|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,417 Year: 3,674/9,624 Month: 545/974 Week: 158/276 Day: 32/23 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ooh-child Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 242 Joined: |
I think it's more likely she's angling for the VP slot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
ramoss writes: SHe is the one that said the economy is suffering because american workers are watching porn all day long I can see her now in her sanctum--brow and upper lip dewy with sweat, a thin blue vein throbbing at her temple--picturing her employees watching porn..."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
The Internet is for Porn.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3985 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
It's the Nookie Monster!
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
One potential problem with this is that a compelling argument can be made that unless and until he's actually elected, there's nothing for the Supreme Court to decide. Very true. But there is another answer to this Cruz citizenship issue. When the Constitution does not fully define a term SCOTUS has always deferred to whatever definition was determined by Congress. US Code Title 8 Section 1401 defines who are natural-born citizens and who are not. Note Subsection (g).
quote: This is the present law. At the time of Cruz's birth this section had a 10 year in-country requirement with 5 after age 14. Cruz's mom, Eleanor Darragh, met those requirement with plenty to spare prior to Cruz's birth. The entire controversy is crap. One look at all the Obama-birther lawsuits and we can be assured such a lawsuit on the Cruz question will not even make it out of the Federal District Court let alone be called up by SCOTUS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes: ...SCOTUS has always ... I'm no longer willing to say SCOTUS "has always" or "will never" anything after seeing some of the crap Scalia and Thomas have pulled.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
If Cruz is never elected, there's nothing for them to decide. A challenge to putting Cruz on a state's presidential ballot based on eligibility, if raised by an opponent would be enough to make a controversy. There is no real need to wait until he is elected. That said, there would need to be a credible legal dispute, and I'm not convinced that simply being a blooming idiot disqualifies you from an office that Bush recently held. It seems that people have forgotten the dozens of law suits that were filed when Obama was campaigning. Of the relatively large number of filed actions, only one was filed by an actual candidate. While none of the suits resulted in any useful relief, a few of them did overcome standing hurdles. Doesn't mean that the suits were not insipid even when they were not blatantly racist. Here is one of the worst:
quote: Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
US Code Title 8 Section 1401 defines who are natural-born citizens and who are not. Note Subsection (g) No, the code does not define natural-born citizens. At least that is a possible interpretation. Section g just tells us how you can be a 'citizen at birth' despite being born outside of the country. There is no definition of 'natural-born citizen' outside of the constitution and whatever few court decisions we have on the matter. I agree that there is no good reason for those terms not to be synonyms. Which means that a birther won't hold them to be synonyms. In fact, section h casts some doubt on whether Cruz is a 'natural born citizen' if we agree at least that 'natural born citizen' is at least a sub set of 'citizens at birth'.
quote: A special rule for people born prior to May 24, 1934? Said rule applying only to alien father/citizen mother but not alien mother/citizen fathers? So what is the status of someone born later than May 24, 1934? Like Cruz, born in 1970 in Canada of an alien father and a citizen mother? No, I am not an idiot birther. Actually, Cruz is covered by item e at least.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
after seeing some of the crap Scalia and Thomas have pulled. Surely there is a special place for these two. Maybe just inside the Ninth circle? round 1 or 2?Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
NoNukes writes: A challenge to putting Cruz on a state's presidential ballot based on eligibility, if raised by an opponent would be enough to make a controversy. There is no real need to wait until he is elected. Possibly. I did say that an argument could be made, not that the courts would necessarily buy it. It's quite possible your position could prevail. Ultimately, there's no way to know for sure unless and until the Supremes take the case and decide it.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1045 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I've seen a lot of debate knocking around over the years since the birther controversy started over this controversial 'natural-born citizen' business in the Constitution. Maybe this is just my outsider's lack of understanding of American constitutionalism, but isn't the meaning plain as the bollocks on a well hung donkey? It means someone born a citizen, as opposed to someone naturalised later in life.
There - just solved you the trouble of a court case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Makes sense to me.
Of course, there's a fair amount of Constitutional jurisprudence that doesn't make any sense, so whether it makes sense or not isn't necessarily a great predictor of what the Court will do.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
In a rational world, yes. But we are speaking of the law, and the law is an ass. SCOTUS might decide it means a citizen not born by c-section.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I did say that an argument could be made, not that the courts would necessarily buy it What you said was that a 'compelling argument' could be made that the case was not constitutionally unripe. But if we want to allow that courts would not necessarily buy it, we can say that the argument that Barrack Obama and Ted Cruz are both constitutionally ineligible is compelling given that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue. In fact your compelling argument is not based on any case precedent whatsoever. It is instead based on the idea that there is such a thing as an unripe case (and of course there is) and an unsupported assertion that such a thing exists up until an actual election. Absent some discussion of precedent, not compelling IMO.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I've seen a lot of debate knocking around over the years since the birther controversy started over this controversial 'natural-born citizen' business in the Constitution. Maybe this is just my outsider's lack of understanding of American constitutionalism, but isn't the meaning plain as the bollocks on a well hung donkey? It means someone born a citizen, as opposed to someone naturalised later in life. I agree. So I guess there is a case to be made for a difference between these two children being 'natural-born citizens':
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024