeped in Christian heritage and history. People could pray "thy kingdom come, thy will be done". How could people pray for this yet disavow any involvement with making it happening?

Are you responsible for making your nation Christian? Can we pray "thy kingdom come" and then stand back as if we have absolutely nothing at all to do with it ever taking place?

Every quran blasphemes god. Not some of them, all of them. Of course when the vote was put to people they voted Barabbas over Jesus. Then the nation state of Israel got smashed out of the arena for nearly two thousand years. tearing down or building up. what comes next? maybe neither. maybe one of these two.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 15, 2015 12:28 AM  

@41 "If Ted had been born in 1789, that Act of 1790 would have made him natural-ized, but since he was born in 1970, it makes him natural."

Wrong.
As per Marburry v. Madison:
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions -- a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction.

Anonymous kjj December 15, 2015 12:36 AM  

@42

Hilariously, the document you linked skips over Title III entirely.

Natural can mean either "by natural law" or "from birth and because of the circumstances of birth". I haven't seen any third suggestion for what it might mean. If it is to mean "by natural law", we need to seek clarification in the Bible, or in science. I'm not aware of either of them having much to say on the matter. If we conjure "exiting the birth canal above the dirt we own" out of thin air and call that the "natural law of citizenship", the 14th Amendment looks a bit silly.

I haven't seen you give a definition of what you think the phrase means. Feel free to jump in.

Anonymous kjj December 15, 2015 12:42 AM  

@45

Sigh. I'm quite familiar with that quote, and with the ideas in it. Posting it again and again isn't actually an argument. Maybe consider telling us what part of the constitution you think is being subverted by which piece of legislation next time. Doesn't need to be totally specific. It could be a constitutional principle, rather than a specific clause, and a type of legislation instead of a specific act.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 15, 2015 1:20 AM  

@46 "Hilariously, the document you linked skips over Title III entirely."

Does it matter? The legislation is naturalization, if it covers Cruz then Cruz is not a natural born citizen. My reasoning is thus:

1 Congress has power over citizenship only in the case of naturalization. This is Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution.
2 Amendment 10 prohibits the assumption of further powers which are not expressly stated in the Constitution by the federal government.
3 Any congressional act, resolution, or law (excepting constitutional amendment) regarding citizenship must therefore be naturalization.
4 Naturalization is different than natural born as a classification of citizenship.
5 The Constitution requires the President be natural born, thereby disqualifying naturalized citizens and non-citizens.
6 Therefore, citing an act of congress in a claim that X is eligible for the presidency is self-contradictory.


"Maybe consider telling us what part of the constitution you think is being subverted by which piece of legislation next time."

The purpose of the natural born citizen clause was to prevent people with possibly divided loyalties from assuming the presidency, as this article shows... I would think that if you had read Cuckservative you would be open to the idea that a parent being a foreigner would tend to be a culturally weaker American [that is, after all, part of the underlying thesis WRT immigration's effect on the culture].

In any case, Congressman and Judge John Bingham said this when on Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866 during the discussion concerning the 14th Amendment:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

By said definition, Cruz & Obama are ineligible as they had a parent owing allegiance to some other nation.

Anonymous kjj December 15, 2015 2:14 AM  

@48

I'm open to all sorts of ideas. But I've found that law rarely gives a shit what ideas I'm open to, and even less what ideas I prefer.

As a practical matter, Cruz has a better chance of giving birth to a litter of puppies than he does of having the Supreme Court rule against his candidacy.

On an impractical level, I think I see subtle bugs in your reasoning. Alas, it is well after midnight here, and I have to work in the morning. I will attempt to untangle your assumptions from your conclusions tomorrow.

Anonymous Daniel H December 15, 2015 2:46 AM  

The left, both European and American, are doing their utmost to destroy any hope of consensus with those on the right. Smug a**holes think that they are so clever. They are playing with fire.

Blogger Samuel Nock December 15, 2015 4:34 AM  

The media attacks on Trump as a "Nazi" are in part aimed at fomenting a Pim Fortuyn incident against Trump.

And you know that if Trump is shot down, it will be by a shitlib, not a Muslim, as with Fortuyn.

Blogger SciVo December 15, 2015 4:43 AM  

@ OneWingedShark:

You have not accounted for the case where Congress passes a law authorizing something that is already authorized by the Constitution, because clarification or whatever.

