Nevertheless, she persisted.
It’s pretty sad that this racist hack is going to win today. But hey, they’re not going to maintain that bottom 5 ranking in education, health care, economy, and infrastructure without her help!
It’s sad that a racist hack like her will be (already is) a US Senator. Not that there isn’t precedent or anything, but I keep hoping that someday being a racist hack will disqualify people from public office. Sigh.
They probably look at graphs like that and say it’s “them” whose racist. Reverse racism! Or something like that.
They’re not racist, they’re racially conservative.
I swear I’ve been chortling on and off about that term for days now. I think it’s probably one of my favorite turns of phrase, in terms of its absurdity.
Not absurd. Cromulently conservative.
That sound you hear is absolutely nobody caring.
Please clap.
Well, damn…now who’s going to finish 5th in Iowa?
Puts to bed the silly argument that “I am a Republican but not a racist” nonsense that “moderate” Republicans have been clinging to.
No, if you vote Republican post 2016 you are a racist. End of.
You typoed 1960, man. Wanted to let you know so you could correct it! Very embarrassing error :-)
Heh :)
What everyone else already wrote, plus the obligatory, “Forget it, Jake. It’s [Mississippi].”
(Unfortunately for Wasserman, Stephanie Murphy is prevented by the Constitution from being president. She was born in Vietnam.)
What about Duckworth?
Yeah, it would require a lot of legal challenges, looking around, I found this on wikipedia.
In a 2006 John Marshall Law Review article, Paul A. Clark argues that the Fifth Amendment should be read as implicitly repealing the requirement that the U.S. President needs to be a natural-born U.S. citizen. Clark points out that, starting from the 1954 case Bolling v. Sharpe, courts have held that the Fifth Amendment contains an implicit equal protection clause whose scope is identical to the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause and that federal discrimination against naturalized U.S. citizens (or, more specifically, federal discrimination based on national origin) would be struck down by the courts as being in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Since the requirement that the U.S. President needs to be a natural-born U.S. citizen is a form of discrimination based on national origin, Clark argues that the courts should strike down this requirement.
So there would at least be some sort of legal precedent to make an argument, but it doesn’t sound like there hasn’t been much work done on that route. Interesting that the constitution says the government can’t discriminate against those based on national origin (came up during the travel ban) but also says that only natural born citizens can be president.
I don’t know if you could win that legal argument, but it looks like something that could and should be brought up.
The founders of the country explicitly grandfathered themselves in, and created the clause to protect the country from a European country led take-over of the U.S. (Which pretty much ignores all of the checks and balances we have in place on the Executive branch) but it is what it is nonetheless.
Ted Cruz wasn’t born in the U.S. (and neither was John McCain) but Cruz was born to at least one U.S. Citizen, and McCain was born on a U.S. Base, but it wasn’t actually a US Territory until a year after he was born, so it got a little muddier there.
But I think the simplest explanation of natural-born means not necessarily that you were born in the U.S. but were born as a citizen (A parent was a citizen). And that has been generally accepted, but never tested. And Stephanie Murphy does not qualify for that even.
I can already see the campaign ads mocking her Vietnamese name already.
I guess the most interesting thing about what Wasserman is suggesting there is that a centrist Democrat with the right resume and ability to grind Trump’s gears could get through the primary season. I’m not sure I buy that, but it’s an interesting idea.
Born in Thailand, but to a US Citizen (and army vet) father.
But likely wouldn’t be much of a challenge if she were to win the nomination, due to her birth citizenship status. I would expect a lot of far-right garbage about it, but legally probably ok. (But not tested)
I also think that Wasserman is right, and I would add that Asian American would be a nice touch, as that is a massively untapped voting bloc, that could swing heavily blue with the right candidate.
I suspect he is right in this case. Democrats seem to be more interested in electability and charisma than in fine points of policy.