Thread: Democratic senators ditch 2012 runs

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Not necessarily. The text of the 14th Amendment states:

    AMENDMENT XIV
    Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

    Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

    Section 1.
    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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Now, that second clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is interesting. First, because it says "and" rather than "or", it is a qualifier on the first part of the sentence. Thus, you have to be born or naturalized and, in addition, be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. To me, that implies that persons not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are not citizens. Now, who is born in the United States but not subject to their jurisdiction? Illegal immigrants. It would be easier to amend the Alien and Naturalization Act, which is the law that defines citizenship, to exclude children of illegals, than to pass an amendment. In addition, Article I, Section 8 grants congress the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

    Thus, congress could, under its powers under Article I, Section 8, draft a law stating that those persons born to parents who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by virtue of unlawful entry and evasion of that jurisdiction are not citizens.
    Only reason I was thinking an Amendment was due to US vs Ark case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...._Wong_Kim_Ark which states
    In a 6–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."
    however Ark's parent's were legal immigrants, but the precedent established by this case is whats been used by most courts to give citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.
     

  2. #42  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    According to RealClearPolitics.com, it was 2.5%. Toomey's election was close, as you said, but the fact that he won is still critical. Off-year elections rarely get the same turnout as presidential years, but I don't see Obama making up the difference. His policies on coal have infuriated the Pennsylvania voters outside of Philadelphia, and Pittsburg is hurting from the recession. A competitive Republican (i.e., not McCain or someone similarly willing to lose an election rather than be called unpleasant things by Democrats) will win the state. Do you agree with my reasoning on FL and the rest?
    I believe if Obama loses Pennsylvania, the election is over. In my opinion, it is the same indicator level of a Republican defeat if you think the Democrat will take Virginia. It is too far into the meat of the party's support.

    As far as the others:

    Virginia (13) went for Bush twice and now has a Republican governor. Expect it to go back to the GOP.
    While I would not be surprised by Republican taking it, and pretty much expect they will, the changing demographics of the northern part of that state, along with the reach of DC workers who live in that same area, make it less than a gimme poach for the Republicans in the same way that North Carolina is.

    But if the Republican candidate is fighting in Virginia close to the election, I think you can see where they have serious problems with the Electoral math.

    Ohio (20) Went for Obama, but only by 2.5%, and the recession has hit it harder than most. There's a reason that they call it a swing state.
    I went with wiki for my number. I don't think it matters too much since Ohio is like you say: A swing state. I believe that the Labor dispute currently running through the midwest is hurting Republican chances in 2012. But with a Republican state apparatus, it does help the Republican candidate here. Also, the closeness of the 2008 race in what was a big year for Democrats should indicate that Ohio is shifting red. It changes the math dramatically if Obama loses Ohio since you can figure he has lost Missouri (which he lost in 2008) and Indiana as well. At that point, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and New Hampshire become must wins.

    Nevada (5) Obama publicly dissed Vegas, which cost several million in lost revenues. Also, Vegas has lost population and has the highest foreclosure rate in the country.
    I don't see Nevada going to the Republicans. Labor is too big there. Again, I think Walker's actions have made things difficult in 2012. But even then, if Reid can win any Democrat can.

    New Mexico (5) always a very close race, but if there's a sweep, NM will go with it.
    I think that may be out of reach for any candidate other than a Bush. Even then, it will be difficult for the Republicans to come out of the primary not having pissed off Hispanics. The candidate will have to either pander to the Minutemen contingent (metaphor, not the actual group) or decide to eschew their votes in the primaries. My guess is the candidate will have taken the former route (all bets off if Perry enters the race .... he can count Hispanic heads).

    Iowa (7) 2008 was an aberation. Iowa is a red state, and will be again.
    Depends on the farm subsidy debate in the Republican Caucus. But I believe Iowa is a swing state at this point. It would hurt Obama to lose it if he also loses Florida. If he is out Florida, Iowa, and Ohio, this thing might come down to how the city of Omaha, Nebraska votes.

    New Jersey (15) Christie is making people think twice about their reflexive Democratic voting patterns, and Obama is giving them further pause. Jersey's private sector has taken a huge hit during the recession, and the state is in play.
    It seems like the last few elections, New Jersey is supposed to be in play but it turns out it isn't.

    New Jersey is the Democratic Georgia; if that is lost, we are talking Reagan landslide numbers.

    Florida (27) Obama won with a 1.8% margin, and that was before he cut Medicare and froze S
    ocial Security Cost of Living adjustments. There's not a lot of love for him at the early bird buffet.
    I think Florida will go Republican in 2012. I have no problem with your opinion on that.

