2016 Election

Quote: SanchoPanza

The issue is your parent has to register you in the consulate. Obama's clearly did not. Cruz's clearly did.

Can you show me this is a requirement somewhere?

Quote: SanchoPanza

The issue is your parent has to register you in the consulate. Obama's clearly did not. Cruz's clearly did.

I am with Wizard. I don't see what this has to do with anything, nor have heard anyone mention this.

But, in watching a lot of coverage on all three cable networks tonight, consensus among so called experts, both democratic leaning as well as republican leaning, is that Cruz would be eligible to be President, so I am backing off or revising my previous position on the matter. I just don't know. I'll leave it to others (like a court) to figure out. But regardless, I do think there has definitely been a double standard among right leaning media types, like a Sean Hannity (among others), who gave credibility to the Obama birther issue, while dismissing a similar situation with Cruz.

But I do think this type of issue should be remedied (not likely to be) before any voting occurs. If a candidate is filing to be on the ballot on any state, it should be decided before he is put on the ballot, as to whether he meets the legal qualifications for the office he is running for. Otherwise you have voters that could be voting for someone who is ineligible and that disenfranchises them by rendering their vote meaningless.

Why would Obama's mother have to have registered with the consulate? Hawaii was a US state when he was born. Not the basis for any reasonable contrast between his and Cruz's circumstances.

Quote: ams288

We shall see.

I don't see it working well for the Republicans with anyone other than the base.

And Trump certainly isn't the guy to deliver that message. His record with women isn't so great. How many wifes has he had?

It doesn't have to be Trump, though there's a big difference between running through a few trophy wives and committing a string of sex crimes. Crimes Hillary allegedly helped to cover up, often by attacking the victims.

This is much bigger than Bengahzi, which nobody cares about. If Bill and Hill get put in the same bucket as Cosby, that will be hard to wash off.

This tweet by Juanita Brodderick will be seen by millions before the election. It's quite easy to process and not easy to forget or explain away. That's what sticks.

https://twitter.com/atensnut

Quote: Rigondeaux

It doesn't have to be Trump, though there's a big difference between running through a few trophy wives and committing a string of sex crimes. Crimes Hillary allegedly helped to cover up, often by attacking the victims.

This is much bigger than Bengahzi, which nobody cares about. If Bill and Hill get put in the same bucket as Cosby, that will be hard to wash off.

Dude, this battle plan has already been tried. This battle was fought and lost by the republicans during Bill Clintons re-election in 1996. The public just doesn't care. No matter what you think of Hillary or her politics, bringing up Bill's issues, allows her to be seen as a victim. People, especially women voters will be very sympathetic to the wife of a cheating husband.....period. Bringing this up again, is advantage...Hillary Clinton.

As a voter, a month away from voting republican for the first time in his life (at least in the primary season...leaving my options open in the general depending on candidates), the republicans need to stop trying to re-fight battles and wars they have already lost in the past. Some in the republican party (Rubio and Cruz) are STILL trying to fight the gay marriage battle.

There are enough winning issues for republicans, like tying Hillary to what I consider a disappointing Obama presidency, especially the foreign policy part of it. Move forward. Pick winning issues, not old issues that you have lost before and will lose again.

Quote: SanchoPanza

The issue is your parent has to register you in the consulate. Obama's clearly did not. Cruz's clearly did.

Huh? The consulate in Hawaii? That's where Obama was born. That's where his birth certificate originated.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out, but the cultural climate has changed a lot. The allegations against Woody Allen were just as old and, to my eye, less credible. Nonetheless, when a new generation became aware of them, a storm of controversy followed.

My understanding (might be wrong) is that allegations had surrounded Cosby for quite some time as well.

In both cases, the controversy seemed to be driven largely by regular people online, and less by authorities in the media. An impossibility in the past. The alleged victims can also have a much louder voice than in the past, if they choose to.

