Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[DogofWar1]

The supreme court doesn't have to rule on something for it to be settled law.   The supreme court doesn't rule on lots of legal arguments, because lots of legal arguments are *stupid* legal arguments.   

 

If you were a US citizen on the day you were born, you are a natural born citizen.   Any other argument is a dumb argument.  

 

I mean, I agree with you on all of that, and I think the issue won't become as big as Trump wants it to be, but the phrase was still never truly defined in an official way.  Under the living Constitution theory, which I subscribe to, it's settled, but that's not the only interpretation, and Cruz would understand that, considering he was a clerk for the Supreme Court when Scalia was there, so he'd understand the originalist viewpoint.

 

FWIW, I too was taught, in a couple different classes through the years, that "Natural Born Citizen" meant born in the USA, and this was in the '90's and early 2000's.  We never really delved into the whole "Jus Soli" vs. "Jus Sanguinis" thing, but that's what we were taught.  Of course, I don't think it ever really came up in politics until at least '08, when everyone kind of agreed that McCain being born in a US territory counted, which really was the only reasonable answer, but that's slightly different than Cruz's issue.

 

Again, I think the issue is just a ploy Trump is using, and Cruz is fine, but there are still official channels through which, technically, he could be found to not be a "natural born citizen," even if the odds of that happening are, practically, zero.

[JMS]

Me. But then again, admitting that may now exclude me from being part of "the right."

 

I told my wife about 6 months ago that if it's Trump vs. Hillary, I'll vote 3rd party. If it's Trump vs. Sanders, I'll vote for Sanders. And I've never even considered voting for Cruz.

Buddy welcome to the extreme godless left... It's a lonely place.. but I welcome you aboard.. help me shout down MrChip guy.

[GhostofSparta]

Heck, it excludes you from being American. (According to the Right.)

I'm related to 2 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence: Lewis Morris and Robert Morris (who also signed the Constitution), but I have no doubt in my mind that you're right. Only fake Americans could possibly object to a Trump presidency. I'm sure chip and twa will be along to straighten me out any minute.

[Larry]

Yeah I disagree with that. in the 14th amendment when the Constitution says "all people born" here are citizens, however; In article 2 section 1 clause 5 they use an entirely different expression to describe the criteria to be president.. "Natural born".

You are aware that those parts were written 100 years apart?

[twa]

 I'm sure chip and twa will be along to straighten me out any minute.

 

not sure where ya get the idea I support Trump

 

I do think more of Bernie than Hillary  

[mistertim]

I disagree with him, but then again I think virtually all "originalist" arguments are dumb as hell.   

Oh I'm not saying I agree with him. I mostly just like the irony of Cruz being an "originalist" and that having any possibility of making his own candidacy void. But Cruz is an absolute master at spin and obfuscation; its borderline impossible to nail him down on anything because he's very slippery and he's very good at just changing the subject. Its funny that one of the guys who calls himself a "Washington outsider" is actually the most pure politician of the bunch.

not sure where ya get the idea I support Trump

 

I do think more of Bernie than Hillary  

Who DO you support from the Rs in the race? Not being a smartass, honestly curious.

[visionary]

Yikes....

 

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/686643033337675776  Bernie to Podesta (replying today to something Podesta wrote in November)

If you ever want to work for a campaign that shares your values on health care, there's always room at Bernie 2016.
3:17 PM

 

https://twitter.com/johnpodesta/status/686721123367694337  Podesta back to Berni

I'd prefer to stay with the campaign that won't dismantle Medicare, tear up Obamacare and start from scratch again.
8:27 PM

[twa]

 

Who DO you support from the Rs in the race? Not being a smartass, honestly curious.

 

Nobody yet.....since Perry dropped out 

 

I do have a history of being a Bushie,but I'm pretty open right now....the folk Cruz makes crazy does make him interesting to me.

 

I think it will be fun watching and am most certainly not a Trump fan at this point.

[Larry]

I did have a thought, a while ago. It's dealing with the notion that Bernie can't win the general.

A question for all the lefties on the board. (We all know that the board is overrun with them. Just ask the "moderates".).

IF BERNIE HAD A CHANCE IN THE GENERAL, is there anybody in here who would pick Hillary over Bernie?

I'll confess, in that hypothetical, I MIGHT vote for Bernie.

I haven't paid much attention to his campaign, because he has no chance. But some of the things he's saying, I agree with.

I think his proposal to raise the minimum wage is a pretty good idea. But I'm not at all certain that it would be as good as he tries to make it sound. And I think he's promising way too many goodies, and I don't think he's close to paying for them.

But at least I think he's addressing things that need it.

[JMS]

You are aware that those parts were written 100 years apart?

 

Strong argument.   

So your contention is the founding fathers didn't distinguish between "natural born" and born. That's not my understanding but I'll have to research it a bit because I'm heavily rellying on my 5th grade teachers interpretation of the constitution.

[visionary]

And then there's this gem.  Wow, are people just coming out swinging at Bernie tonight or what?  lol

 

https://twitter.com/cher/status/686738571332485120  Cher

SO Disingenuous,BERNIE SANDERS,AVOWED INDEPENDENT"SOCIALIST", SINCE 1979,IS RUNNING AS DEMOCRAT.HE CANT WIN,
HE'LL BE RALPH NADAR IN THE END
9:36 PM

     

 

 

https://twitter.com/MattWelch

Combined national poll numbers of @realDonaldTrump, @RealBenCarson & @TedCruz:

JUL 32%
AUG 40%
SEP 49%
OCT 56%
NOV 60%
DEC 63%
JAN 64%
9:42 PM

[Kilmer17]

The Clinton camp must be seeing scary numbers in their internals.

[tshile]

The Clinton camp must be seeing scary numbers in their internals.

 

She's been pretending she's a progressive for a week or two now, so it's all lining up

 

Or is it that she stopped pretending she's a moderate?

 

I cannot keep track

[sacase]

Yeah, Not all PII is classified, but a broad category of it which Hillary would have dealt with regularly would have been. PII may not be classified confidential at the DoD, or NSA, or CIA but it can be at the State Dept. You can verify that in the Department of State Classification Guide (DSCG) the primary authority for the classification of information in documents created by the State Department or it's personnel. Coarse to see the most recent version you would need to have access to the State Depts Classified Web Site. Believe their is an unclassified copy floating around on google. If you find it I'll refer you to page 11, section 3, subsection c. under the heading "Types of FGI Likely to Require Classification".

 

 

 

Ok, let's take this section first. Here it is obvious you have no clue of what you are talking about Security Classification Guides (SCG)s are often classified. The one you have linked is from 2005 and has since been superseded by another. However, let's look at the 2005 SCG. Page 11, section 3 subsection c covers information provided orally. However there is a reason you didn't go into detail. One the surface you like to provide what you think it says, I have noticed you do this often. Anyways, this section deals strictly with Foreign Government Information or FGI.  There is no mention of PII or Personally Identifiable Information. How do I know you have no clue what you are talking about? Easy, pretty much every government employee in the IC gets mandatory annual training on what PII is. For those who want to be over achievers, you can go to this link below and take training on PII. PII is essentially information such as SSN, birthdates, etc that can identify you personal. Think of it as information that someone could use to conduct identity theft. It covers more than that, but that is a decent way to look at it. PII and FGI are not remotely related.

 

Here is a definition of PII from the GSA website:

 

 

"information which can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, such as their name, social security number, biometric records, etc. alone, or when combined with other personal or identifying information which is linked or linkable to a specific individual, such as date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name, etc."

 

 

 

Here is the link for PII Training:

 

http://www.cdse.edu/catalog/elearning/DS-IF101.html

 

Since I have been throwing around terms here is another link you can check out from ODNI.

 

http://www.ncsc.gov/training/WBT/docs/CM_AltText_021312.pdf

 

This has information about what FGI is among other things

 

Here is what the official definition of FGI:

 

 

 

FGI is defined as one of the following:

• Information provided to the US Government by a foreign government or governments, an international organization of governments, or any element thereof, with the expectation that the information, the source of the information, or both, are to be held in confidence

• Information produced by the US pursuant to, or as a result of, a joint arrangement with a foreign government or governments, or an international organization of governments or any element thereof, or requiring that the information, the arrangement, or both, are to be held in confidence

• Information received and treated as “FGI” under the terms of a predecessor order

 

 

Notice there is nothing about PII being listed as FGI. This is the official definition from  Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Before JMS goes off on some tangent, let me answer a question he avoided for him. The DNI controls the Intelligence Community. JMS may try to argue that DoS follows their own rules but not so fast:

 

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/intelligence-community/members-of-the-ic

 

Oh wow, the Department of State is a part of the Intelligence Community so the rules set down by the DNI apply to them.

So to wrap this section up, PII and FGI are two totally different things. Information classified as FGI is classified that way by all organizations not just one. As you can see, JMS is blatantly wrong. There are links provided for anyone to take their time to go through this. I am not going to bother with the rest of his statements as he has no clue of what he is talking about. 

[JMS]

Ok found this.. in Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Constitutional_Convention

It's fairly thin... and I kind of agree with Predicto that originalist arguments are not entirely persuasive.

 

The Constitution does not explain the meaning of "natural born".^%5B15%5D On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government.^%5B16%5D The sketch provided for an executive "Governour" but had no eligibility requirements.^%5B17%5D

At the close of the Convention, Hamilton conveyed a paper to James Madison he said delineated the Constitution that he wished had been proposed by the Convention; he had stated its principles during the deliberations. Max Farrand wrote that it "...was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton."^%5B18%5D Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's draft constitution provided: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."^%5B19%5D

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.^%5B21%5D

While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate

 

Ok at this point citizenship did not convey to children of citizens..  You had to be born here to get citizenship,  and thus you had to be born in the US to become President,  ( or a citizen when the constitution was signed )..

 

However granting citizenship to the children of citizens came 3 years latter in 1790

 

 

The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "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."^%5B23%5D This act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as "natural born," stating that "the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States" while retaining the same residency restrictions as the 1790 act

The Clinton camp must be seeing scary numbers in their internals.

Bernie is scary to Hillary.. He's up in NH and he's very close and closing in Iowa. If Bernie takes the first two primaries, the thought is folks will give him an honest look, lord knows folks are looking for Hillary options, and Hillary is doing her best to limit those options.

[DogofWar1]

IF BERNIE HAD A CHANCE IN THE GENERAL, is there anybody in here who would pick Hillary over Bernie?

 

I've already said I'd vote Bernie in the primary if he's still around when VA goes, which he likely will.

 

Hillary, in my eyes, is probably a 7 out of 10.  Maybe 7.5.  She's smart, savvy, and would be an excellent steward of the American presidency.  The "scandals" against her are about 90% bs (Benghazi is 100% bs, taking up 50% of scandals, and e-mail is 80% bs, 20% not, but that 20% also likely could have been leveled against numerous Bush officials if anyone had cared to attack them for it).  But her corporate streak concerns me.  It suggests she'd change too little, and the 40 year march towards turning worker-consumers into drones is becoming a little too concerning for me to not weigh it in the primary.

 

Bernie is domestically better.  He understands the basic economic concept that worker-consumers are the key to a strong economy, and education being cheap if not free is the key to a strong base of worker-consumers.  He recognizes the importance of infrastructure too, something we truly need investment in.

 

His blindspot on FP is concerning, but not exceptionally so.  Obama was not exactly an amazingly worldly person, but he's surrounded himself with good people and done a solid job.  Bernie's inability to articulate ME plans like Clinton isn't ideal, but I'm of the mind that the ME is a guaranteed cluster**** no matter who takes it.  Get the right people and it'll be handled as competently as anyone could.

 

But for the US in the 21st century, maintaining our economic lead will be difficult if we allow entrenched corporate interests to rule.  We grew best when we had an educated populace that was capable of quickly pushing industries in new directions as technology emerged, and we often built that new technology ourselves.  But with the squeezing of the middle class, and the increase in the cost of college, we could be rushing towards a very serious brain drain.  As a result, Bernie's plans are, to me, the best of the bunch.

 

I do think between his age and blind spots, he's not especially better than Hillary; if Hillary is a 7 he's a 7.5, but he's better by just enough for me to prefer him.

[chipwhich]

An excellent steward? Of her bank account maybe. Lol

[twa]

She's been pretending she's a progressive for a week or two now, so it's all lining up

 

Or is it that she stopped pretending she's a moderate?

 

I cannot keep track

 

the real question is there anything she will not pretend to be ....and if it matters to you 

[mistertim]

IF BERNIE HAD A CHANCE IN THE GENERAL, is there anybody in here who would pick Hillary over Bernie?