    BTW, I didn't know he froze the COLA on Social Security. I thought that was an automatic thing having to do with inflation and he tried to make up for it with the $250 checks in the lame duck tax bill. I may be confusing it with something else, though.
     

  3. #43  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Now, who is born in the United States but not subject to their jurisdiction? Illegal immigrants. It would be easier to amend the Alien and Naturalization Act, which is the law that defines citizenship, to exclude children of illegals, than to pass an amendment. In addition, Article I, Section 8 grants congress the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

    Thus, congress could, under its powers under Article I, Section 8, draft a law stating that those persons born to parents who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by virtue of unlawful entry and evasion of that jurisdiction are not citizens.
    Illegal aliens do not have diplomatic immunity. They are subject to the juristiction of the United States.

    As far as Congress passing unconstitutional laws, they have before, they will again. This would be one of them. You could not get it passed Scalia, let alone Kennedy.
     

  4. #44  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    BTW, I didn't know he froze the COLA on Social Security. I thought that was an automatic thing having to do with inflation and he tried to make up for it with the $250 checks in the lame duck tax bill. I may be confusing it with something else, though.
    You are correct. I am on SS and the reason we did not get a COLA was because of the law that ties it in with inflation. The $250 was a gift to appease seniors. If inflation rears its ugly head this year, we will get an adjustment next year.

    I don't think that Obama has a prayer winning states that are heavily populated with seniors such as Florida. Old farts do not want anything to do with Obamacare which if implemented will cut medicare by 500 billion dollars.
     

  5. #45  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    I believe if Obama loses Pennsylvania, the election is over. In my opinion, it is the same indicator level of a Republican defeat if you think the Democrat will take Virginia. It is too far into the meat of the party's support.
    Concur.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    As far as the others:

    While I would not be surprised by Republican taking it, and pretty much expect they will, the changing demographics of the northern part of that state, along with the reach of DC workers who live in that same area, make it less than a gimme poach for the Republicans in the same way that North Carolina is.
    Yes, but those changing demographics didn't keep the state from going Republican in the 2009 gubernatorial race. Obama is deeply unpopular in the state, and even in the northern liberal parts, he is unlikely to see the kind of turnout that he got in 2008. The thrill is gone, even in Chris Matthews' leg.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    But if the Republican candidate is fighting in Virginia close to the election, I think you can see where they have serious problems with the Electoral math.
    Agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    I went with wiki for my number. I don't think it matters too much since Ohio is like you say: A swing state. I believe that the Labor dispute currently running through the midwest is hurting Republican chances in 2012. But with a Republican state apparatus, it does help the Republican candidate here. Also, the closeness of the 2008 race in what was a big year for Democrats should indicate that Ohio is shifting red. It changes the math dramatically if Obama loses Ohio since you can figure he has lost Missouri (which he lost in 2008) and Indiana as well. At that point, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and New Hampshire become must wins.
    I think that you're wrong about the labor dispute. Public employee unions have lost a tremendous amount of moral capital in the last few years. The refusal to give any concessions when the people who pay their salaries are hurting has severely impacted how they are seen. Christie's swipe at teachers' unions played in his favor in Jersey, which is far bluer than Ohio. I do agree that if Obama loses Ohio, he loses Missouri and Indiana, but I think that he would have lost Indiana anyway. It's one of the few states not running a deficit, and Daniels is wildly popular there. If he isn't the nominee, he'll still campaign for whoever is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    I don't see Nevada going to the Republicans. Labor is too big there. Again, I think Walker's actions have made things difficult in 2012. But even then, if Reid can win any Democrat can.
    Angle ran an awful campaign and Obama has shot himself in the foot with his attacks on Vegas. Given the sheer magnitude of the economic hits that Nevada has taken, it's unlikely that Obama will take it, but it will require an aggressive campaign by the Republicans. Also, the only real labor stronghold in Nevada is Vegas, and the loss of population there puts the state in play.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    I think that may be out of reach for any candidate other than a Bush. Even then, it will be difficult for the Republicans to come out of the primary not having pissed off Hispanics. The candidate will have to either pander to the Minutemen contingent (metaphor, not the actual group) or decide to eschew their votes in the primaries. My guess is the candidate will have taken the former route (all bets off if Perry enters the race .... he can count Hispanic heads).
    The easiest way to avoid pissing off Hispanics is to not call them Hispanics. The Latinos who can vote, i.e., the legal immigrants and their children, oppose illegal immigration as well as everyone else, and Obama hasn't done anything for Latinos beyond the appointment of Sotomayor to the SOTUS, and that kind of tokenism doesn't generally play well. It will be close, but NM always is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    Depends on the farm subsidy debate in the Republican Caucus. But I believe Iowa is a swing state at this point. It would hurt Obama to lose it if he also loses Florida. If he is out Florida, Iowa, and Ohio, this thing might come down to how the city of Omaha, Nebraska votes.
    Iowa is a swing state, but I believe that Obama is vulnerable there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    It seems like the last few elections, New Jersey is supposed to be in play but it turns out it isn't.