There's also just a different attitude about these things. Did you follow the Emma Sulkowicz case at all? This is a woman with an extremely implausible story, but it just doesn't matter. Where we used to err on the side of being critical of the alleged victim, it seems like we now err the other way. So if alleged victims start coming forward or become more vocal, it will present a problem. They can't be brushed aside and made the butt of late night jokes.

I don't know if the allegations against Billary are true, but they are basically plausible. Many people voting now have no memory of the first go around, or were too young to absorb it much. I think we're about the same age. What do you really remember about it?

Hill can say, "I'm a victim too," but then she admits it happened. If that's true, she also went after the victims.

They might be just so powerful and so well liked by their followers that it doesn't matter. Also, even if he is guilty, I think Bill's the type of guy who can get away with it on every level

Not saying it will sink them, but I think it's a bigger potential problem than Benghazi for sure. It could be more of a primary problem than a general election one.

Quote: Rigondeaux

Many people voting now have no memory of the first go around, or were too young to absorb it much. I think we're about the same age. What do you really remember about it?

Well, I was still in high school, but I sort of already mis-remembered some of it, as I just said it didn't effect Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election, when the Monica incident, or at least the knowledge of it and impeachment didn't occur until his second term. So it was the 1998 midterms that voters more or less said they didn't care and actually rejected the republican's handling of the whole thing including impeachment.

Normally mid-term elections go against the party of the President, and you would have thought with the scandal and impeachment hearing, the republicans would have had one of those elections with really big pickups in the house in 1998. They didn't. The democrats actually gained 5 seats. That tells me the public just didn't care.

Bill Clinton was already a 'known' womanizer, who had affairs before he even ran for the presidency. Again, the people just didn't care. Maybe you are right....maybe it's a different climate now, but seems to me, Bill Clinton is probably more popular now than ever.

Would Bill tell Hillary he raped a woman? Seems unlikely. Not just for them, but for any situation like that. So, they (the wives) protect them, unless they don't believe them eventually.

Don't know if she believes him or not, but I doubt she knows anything. Is not knowing for a sure a terrible crime?

Sure that's what I remember. Clinton was a horn dog. LOL. 90% of the focus was on Monica.

This has a different character:



p.s. with all the changes to the forum and site, why not a decent image feature? Pretty fundamental.

Quote: Rigondeaux

The allegations against Woody Allen were just as old and, to my eye, less credible. Nonetheless, when a new generation became aware of them, a storm of controversy followed.

My understanding (might be wrong) is that allegations had surrounded Cosby for quite some time as well.

I think the Cosby comparison is a bad comparison. Cosby is accused of RAPE and drugging women to commit those rape. That is a far different discussion than an affair which is consensual between adults.

I am not really aware of any new storm of controversy surrounding Woody Allen. I think the public just dismisses him as a real sleaze ball. But if Woody was running for public office yeah, that may hurt him. But if Mia Farrow were running for public office, bringing up Woody Allen having an affair with their adoptive daughter, would not hurt her, if anything it would generate sympathy towards I think that is the same case with Hillary.

As I said, I think Hillary has her own 'sins' that she can be called out on. Calling her out on Bill's sins is not a winning strategy, IMO.

As well as his sleazy consensual affair with one stepdaughter, Allen has been very publicly accused of outright rape by another.

See the previous post. Clinton is being accused of sexual assault in a couple cases and in the case of Brodderick, straight up "hold her down and force yourself on her" rape.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/bill-clinton-juanita-broaddrick


"As she tells the story, they spent only a few minutes chatting by the window -- Clinton pointed to an old jail he wanted to renovate if he became governor -- before he began kissing her. She resisted his advances, she said, but soon he pulled her back onto the bed and forcibly had sex with her. She said she did not scream because everything happened so quickly. Her upper lip was bruised and swollen after the encounter because, she said, he had grabbed onto it with his mouth.

"The last thing he said to me was, 'You better get some ice for that.' And he put on his sunglasses and walked out the door," she recalled."

I'll wait for a politician to specifically accuse Bill Clinton of rape before arguing with some random guy on a message board about it. Seems pointless.

Bringing up this issue is risky for the righties. It gives Hillary a chance to play the victim card, which she thrives at.

More have jumped onto the birther bandwagon questioning if Cruz is qualified to be President
Again its from the right.
The left sits back, while the right does all the attacking on the right :-)
Now John McCain is questioning if Cruz is a natural born citizen.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/ted-cruz-birthplace-john-mccain/index.html

Maybe Cruz should move to Canada and run. There is absolutely no doubt Cruz is a natural born Canadian

Quote: terapined

More have jumped onto the birther bandwagon questioning if Cruz is qualified to be President
Again its from the right.
The left sits back, while the right does all the attacking on the right :-)
Now John McCain is questioning if Cruz is a natural born citizen.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/ted-cruz-birthplace-john-mccain/index.html

Maybe Cruz should move to Canada and run. There is absolutely no doubt Cruz is a natural born Canadian

This would be more entertaining for me if I actually thought Cruz was gonna be the nominee.

At this point, it's Trump's to lose, IMO.

Quote: ams288

I'll wait for a politician to specifically accuse Bill Clinton of rape before arguing with some random guy on a message board about it. Seems pointless.

Bringing up this issue is risky for the righties. It gives Hillary a chance to play the victim card, which she thrives at.

I'm not really "arguing" anything. Those are the allegations. I didn't make them up. Nor did I write the Vox story. Google "Bill Clinton" right now and see what is at the top. (Believe it or not, I am not the one who put it there).

I've offered a bit of speculation, in that I think there's more potential trouble here than Benghazi. Benghazi is a lot of "blahblahblah" to the average person. A fairly credible woman saying "he raped me, she tried to silence me" is crystal clear.

Hillary might be able to pass herself off as a victim. I dunno. It will be harder here, because she's accused of aiding in covering up the crimes. Different than being a wife who gets cheated on.

Quote: Rigondeaux

I'm not really "arguing" anything. Those are the allegations. I didn't make them up. Nor did I write the Vox story. Google "Bill Clinton" right now and see what is at the top. (Believe it or not, I am not the one who put it there).

I've offered a bit of speculation, in that I think there's more potential trouble here than Benghazi. Benghazi is a lot of "blahblahblah" to the average person. A fairly credible woman saying "he raped me, she tried to silence me" is crystal clear.

Hillary might be able to pass herself off as a victim. I dunno. It will be harder here, because she's accused of aiding in covering up the crimes. Different than being a wife who gets cheated on.

Who is accusing her though?

No one credible or worthy of paying attention to.

Till Donald Trump starts spewing this stuff, it really is irrelevant.

I'm sure we will get there eventually....

I'm not sure why you are so interested in discussing this, but so averse to clicking on links or doing a google search.

Trump is indeed playing a role in stirring it up. It is a story that seems to be gaining traction in the past 24 hours. I read about it elsewhere and, until recently, knew very little about the rape allegations. I'm simply discussing a story about the campaign that is in the news.

Who is accusing her? The alleged rape victim and some of Clinton's other alleged victims.

Here is another article about it, on my personal website, The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-bill-clinton-scandal-machine-revs-up-and-takes-aim-at-his-wife/2016/01/06/a08cf550-b4be-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html

Quote: Rigondeaux

I'm not sure why you are so interested in discussing this, but so averse to clicking on links or doing a google search.

Trump is indeed playing a role in stirring it up. It is a story that seems to be gaining traction in the past 24 hours. I read about it elsewhere and, until recently, knew very little about the rape allegations. I'm simply discussing a story about the campaign that is in the news.

I saw a long interview with Trump yesterday on Morning Joe.

Trump made it very clear, if Hillary doesn't play the "woman card" and attack his womanizing ways (I'm paraphrasing), then he won't go after Bill.

Quote: ams288

Who is accusing her though?

No one credible or worthy of paying attention to.

Till Donald Trump starts spewing this stuff, it really is irrelevant.

I'm sure we will get there eventually....

I hope that Juanitta isn't a member here ( the hot blondes have to come from somewhere ) or you might have to spend 3 days in perdition.... I'll hold your hand for 3 days ;-)

Quote: SanchoPanza

The issue is your parent has to register you in the consulate. Obama's clearly did not. Cruz's clearly did.

I feel like this post got lost in the shuffle a bit and it deserves more analysis.

I think I speak for everyone when I say..... "Huh?"

Quote: ams288

I feel like this post got lost in the shuffle a bit and it deserves more analysis.I think I speak for everyone when I say..... "Huh?"

The information about consular registration was fully explored during McCain's campaign. It is all online.

Quote: ams288

I'll wait for a politician to specifically accuse Bill Clinton of rape before arguing with some random guy on a message board about it. Seems pointless. Bringing up this issue is risky for the righties. It gives Hillary a chance to play the victim card, which she thrives at.

We now see exactly where the war on women is. It is giving unnamed “politicians” more credence than publicly named and scorned women. The old nuts and sluts tactic.

"Former President Bill Clinton's defenders did the very same to accusers Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, et al, that Ronan believes Woody did to his mother and sister. These women -- most of whose claims were eventually admitted to by Bill Clinton -- were shamed and blamed. Was Hillary involved in these verbal attacks? To what degree was the famously hands-on wife of Bill involved -- or even worse -- leading the "nuts or sluts" strategy used to malign his accusers as either crazy or of questionable morals?
Media justify the attention on so-called "Bridgegate" because, after all, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is a likely GOP presidential candidate. Why does Hillary Clinton get a pass over the serious allegation that she bullied a woman who claims Bill raped her?
Juanita Broaddrick, an operator of nursing homes, accused former President Bill Clinton, then Arkansas' attorney general, of rape. Broaddrick, then a Clinton campaign volunteer, described what allegedly happened in a Little Rock hotel room. "Stupid me, I ordered coffee to the room," she said. "I thought we were going to talk about the campaign." Broaddrick told "Dateline NBC": "I first pushed him away. I just told him 'no.' ... He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip. ... And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him 'no.' ... He wouldn't listen to me."
What does this have to do with Hillary?
Broaddrick claims that two weeks after the rape, at a political event, Hillary approached her. "She came over to me, took ahold of my hand and said, 'I've heard so much about you and I've been dying to meet you. ... I just want you to know how much that Bill and I appreciate what you do for him.' ...
"This woman, this little, soft-spoken -- pardon me for the phrase -- dowdy woman that would seem very unassertive, took ahold of my hand and squeezed it and said, 'Do you understand? Everything that you do.' I could have passed out at that moment and I got my hand from hers and I left. ... She was just holding onto my hand. Because I had started to turn away from her and she held onto my hand and she said, 'Do you understand? EVERYTHING that you do,' I mean, cold chills went up my spine. That's the first time I became afraid of that woman." -- real clear politics

Quote: SanchoPanza

We now see exactly where the war on women is. It is giving unnamed “politicans” more credence than publicly named and scorned women. The old nuts and sluts tactic.

"Former President Bill Clinton's defenders did the very same to accusers Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, et al, that Ronan believes Woody did to his mother and sister. These women -- most of whose claims were eventually admitted to by Bill Clinton -- were shamed and blamed. Was Hillary involved in these verbal attacks? To what degree was the famously hands-on wife of Bill involved -- or even worse -- leading the "nuts or sluts" strategy used to malign his accusers as either crazy or of questionable morals?
Media justify the attention on so-called "Bridgegate" because, after all, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is a likely GOP presidential candidate. Why does Hillary Clinton get a pass over the serious allegation that she bullied a woman who claims Bill raped her?
Juanita Broaddrick, an operator of nursing homes, accused former President Bill Clinton, then Arkansas' attorney general, of rape. Broaddrick, then a Clinton campaign volunteer, described what allegedly happened in a Little Rock hotel room. "Stupid me, I ordered coffee to the room," she said. "I thought we were going to talk about the campaign." Broaddrick told "Dateline NBC": "I first pushed him away. I just told him 'no.' ... He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip. ... And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him 'no.' ... He wouldn't listen to me."
What does this have to do with Hillary?
Broaddrick claims that two weeks after the rape, at a political event, Hillary approached her. "She came over to me, took ahold of my hand and said, 'I've heard so much about you and I've been dying to meet you. ... I just want you to know how much that Bill and I appreciate what you do for him.' ...
"This woman, this little, soft-spoken -- pardon me for the phrase -- dowdy woman that would seem very unassertive, took ahold of my hand and squeezed it and said, 'Do you understand? Everything that you do.' I could have passed out at that moment and I got my hand from hers and I left. ... She was just holding onto my hand. Because I had started to turn away from her and she held onto my hand and she said, 'Do you understand? EVERYTHING that you do,' I mean, cold chills went up my spine. That's the first time I became afraid of that woman." -- real clear politics

tl;dr

Quote: terapined

Now John McCain is questioning if Cruz is a natural born citizen.http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/ted-cruz-birthplace-john-mccain/index.html

It's more than a little paradoxical that McCain, whose own legitimacy as a citizen was severely challenged in 2008, would even discuss the question. By all accounts, Coco Solo was outside the Canal Zone.

Quote: SanchoPanza

It's more than a little paradoxical that McCain, whose own legitimacy as a citizen was severely challenged in 2008, would even discuss the question. .

Its not paradoxical at all
Most senators dislike him including many republicans such as McCain

Quote: terapined

Its not paradoxical at all
Most senators dislike him including many republicans such as McCain

McCain is one of the more outspoken ones in regards to how much he hates Cruz.

Quote: ams288

McCain is one of the more outspoken ones in regards to how much he hates Cruz.

Just about all the Senators hate Cruz
McCain on the other hand is well liked by his fellow Senators
When there was talk McCain might not be eligible for the Presidency, In response, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution that Senator McCain was indeed a US citizen.
Nobody is proposing that resolution for Cruz. lol

Quote: terapined

Just about all the Senators hate Cruz
McCain on the other hand is well liked by his fellow Senators
When there was talk McCain might not be eligible for the Presidency, In response, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution that Senator McCain was indeed a US citizen.
Nobody is proposing that resolution for Cruz. lol

I'm thinking that being disliked by a bunch of (other?) pompous asses is not all that horrible.

They always talk about having "standing" to file a suit against someone as a big reason for politicians not being allowed to be sued for things they do
--the initial judge reviews the case, says the plaintiff does not have "standing" and the suit goes away.

My question is this:

What point does Ted Cruz have to reach before someone would have "standing" to sue him for not being a natural-born citizen? Who would have standing to sue him>

(Okay--I think he, McCain, Ford, Obama...all of them...are citizens anyway. I am just asking when it could be legally tested and who could sue him.)

Quote: SanchoPanza

The information about consular registration was fully explored during McCain's campaign. It is all online.

The lack of specific sources to substantiate you point is duly noted. I also don't recall ever hearing about consulate registration having anything to do with McCain's eligibility.

Quote: RonC

They always talk about having "standing" to file a suit against someone as a big reason for politicians not being allowed to be sued for things they do
--the initial judge reviews the case, says the plaintiff does not have "standing" and the suit goes away.

My question is this:

What point does Ted Cruz have to reach before someone would have "standing" to sue him for not being a natural-born citizen? Who would have standing to sue him>

(Okay--I think he, McCain, Ford, Obama...all of them...are citizens anyway. I am just asking when it could be legally tested and who could sue him.)

That is an interesting question (that I have no clue what the answer is). Tons of cases get dismissed due to the plaintiff not having standing. Does any random citizen have the right to sue over this...? Who knows? It's never been tested.

I've seen them talking about this Cruz citizenship issue on TV a lot lately and I have to agree that he is a citizen and is eligible to be President. But I still find the fact that many on the right are pushing this against him to be funny.

After the Bush/Gore election went Bush's way some folks in Texas tried to invalidate Dick Cheney as vice president because he hadn't lived in Wyoming long enough to establish residency, and he ran as being from Wyoming. So folks, who I'm sure had nothing to do with it, challenged vice presidency the courts. Here is a link about the outcome:

Court: Cheney Is Wyoming Resident

My point being that I suppose anybody could file a challenge to a Cruz presidency, but I would lay very long odds such plaintiffs would lose or never have the case heard.

This sounds like something out of "Blazing Saddles"

Where all da white women at? The answer must be Maine.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/maine-governor-drug-dealers-impregnate-young-white-girls-36152559

Quote: Wizard

The lack of specific sources to substantiate you point is duly noted. I also don't recall ever hearing about consulate registration having anything to do with McCain's eligibility.

Not exactly setting the highest bar. IAE, the longstanding and widely disseminated applicable paragraphs from 8 USC 1401 et seq (with no ostensible copyright complications):

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States.
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.”

As for the specific actions in the consulates, the Bureau of Consular Affairs begins it explanation at travel.state.gov with:

Birth of U.S. Citizens Abroad

A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.

According to U.S. law, a CRBA is proof of U.S. citizenship and may be used to obtain a U.S. passport and register for school, among other purposes.

The child’s parents may choose to apply for a U.S. passport for the child at the same time that they apply for a CRBA. Parents may also choose to apply only for a U.S. passport for the child. Like a CRBA, a full validity, unexpired U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship.

Parents of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen or citizens should apply for a CRBA and/or a U.S. passport for the child as soon as possible. Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the child’s U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, including entry into the United States. By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.

Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA, or Form FS-240)
If you are a U.S. citizen and have a child overseas, you should report his or her birth as soon as possible so that a Consular Report of Birth Abroad can be issued as an official record of the child's claim to U.S. citizenship. Report the birth of your child abroad at the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate. Check the American Citizens Services portion of the webpage for the nearest Embassy or Consulate in the country where your child was born for further instructions about how to apply for a CRBA. Please note:

A Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. citizen is only issued to a child who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and who is generally under the age of 18 at the time of the application.
The U.S. embassy or consulate will provide one original copy of an eligible child’s Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen.
A more secure Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen was introduced in January 2011. This new CRBA has been updated with a variety of state of the art security features, and is printed centrally in the United States. U.S. embassies and consulates no longer print CRBAs locally, but you still must apply there. The central production was initiated to ensure uniform quality and reduce vulnerability to fraud. The previous version of the CRBA continues to be valid proof of U.S. citizenship.
You may replace, amend or request multiple copies of a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen at any time.”

Here are some additional certifications:

Other Citizenship Documents Issued to U.S. Citizens Born Abroad

Certification of Report of Birth (DS-1350)
As of December 31, 2010, the Department of State no longer issues Certifications of Reports of Births (DS-1350). All previously issued DS-1350s are still valid for proof of identity, citizenship and other legal purposes.

Certificate of Citizenship issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
A person born abroad who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth but who is over the age of 18 (and so not eligible for a CRBA) may wish to apply for a Certificate of Citizenship to document acquisition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1452. Visit USCIS.gov for further information.

Thank you for that. My interpretation is that obtaining a consular report of birth is highly recommended for matters of convenience but not doing so doesn't invalidate natural born citizenship. Also, this doesn't necessary apply to how things worked when Cruz or McCain were born.

Nevertheless, I do thank you for providing that information. I am just interested in the topic and don't claim to know much about it.

Quote: Wizard

Thank you for that. My interpretation is that obtaining a consular report of birth is highly recommended for matters of convenience but not doing so doesn't invalidate natural born citizenship. Also, this doesn't necessary apply to how things worked when Cruz or McCain were born.

Nevertheless, I do thank you for providing that information. I am just interested in the topic and don't claim to know much about it.

You're welcome. If you wish, I can retrieve some of the amendments. There have been quite a few. Also, having read of your interest in Panama, I can state that the material is rather extensive about Zonians of various categories and other aspects of residence in Panama at different times and under different laws. It is quite a complicated area with so many changes over the years.

Quote: SanchoPanza

You're welcome. If you wish, I can retrieve some of the amendments.

Thanks again but please don't go to the extra work. I've been to the Canal Zone. It is very American looking and unlike the parts of Panama City surrounding it. Today I assume it is one of the priciest parts of PC to live in.

Quote: Wizard

Thanks again but please don't go to the extra work. I've been to the Canal Zone. It is very American looking and unlike the parts of Panama City surrounding it. Today I assume it is one of the priciest parts of PC to live in.

Yup. A Trump Tower, of all things, is at the edge of the Pacific. And Johns Hopkins has a sizable medical tourism installation there. Not to mention all the fast-food franchisees.

Quote: ams288

That is an interesting question (that I have no clue what the answer is). Tons of cases get dismissed due to the plaintiff not having standing. Does any random citizen have the right to sue over this...? Who knows? It's never been tested.

I have seen a few "legal experts" on a couple different channels suggest that a suit brought by a voter would be dismissed because the voter had no standing and was not an injured party. They both said a suit would need to be brought by another candidate to having legal standing as an injured party.

I found this a little shocking because the right to vote is one of our most sacred rights and if a candidate who is not eligible is running, the voter has been disenfranchised and his right to vote (for an eligible candidate) taken away.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Yup. A Trump Tower, of all things, is at the edge of the Pacific. And Johns Hopkins has a sizable medical tourism installation there. Not to mention all the fast-food franchisees.

Are you sure those things aren't in the financial district? The Canal Zone is very residential with American-looking single-family houses. I didn't notice one fast food joint in that part of the city.

Quote: kewlj

I have seen a few "legal experts" on a couple different channels suggest that a suit brought by a voter would be dismissed because the voter had no standing and was not an injured party. They both said a suit would need to be brought by another candidate to having legal standing as an injured party.

I found this a little shocking because the right to vote is one of our most sacred rights and if a candidate who is not eligible is running, the voter has been disenfranchised and his right to vote (for an eligible candidate) taken away.

I have heard similar things. That is why I asked he question about "standing"--I really don't understand it, but it sounds like it should mean someone that was potentially harmed by the defendant in the lawsuit. If i wasn't harmed, why would I sue and why would it be allowed to be heard in court beyond initial motions?

The people harmed by an ineligible candidate who wins the nomination might be different than those harmed by that candidate winning the election, but would an actual voter have standing at some point once the ineligible person was sworn in to office?

There is an interesting scenario developing that I believe is becoming more and more of a very odd possibility.

Cruz wins Iowa, which looks likely. Trump wins New Hampshire, which seems equally as likely.

Next up South Carolina: Polls show Trump with a comfortable lead, but really the South Carolina republican electorate is much closer to Iowa, with a large evangelical voting block. So what if Cruz wins South Carolina. At that point with March 1st, on the horizon win a dozen or so primaries, half of which are in the deep south (Cruz strength), Cruz could be on the verge of certainly becoming the front runner, the one to beat.

At that point, the republican establishment would need to decide who out of Trump or Cruz they want to stop more. Which one of those two would be weaker in a general election and worse for the parties as far losing senate and congressional seats. At that point the republican establishment, complete with Super Pak money might begin an 'uneasy' support of Donald Trump. THAT would be kind of funny.

Quote: kewlj

There is an interesting scenario developing that I believe is becoming more and more of a very odd possibility.

Cruz wins Iowa, which looks likely. Trump wins New Hampshire, which seems equally as likely.

Next up South Carolina: Polls show Trump with a comfortable lead, but really the South Carolina republican electorate is much closer to Iowa, with a large evangelical voting block. So what if Cruz wins South Carolina. At that point with March 1st, on the horizon win a dozen or so primaries, half of which are in the deep south (Cruz strength), Cruz could be on the verge of certainly becoming the front runner, the one to beat.

At that point, the republican establishment would need to decide who out of Trump or Cruz they want to stop more. Which one of those two would be weaker in a general election and worse for the parties as far losing senate and congressional seats. At that point the republican establishment, complete with Super Pak money might begin an 'uneasy' support of Donald Trump. THAT would be kind of funny.

Iowa and SC meaningless, demographics don't match the country. Many future Presidents or nomination winners have lost both states, especially IA
NH important, Future Presidents rarely lose NH

Quote: terapined

Iowa and SC meaningless, demographics don't match the country. Many future Presidents or nomination winners have lost both states, especially IA
NH important, Future Presidents rarely lose NH

That's true, but the republicans purposely re-arranged the primary schedule this year, so that the southern states would go earlier. That March 1 date is being called the SEC primary, because a large number of southern states (states that have college teams in the SEC conference) are participating.

So someone strong in the southern states will jump out to an early lead, which has never happened before. And perception being half the battle, you start racking up many early wins, and all of the sudden voters see you as the front runner and polls become more favorable to you in places that aren't your stronghold. This is exactly what some of the GOP part bigwigs are now fearing with Cruz.

Quote: kewlj

This is exactly what some of the GOP part bigwigs are now fearing with Cruz.

Regardless of whether I agree with him, I see Cruz as a predictable candidate. The GOP may not want him in particular, but he looks like a safer choice than Trump.

I don't think any party on either side, or even third parties want candidates they can't at least figure out if not control to some extent.

The reason I believe this, is parties aren't actually just filled with followers. There's a bunch of power players eventually in all parties.

Personally, I think Cruz would be much easier to beat than Trump (I do think either of them would lose the general election against Hillary or Bernie).

Trump attracts disenfranchised people who may not feel compelled for any generic Republican. Cruz only appeals to the far-right base.

So most of the prediction and betting markets have Trump, Cruz and Rubio as the 3 republicans with a legitimate chance at the republican nomination. Most have all 3 somewhere between 2-1 and 3-1 and most have Rubio as the slight favorite.

I am trying to visualize the path each would need to win.

Cruz: need to win Iowa. He will do poorly in New Hampshire. He could do well in South Carolina even though he trails in the polls, because that electorate is much like Iowa with a large evangelical population. Then on March first with 12 primaries including 6 southern states, he would need to win the southern states and hope that propels him to be seen as the front runner and can gain support in moderate places that shouldn't be all that favorable to him. Kind of a long-shot...everything has to fall just right.

Trump: I don't think it matters all that much if he wins Iowa or finishes a close second. He is going to win New Hampshire big. If he is viewed as the front runner then and wins South Carolina, it could be all but over. If Trump doesn't win South Carolina, he will still be a co-front runner with a lot of states that he is running strong coming up.

Rubio: I honestly don't see this guy's path. Obviously he needs to emerge as the 'establishment' candidate to have any chance, which means consolidating the establishment vote behind him. I guess Kasich and Christie could drop out after New Hampshire as they have sort of put all their eggs in one basket, trying to win there. Jeb has done likewise, but I don't see him dropping out.

So say Rubio finishes a distant 3rd in Iowa, and finishes a distant 2nd or 3rd in New Hampshire. South Carolina up next, isn't a place he should do well. I mean where does he win? You have to win one of the early states, to continue....distant seconds and thirds won't get it done.

After South Carolina is Nevada. I haven't seen recent polls, but the last I saw Rubio wasn't running too well here. He campaigns here, calling Nevada his "childhood home". He lived in Henderson from age 8 until 11. Strange thing about that, raised Roman Catholic and still a Roman Catholic today, during their 3 years living here, Rubio's family attended the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon). Just a strange little side thing that hasn't been explained. But I haven't got the impression that the "childhood home" status is getting him much support here.

So again, where does he win? Maybe Florida, but if Jeb is still around maybe not even there. Last poll I saw there had Trump in front of both Rubio and Bush in their home state. I am just not sure where the path for Rubio is?

Thoughts?