 

I certainly wouldn't pick Hillary over Bernie in that scenario. However, there is another caveat to having a Bernie presidency. He wouldn't be able to get a single thing past the House and Senate. Zero chance. The conservatives (and red state dems sometimes) block or try to block even the most moderate of Obama's proposals, how do you think they'd react to Bernie's truly progressive ideas? 

[JMS]

There is no mention of PII or Personally Identifiable Information.

So it's your contention we would protect the information, and we would protect the identity of the person who gave use the information, but we wouldn't protect his PII. Or that Information which identifies him.

Well if you were the Rosenburg's case officer we would have caught them earlier.

 

The Director of National Security sets the rules for handling Classified Information to the DoD and DoS

 

Well that makes perfect sense to me.   Which should have been your first clue you were wrong.  Actually it's the Office of Management and Budget which has oversite of classified Data Policies.  I couldn't make that up..

 

If the DNS sets the rules for handling Intelligence at state and defense.. why does State has it's own classification guide? DSCG previously referenced, Why does that guide's scope define the scope of the document to the "use of State Department employees" Page 1, Section 1 Subsection B. First sentence.

http://fas.org/sgp/othergov/dos-class.pdf

Why does the department of defense have it's own DoDM for "Marking of classified Information"?

DoDM 5200.01.

http://dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001_vol2.pdf

And why does that Manual not list the State Department in it's applicability section page1, section 2, subsection a.

Why would neither list the DNS? 

 

 

Because our cabinents are not organized around or answerable too the DNS. They are answerable to the President. I think you are looking for Executive Order 12958 which prescribes a "uniform system for classifying, safeguarding and declassifying national security information.

http://fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html                   

 

This one is from the Clinton Administration.  That is what both the State and DoD docs reference in setting up their Classification Guides.. Executive Orders not DNS mandates.  Why do they both have different documents then which cover this same "uniform" system? Because Part 5 of this executive order gives each the ability to implement the vision themselves and to review their implemntations internally.. They are not answerable to the DNS rather section 5.3 gives oversite of Information Security oversite to the Office of Management and Budget.

 

 

 

Why does that still mean you don't win this discussion after all their is a unifying framework..   It's because both DoD and State get to implement their own systems to fall in line with this and create their own guidance documents,  and develop their own tools.   As I originally said.

They inherit a 4 page famework and from that they generate thousands of pages of manuals, policies, and procedures..

[GhostofSparta]

how do you think they'd react to Bernie's truly progressive ideas? 

Probably less visceral than anything that has a "Clinton" name attached to it, regardless of how moderate.

[chipwhich]

JMS you couldn't look more silly but you at again wrong. But let's get back to the presidential nomination and our all star lineup please

[nonniey]

Ok, let's take this section first. Here it is obvious you have no clue of what you are talking about .........

Oh but you failed to take into account that JMS stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[JMS]

Oh but you failed to take into account that JMS stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Ok, I know you guys have short attention spans especially when your personal experiences aren't relevant.

Here is all you have to remember..

(1) Nobody investigating the Clinton emails has ever claimed Hillary did anything wrong. Not State, Not the IG, Not Justice.

(2) Hillary nor any of her aids are the focus of an investigation.

(3) No criminal investigation exists on this topic. ( Hillary's Emails )

(4) Fox news and quite a few other right wing News Sources have continuously gotten these aspects of what is going on here wrong and aren't reliable news sources on this topic.

(5) The investigation centers around reviewing 60,000 some pages of data for release to the public under a FOIA request. They are reviewing this information for that purpose as is standard procedure at State

[chipwhich]

Ok, I know you guys have short attention spans especially when your personal experiences aren't relevant.

Here is all you have to remember..

(1) Nobody investigating the Clinton emails has ever claimed Hillary did anything wrong. Not State, Not the IG, Not Justice.

(2) Hillary nor any of her aids are the focus of an investigation.

(3) No criminal investigation exists on this topic. ( Hillary's Emails )

(4) Fox news and quite a few other right wing News Sources have continuously gotten these aspects of what is going on here wrong and aren't reliable news sources on this topic.

(5) The investigation centers around reviewing 60,000 some pages of data for release to the public under a FOIA request. They are reviewing this information for that purpose as is standard procedure at State

Well of course not lol. What's your point. She is Hillary Clinton not general petraus lol