    New Jersey is the Democratic Georgia; if that is lost, we are talking Reagan landslide numbers.
    Especially since Reagan won New Jersey. Twice. But I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    I think Florida will go Republican in 2012. I have no problem with your opinion on that.
    BTW, I didn't know he froze the COLA on Social Security. I thought that was an automatic thing having to do with inflation and he tried to make up for it with the $250 checks in the lame duck tax bill. I may be confusing it with something else, though.[/QUOTE]
    I stand corrected. OTOH, he did cut $500 billion out of Medicare, and this year, Social Security posted its first deficit. Seniors are not happy with Obama, and the death panels scare the crap out of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    Illegal aliens do not have diplomatic immunity. They are subject to the juristiction of the United States.

    As far as Congress passing unconstitutional laws, they have before, they will again. This would be one of them. You could not get it passed Scalia, let alone Kennedy.
    It goes beyond diplomats. You have to go back to the original framers of the 14th Amendment to get the full meaning of the phrase. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes, the same Congress that adopted the Fourteenth Amendment stated: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” This didn't simply mean children of diplomats were excluded, but that only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States. Children born to subjects of a foreign power, and who maintain allegiance to that foreign power, are not subject to birthright citizenship. Who are the subjects of a foreign power? No less a Constitutional authority than Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Furthermore, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee at the time, James F. Wilson of Iowa, stated on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” In addition, the person who drafted the 14th Amendment's first section, John Bingham, stated that the intent of the amendment was 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.” Sen. Trumbull even explicitly stated that "(t)he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

    Sen. Trumbull further stated, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.

    Sorry, but the debate on the genesis of the 14th Amendment is a matter of public record, and it means what it was intended to mean.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
     

  6. #46  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    It's coming out that Walker has given the Dems some choices in his bill, but the Dems are still playing games. It's going to bite them in the ass and hard. Wisconsin will be hard pressed for Obama to get back in his camp
     

  7. #47  
    Senior Member malloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Queen Creek, AZ
    Posts
    2,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    The easiest way to avoid pissing off Hispanics is to not call them Hispanics. The Latinos who can vote, i.e., the legal immigrants and their children, oppose illegal immigration as well as everyone else, and Obama hasn't done anything for Latinos beyond the appointment of Sotomayor to the SOTUS, and that kind of tokenism doesn't generally play well. It will be close, but NM always is.
    This is something that I don't think AD completely understands. Not all Mexicans and Central Americans want open borders, illegal immigrants can't vote, and legal immigrants support border control by a bigger margin than illegal immigrants. When 1070 passed it was scoring 70% approval and latinos are 30% of the population. Of the 30% who opposed 1070, a lot of them were white from the Tuscon/UofA liberal cesspool and Grijalva & Gifford's districts. It's readily apparent that a smaller, but not-insignificant portion of the latino population supports strict border control as well. Remember some of these latinos left Mexico for good reasons, and they don't want those reasons following them to America.

    Opposing 1070 and favoring open borders does not earn Democrats 100% of the voting latino population. I'm guessing it earns them 50%. Supporting abortion alienates the Catholic latino population, as does higher taxes and regulations on small business. I know many leftists like to believe nearly all immigrants are migrant workers and day laborers, and therefore ripe for the leftist indoctrination. However, you'd be surprised how many legally immigrated latinos operate a Carniceria, restaurant, barber shop, subcontracting crew and many other small business.

    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes, the same Congress that adopted the Fourteenth Amendment stated: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
    If I were to go to Europe, say Germany, and there get into a bar fight with a Mexican Citizen and injure him or kill him, then I were to vacation in Mexico and get picked up by law enforcement, I would be tried for the crime I committed in Germany., Mexican law recognizes jurisdiction differently than most laws, and extends jurisdiction to wherever a Mexican citizen happens to be. I'm not a Mexican lawyer, but this is how I understand it.

    I wonder if the "subject to any foreign power" argument could be applied to this. After all, if the parents are illegally in the U.S., and a crime is committed against them, Mexico will prosecute if they can get a hold of the offenders. That seems to me that the parents are therefore the subject of a foreign power, so a birthright citizenship should be denied to the baby, even if born on U.S. soil.
    "In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
    —Thomas Paine, Common Sense
     

  8. #48  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    According to RealClearPolitics.com, it was 2.5%. Toomey's election was close, as you said, but the fact that he won is still critical. Off-year elections rarely get the same turnout as presidential years, but I don't see Obama making up the difference. His policies on coal have infuriated the Pennsylvania voters outside of Philadelphia, and Pittsburg is hurting from the recession. A competitive Republican (i.e., not McCain or someone similarly willing to lose an election rather than be called unpleasant things by Democrats) will win the state. Do you agree with my reasoning on FL and the rest?
    Just a couple of points:

    1: Toomey scared Specturd so bad he switched parties.