OpenID bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 December 15, 2015 7:38 AM  

"Nationalist"?
Whatever happened to that hip and trendy term- Chauvinist?
CaptDMO

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother December 15, 2015 7:40 AM  

Obama and Cruz were both born of a foreign father and American mother. The worst nightmare of Obama being born in a foreign country are true about Cruz, being born in Canada. If Cruz is eligible, Obama is too and vice versa.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 15, 2015 8:16 AM  

@8: Both of those will be disastrous: Romney is Obama in a Republican suit, and Cruz will prove Constitutional limits ineffectual (because he fails the natural born citizen requirement).

To in this day and age, especially after the last 80 years, claim that there's any question remaining about whether our country operates under "Constitutional limits" is ludicrous, suggesting one or more of gross ignorance, disingenuity, or an inability to think straight.

Blogger Elocutioner December 15, 2015 8:54 AM  

Cruz was born in Calgary while his father was not a US citizen. Some time pre-Obama, when we still had a Constitution, this would have mattered as he's obviously NOT a natural born citizen.

I love Cruz supporters lecturing about law when he's obviously not eligible to run, and Constitutionality when he introduced and pushed TPA in an amendment to a bill then miraculously changed his mind and made a big show of voting against it. His justification was 'we need to do something about the gridlock of ratifying treaties and gifting the authority of Congress to this President is bad but maybe the next one won't be.' He's a shark. When TPP passes on a simple majority vote in the Senate (now need 60 to BLOCK it) you can thank Ted Cruz for making it happen.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 15, 2015 8:56 AM  

@52 "You have not accounted for the case where Congress passes a law authorizing something that is already authorized by the Constitution, because clarification or whatever."

How is this a factor? If the clarification impacts the how the Constitution itself is construed, is it not in effect an amendment?

@55 "To in this day and age, especially after the last 80 years, claim that there's any question remaining about whether our country operates under "Constitutional limits" is ludicrous, suggesting one or more of gross ignorance, disingenuity, or an inability to think straight."

I understand this sentiment; however, I don't agree that it is cast in stone. (IOW, I believe we can alter the culture to care about Constitutionalism.) -- One thing that needs to be done is to undermine the notion that the Constitution means whatever the majority of nine black-robed lawyers say it does: the Constitution was written to be understood by the general citizen, not keeping it in another language and transmitting it to the laity by law-priests.

Blogger CarpeOro December 15, 2015 9:53 AM  

Forget whether this was a legitimate tactic under a democratic form of government or not. Being as a democracy is mob-rule writ on the national stage, it does fit within the tenants. The problem is that by using these tactics against the nationalists the elite in power are alienating a considerable portion of the populace. That portion is being shown that they really have no voice in their own governance. Whenever this occurs, that portion only grows larger over time as people that see themselves on the fringe of the "moderate-center" groups are slowly ostracized also. As with SJWs, once you begin "other"ing people, there is no end to it. Once you move to silence a portion of your electorate you prove to all that your own position is too weak to defend by rhetoric or dialectic.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 15, 2015 10:12 AM  

@56: Cruz was born in Calgary while his father was not a US citizen. Some time pre-Obama, when we still had a Constitution, this would have mattered as he's obviously NOT a natural born citizen.

There's one player missing here, he "was born" ... out of thin air?

No, he was born from his mother, an American citizen born in Wilmington, Delaware. Maybe that doesn't change the Constitutional calculation, but it's misleading to ignore it.

Blogger Elocutioner December 15, 2015 10:29 AM  

It's not misleading, without her he wouldn't even be a citizen. He's a Canadian anchor baby.

From my understanding when I researched this back in 2007 NBB had the specific intent that only countrymen could be elected, having been born here to two American citizen parents. As such it's my opinion Cruz is not natural born. And I think that's right and proper. One of the recurring topics here is integration into American culture and how many generations that takes. Ted is very smart and holds his cards very close to the vest, who knows what he really believes? Does he share some of the very unorthodox / non-American views of his father? There's not enough evidence to overturn the view of the founders on this topic so I'll defer to their very educated and informed wisdom and not some twisted readings from judges after the fact, nor to any Congress.

Blogger The Kurgan December 15, 2015 10:44 AM  

Yes, most of my readership is American.

So sad... Catering to the quantity instead of the quality... You've changed! Smh!

Blogger CM December 15, 2015 10:54 AM  

The rules on qualifying for president are perhaps the most blatantly nationalist proscriptions in our constitution.

It doesn't bar someone with ancestors from another land from serving, but it does/should intend for the one serving to be a participant and the offspring of a participant.

It is a very clear and obvious insight that the forefathers actually understood the impact of immigration while not disbarring their progeny from full participation. In other words, these rules would have motivated immigrants to engage/assimilate for their posterity.

Anonymous KoranBurningFaggot December 15, 2015 11:14 AM  

Leftists arguing that black & brown people are too stupid to get ID for Voter ID probably just pisses people that are right even more.

If the socialists pulled out and threw their support to the republicans, then how did FN finish third?

Maybe they hired an israeli company diebold to count the votes.

In 2012, could you have foreseen the events of 2015/2016?

Was that they year much of London burned because a swat team had a shoot out with a black drug dealer?

Vox, is there a reason you rarely comment on events in Italy?

Perhaps the same reason Okinawa natives didn't tell Americans about the Cave of the Negros, where natives tossed the bodies of rapists.

RT thinks its a bad thing that Anti-Muslim attack are occurring in record numbers across the US

Obviously the solution is to send moslems back to moslem nations.

OneWingedShark I noticed how the Republican party was acting and made a brochure about it

Do you still worship Tokyo Rose McCain and denounce Snowden after he released the Rivkin document?

Makes the GOP having control of the House with 1 million less votes after 2012 seem proportional

Whose voters are all alive and smart enough to get ID?

I see "Cruz" here, I can expect to find a post from you, and only from you, challenging his citizenship.

I have challenged his citizenship before but I see his GOLD MAN SACKS wife as a bigger problem.

Anonymous KoranBurningFaggot December 15, 2015 11:22 AM  

look like false flags to me...grade school defacing a Mosque by writing the name of Jesus on the wall

Pigs head or it didn't happen. Taqiyya.

Blogger bob k. mando December 15, 2015 12:25 PM  

49. kjj December 15, 2015 2:14 AM
As a practical matter, Cruz has a better chance of giving birth to a litter of puppies than he does of having the Supreme Court rule against his candidacy.



no one is disputing that. it is, rather, the assumed fact that the Supreme Court will rule anti-Constitutionally.

Blogger RobertT December 15, 2015 1:23 PM  

I don't notice much hope in the comments here. I personally am hopeful that the momentum has changed. But if it hasn't, I will fight as long as there's fight left in me. I have no options. I am not interested in abandoning my family and leaving the country. I either win her or die here.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 15, 2015 2:23 PM  

@63 ">OneWingedShark I noticed how the Republican party was acting and made a brochure about it

Do you still worship Tokyo Rose McCain and denounce Snowden after he released the Rivkin document?"

Um, you do realize that's satire, right? I'm not a fan of McCain, but the Party sure loves him and pushes him... and he and Romney together paint such a great picture of exactly the sorts Cuckservative was written about: Progressive Republicans In Conservative Clothing -- if you read the brochure, you'll see that.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 15, 2015 2:29 PM  

@66 "I personally am hopeful that the momentum has changed."

As am I - the excitement about Trump seems to me to be the result of nobody addressing the Tea Party's concerns, in conjunction with frustration/anger at the kick-the-can/preserve-the-status-quo mentality [shown by the actions] of the political caste.

"But if it hasn't, I will fight as long as there's fight left in me. I have no options. I am not interested in abandoning my family and leaving the country. I either win her or die here"

I salute you, and you have an ally in me.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell December 15, 2015 2:45 PM  

If the law, not the Constitution but a statute, says that having one citizen as a parent is enough for you to be born as an American citizen; and it was in effect when you were born, you're a citizen. Quit nuking this stuff, it's not hard.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell December 15, 2015 2:46 PM  

If the law, not the Constitution but a statute, says that having one citizen as a parent is enough for you to be born as an American citizen; and it was in effect when you were born, you're a citizen. Quit nuking this stuff, it's not hard.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 15, 2015 3:03 PM  

If the law, not the Constitution but a statute, says that having one citizen as a parent is enough for you to be born as an American citizen; and it was in effect when you were born, you're a citizen.

I suppose the question would be, is he a natural born citizen? Getting your citizenship from your mother upon birth would seem to be as natural and undeniable as you can get, back before the days of DNA testing.

Anonymous Bukulu December 15, 2015 6:30 PM  

"Judge John Bingham said this"

OMG, that old drinking game from Volokh Conspiracy is back! It's been a long, thirsty time...

Blogger Joshua Sinistar December 15, 2015 9:36 PM  

Democracy destroyed Athens and Democaray destroyed Rome. America is just the latest nation to allow the hoi polloi who don't pay attention to hire leaders of low worth and abiltities to detroy their country. The fact these losers have to import dumb people to win now just shows what a SHAM it always was.
They want WAR, let's do it. I'm not impressed by the drone war. They have diversity and we have skill.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts