Were birthers a bunch of nut jobs?

Actually, in this thread I have not gotten into to much of a debate over the Constitution. And in this that document is actually rather vague. And as such, it is up to Congress and the Supreme Court to decide the merits. Because unless you can show me exactly which clause specifies the status of a child born overseas to an American parent, your views on the "Constitution" are simply your opinion and nothing more.

What you are seriously lacking is the understanding that in most ways, this is simply your own personal opinion and the opinions of those you accept.

Personally, I do not care where the President was born. And remember most of how that great document is written. That which is not explicitly denied is allowed. Now it clearly talks about foreigners, because at that time there was a paranoia about some "foreign nobility" coming over and trying to establish their own little fiefdom. And I think if you asked the framers, they would seriously look at you like you were stupid if you asked "Hey, an American is traveling through Europe when their child is born. Does that mean the child can never be President because he was not born in the US?"

I think they honestly would look at you as if you were a moron. (and the "you" is as an asker, not as in you specifically as a person)

The Supreme Court and Congress themselves have taken up the situation of the children of foreign countries that are born in the US, and also the children of US citizens born overseas. And in no court case or brief have I ever seen validation that such children are not "Native born US citizens".

It is not that you think I am good or not, it is simply that I do not agree with you, therefore I suck.

 

I think it's fair to turn this question around now. are all of the people who think 0bama and clinton are so very pure and were completely honest about the Benghazi affair and the birth certificate, nutjobs ??.

are that families of the four dead in Benghazi nutjobs? the person still in intensive care, all those brave americans that trusted their country and their corrupt leaders... are they nutjobs. what about terry lakin, who's career and reputation were ruined, by the thoughtless maniacal advancement of the ends justify means alinnsky inspired agenda and madness ?

so,

in the like sentiment of my former governor, doctor and onetime skiing partner howard (the scream) dean in his disdainful regard for we conservatives...,
<<< Mod Edit: Flamebait >>> he actually is a nutjob....

impeach 0bamavich, let's make it two democrap presidents in a row....

they should all go straight to jail for the misery and damage to this great nation they have caused. who knows, after this, even my birthplace Chicago may go republican... hooray !! how dare that (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) ever claim to be from Illinois.

jagoffs..

 

The rocking chair finally broke...

 

Personally, I look at those with ODS as being as crazy as those with BDS. Are you actually trying to combine both the birth certificate and what happened in Benghazi into some kind of combined conspiracy? That these two together are part of some insidious plot to advance some kind of agenda?

 

Actually it is clear that aside from its power to limit SC jurisdiction or its role in the amendment process, Congress has no authority in this matter.

Why would I bother with that when I have made no assertion which rests on the existence of any such clause?

Is there a reason for the quote marks?

Actually nothing I've said here about the Constitution is opinion. All of it is factual - and yet again, like everyone else, you are more than welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

Then surely you will have no problem citing at least one way in which anything I've said is mere opinion.

And who exactly might "those" be, pray tell?

Such a characterization is way too sloppy to have any value. Certainly it is true enough as regards non-federal entities, but it is clearly false otherwise.

What I'm missing is why I would find that the least bit perturbing if they did not proceed to cite the specific law(s) which revealed the question as moronic.

What was that you were saying about "the opinions of those you accept"?

It would take quite a bit for me to tell a combat vet he "sucks"... but I can say with nary a trace of ill will that your responses here could be expected from someone who looked at the Constitution for the first time about a week ago. Here I am with arms akimbo and my jaw hanging out a mile, rhetorically speaking, and like my other detractors you dance away from every direct challenge I've made, evidently considering it safer to raise objections to claims I've never made.

 

Wow, this is such a mess, I am just going to hit on the very first line and leave it at that.

No, the Supreme Court has absolutely no role in the Amendment Process. None, zilch, zero, nada. And it should be very obvious why this is so.

The Supreme Court simply interprets the Constitution. It does not write it, it does not amend it, it does nothing to the document itself. In fact, it is impossible for it to do anything with an amendment, since by it's very definition that is a part of the document that they use as the base for all laws they consider.

Asking the Supreme Court to validate the "Constitutionality" of an Amendment is like asking a blind man what he sees. Or asking a fish what water looks like. The Supreme Court can't do anything with an amendment. Nothing.

If Congress was to pass an amendment that would say that the United States is a sanctuary nation for Giant Pandas who want to escape communism in China, and it is legally ratified, then that is it. The Supreme Court will take that amendment into consideration when judging cases put before it, but they can't amend it, they can't change it, they can't strike it down.

Because it is a part of the Constitution!

Such a "Constitutional Scholar" as yourself should see that this is obvious. Why you so completely misunderstand the process is beyond me.

 

THis is such a basic thing that I think I need to clarify things for those from Rio Linda.

An Amendment to the Constitution is not just an Amendment, it becomes part of the Constitution. ANd by this very definition, a legally ratified amendment can't be judged "Unconstitutional". Because it itself is the Constitution.

The only way to "strike down" an amendment is with another amendment. Period. The Supreme Court can't strike it down, Congress can't strike it down, not even the President can strike it down.

Or all three branches combined. They can't strike down an amendment or any other part of the Constitution. All they can do is change it through the amendment process.

 

And I never said it did, obviously.

To be sure...and while I didn't bother reading all of it, I'm sure you did a magnificent job of refuting what I never said.

I am, I believe, rather less mystified as to your seeming refusal to understand plain English, when such refusal is expedient.

 

As far as the part about the SC's role in the Amendment process, I think you misinterpreted what yguy wrote...

He said:

The bolded part, I believe, is what you were referring to...

It appears to me that, when yguy said "its role in the amendment process," that he was referring to Congress...

The wording probably threw you off is all...

 

You quite clearly said that Congress limits the Supreme Court's power in the amendment process. But the Supreme Court has no power there in the first place.

Sir, you did indeed say exactly that, as I quoted once before. Now did you not really say it?

Also, Congress can't limit the power of the Supreme Court. They are both equal in power and the power of the Supreme Court is pretty much absolute within it's own sphere.

 

I think that, technically, due to the system of Checks & Balances, Congress can, in fact, limit the power of the Supreme Court, to an extent...

 

No, what I said was, "Actually it is clear that aside from its power to limit SC jurisdiction or its role in the amendment process, Congress has no authority in this matter." It should be clear that the referent of "its" in both cases is Congress, especially since "SC" functions as an adjective in that sentence, not a noun.

But one can be expected to make such mistakes one lets his emotions get the best of him.

I said nothing of the sort. Hell, even RP? acknowledged that, and we're a long way from being bestest buds.

I'm afraid the exceptions clause of A3 says you're dead wrong, see below.

A3S2C2:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.​

So by the letter of the provision, Congress can't limit SC original jurisdiction to less than what is enumerated, but it has plenary power to wipe out its appellate jurisdiction in toto, as long as the end result doesn't violate the judicial power clause.

 

And that may very well be the case here. The way I read it says one thing, but I would have probably worded it differently because not that you pointed this out, I can see how it would mean something else.

 

Looks to me like offsetting penalties.

Mushroom misunderstood what yguy wrote. But yguy's sentence was constructed in a way that was easy to misunderstand.

Yguy's grammar defense aside, there's a difference between "grammatically correct" and "clear".

Carry on.

 

Even granting that possibility it's a helluva stretch to get out of it what he got out of it. If he couldn't shoot any better'n 'at he'd blow his nose off tryna hit a target 100' downrange.

 

they can impeach, subject to "good behavior". Samuel Chase. checks and balances is a wonderful thing, as is balance of power.

 

Didn't fix that rocker yet, did you?

 

no, I've been busy, "not wasting time" "not discuss this" with people like you.... and of course the Benghazi affair.

 

The US Constitution was rather vague when originally adopted related to who was and who was not a "natural born citizen" although it was relatively well understood based upon English common law related to "subjects" of the Crown. The 14th Amendment removed any abiguity related to natural born citizenship because Congress had been passing laws that denied "natural born citizenship" to millions of Americans. The 14th Amendment is explicit when it states:

We have "naturalized" citizens that become US citizens based upon the laws passed by Congress under the authority of Article I Section 8 which states Congress will create "uniform rules of naturalization" and then we have "natural born citizens" where their citizenship is not established by the naturalization laws passed by Congress but instead they are citizens because they are "born in the United States" (which is any State that is a part of the United States and territories are not States) and subject to the "jurisdiction" (laws) of the United States at the time of their birth. The criteria of "natural born citizenship" under the 14th Amendment was based upon "jus soli" which is the Right of Soil. A person is a natural born citizen based upon where they are born.

The criteria established by the 14th Amendment doesn't include any reference to the "parernts" of the person born which would be citizenship established by the Right of Blood which is "jus sanguinis" related to citizenship. Citizenship established by jus sanguinis (the Right of Blood) where the parents are US citizens is based upon statutory "naturalization" laws passed by Congress and is not based upon the US Constitutions definition of a "natural born citizen" that has the Right of Citizenship established by jus soli (born on US soil and subject to the laws of the United States).

The 14th Amendment established the two criteria for "natural born citizen" and placed it beyond the scope of the "naturalization laws" that Congress is responsible for under the US Constitution.

 

I was wrong... I liked you better as a moderator...

 

lol...

OK champ

 

r p, I think you are one of the smartest posters here. except for when you pretend not to be interested (while you keep posting). but you have flashes of brilliance from time to time. and you are definitely not nasty, which I appreciate.

I think that brings out the best in people, not the worst, as with the fogbot crowd, which have tunnel vision and no objectivity when it comes to
the president of 0bama.

 

The President of 0bama? Who's that? And where is that anyway, I cant find it on a map.

You'll have to forgive ScottE. He spent weeks telling everyone last Wednesday would be the final nail in the regime, laughed at everyone who told him it would be a damp squib and was a non scandal hyped up to the nines, and he is now in a panic meltdown. That's what happens when you unquestioningly believe everything bad that you are told about someone you actively hate.

A little bit of objectivity would help you avoid these situations, scott.

Oh yeah, almost forgot. Whistleblower. Wednesday. Whistleblower. Wednesday