    2: Nearly the entire state went to the GOP this cycle. All but a handful of house seats - the state house and state senate - the Governors Mansion - nearly everything went to the GOP this time round.

    3: PA is not as blue as some people would have to believe.

    4: Toomey is a staunch conservative unlike his predecessor. Casey won by running as a conservative democrat beating out Santorum who made the mistake of taking for granted the people of PA and for trying to get his kids basically privately educated on the peoples dime rather than shelling out for their education himself - AND because he was seen to be way too chummy with lobbyists.

    5: Pittsburgh is spelled with an H. :mad:
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
     

  9. #49  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by malloc View Post
    This is something that I don't think AD completely understands. Not all Mexicans and Central Americans want open borders, illegal immigrants can't vote, and legal immigrants support border control by a bigger margin than illegal immigrants. When 1070 passed it was scoring 70% approval and latinos are 30% of the population. Of the 30% who opposed 1070, a lot of them were white from the Tuscon/UofA liberal cesspool and Grijalva & Gifford's districts. It's readily apparent that a smaller, but not-insignificant portion of the latino population supports strict border control as well. Remember some of these latinos left Mexico for good reasons, and they don't want those reasons following them to America.

    Opposing 1070 and favoring open borders does not earn Democrats 100% of the voting latino population. I'm guessing it earns them 50%. Supporting abortion alienates the Catholic latino population, as does higher taxes and regulations on small business. I know many leftists like to believe nearly all immigrants are migrant workers and day laborers, and therefore ripe for the leftist indoctrination. However, you'd be surprised how many legally immigrated latinos operate a Carniceria, restaurant, barber shop, subcontracting crew and many other small business.
    I wouldn't be. Latino immigration pretty much follows the pattern of Italian immigration during the last century, just as Asian immigration follows the Jewish pattern. The Italians were mostly small business owners, with a great deal of emphasis on skilled labor, so they went into things like auto repair, construction and the like, but there were a lot who went into retail, especially in groceries, since they had a very close-knit community that missed foods from the old country.

    Quote Originally Posted by malloc View Post
    If I were to go to Europe, say Germany, and there get into a bar fight with a Mexican Citizen and injure him or kill him, then I were to vacation in Mexico and get picked up by law enforcement, I would be tried for the crime I committed in Germany., Mexican law recognizes jurisdiction differently than most laws, and extends jurisdiction to wherever a Mexican citizen happens to be. I'm not a Mexican lawyer, but this is how I understand it.

    I wonder if the "subject to any foreign power" argument could be applied to this. After all, if the parents are illegally in the U.S., and a crime is committed against them, Mexico will prosecute if they can get a hold of the offenders. That seems to me that the parents are therefore the subject of a foreign power, so a birthright citizenship should be denied to the baby, even if born on U.S. soil.
    The current law, which was part of Johnson's Great Society scam, was designed to promote immigration through the creation of the anchor baby status and the subsequent legalization of the parents. Eliminate that, and we eliminate a host of second and third order effects.
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Just a couple of points:

    1: Toomey scared Specturd so bad he switched parties.

    2: Nearly the entire state went to the GOP this cycle. All but a handful of house seats - the state house and state senate - the Governors Mansion - nearly everything went to the GOP this time round.

    3: PA is not as blue as some people would have to believe.
    Agreed, although I think that Specter was also motivated by a desire to be in the majority, and he was nothing if not a craven opportunist. He ended up getting screwed, as the Democrats gave him nothing for making the switch, and turncoats generally only benefit from their moves when they are following popular sentiment among their constituents (Richard Shelby and Strom Thurmond being the best examples). I hope that specter's enjoying the private sector... :D

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    4: Toomey is a staunch conservative unlike his predecessor. Casey won by running as a conservative democrat beating out Santorum who made the mistake of taking for granted the people of PA and for trying to get his kids basically privately educated on the peoples dime rather than shelling out for their education himself - AND because he was seen to be way too chummy with lobbyists.
    Generally, PA Democrats seem to be further to the right than the national party, and both Casey and his dad came across as conservative Democrats (Casey sr. was more pro-life than many Republicans).

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    5: Pittsburgh is spelled with an H. :mad:
    I stand corrected. :o
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •