mccain not eleigible to be prez

[Timshel]

Side note...String/Dung



Cypress:

Soc apparently did not follow the thread, so I will give him time to reconsider his statement. If he did or maintains his position, then he is just wrong. Lawyer or not.

Olson is a lawyer too. And why would McCain bother having him look into this if there was no doubt as you claim the NYT misleads one to believe.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'd agree with a ruling that stated that, and I doubt Dungheap would have a problem with it either. The article that sf did not bother to read before he spouted off pretty clearly concluded that is how any court should and likely would rule.

The issue is that this is not a settled matter. I don't think anyone has actually advanced the idea that McCain should not be considered "natural born."

And I mentioned the 1790 law, but that can be challenged and it has been superceded.

Now go back and read my posts String. The 1790 Act was repealed by the 1795 act, which is why I posted the Title 8. Obviously you can always challenge the constitutionality of a law. But it is clear. It is defined and there is nothing in the Constitution to define it, so how could it be unconstitutional?

The fact that the Times even published this nonsense is what is pathetic. The fact that Dung and Gumby tried so hard to twist words is likewise pathetic. Darla was just being her bitter little self righteous holier than thou self.

 

[Socrtease]

So your position is that Congress, by statute, can define what the terms of the Constitution mean? Really? I don't recall that being one of the enumerated powers of Congress but I'm sure you can point me in the right direction.

Title 8 of the US Code can no more inform what the Constitution means by "natural born citizen" (and makes no attempt to do so) than Congress could by statute define what the terms "due process" or "privileges and immunities" mean.

You may be a lawyer, but it seems you're a bit rusty on your Con Law.

. . . adding, I'm not saying McCain is not a "natural born citizen" and I'm not saying that anyone will or ought to challenge whether he is a "natural born citizen." All I am saying is that it is an open question, as his campaign acknowledges.

Well let me point my Can of WD 40 at your rust then/

Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution says that congress shall have

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

So to answer your question there MR CON LAW, yes Congress has the power to establish citizenship. Are we done yet or can I school you somemore?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Soc apparently did not follow the thread, so I will give him time to reconsider his statement. If he did or maintains his position, then he is just wrong. Lawyer or not.

Olson is a lawyer too. And why would McCain bother having him look into this if there was no doubt as you claim the NYT misleads one to believe.

Apparently YOU didn't follow the thread. On what grounds would you challenge this as being unconstitutional. Right out of the gate I posted Title 8 which defines a U.S. citizen. The Constitution does not define it one way or another. Which means that it is 99.99999999% unlikely that anyone would challenge Title 8 definitions in court.

What part of that do you not get?

I have NO idea why they would look into it.

 

[Socrtease]

Soc apparently did not follow the thread, so I will give him time to reconsider his statement. If he did or maintains his position, then he is just wrong. Lawyer or not.

Olson is a lawyer too. And why would McCain bother having him look into this if there was no doubt as you claim the NYT misleads one to believe.

I did follow the thread and god only knows why he would hire someone to research other than maybe he just wants to slap around the dumbasses around him that can't read the constitution and title 8 of the USC. I don't know but this is a simple question and if there were lots of DUMBASSES in the lower fed courts the USSC would answer this question with a per curium decision that would be less than I have written here.

 

[Bonestorm]

Well let me point my Can of WD 40 at your rust then/

Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution says that congress shall have

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

So to answer your question there MR CON LAW, yes Congress has the power to establish citizenship. Are we done yet or can I school you somemore?

Yes, Congress has the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization, but that does not give Congress the power to define what the term "natural born citizen" means in Art. II, Section 1 of the US Constitution. That's like saying that since Congress has the power to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy they can define what "Commander in Chief of the army and navy" means in Art. II, Section 2.

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.

 

[Timshel]

Now go back and read my posts String. The 1790 Act was repealed by the 1795 act, which is why I posted the Title 8. Obviously you can always challenge the constitutionality of a law. But it is clear. It is defined and there is nothing in the Constitution to define it, so how could it be unconstitutional?

The fact that the Times even published this nonsense is what is pathetic. The fact that Dung and Gumby tried so hard to twist words is likewise pathetic. Darla was just being her bitter little self righteous holier than thou self.

Is it pathetic that McCain hired counsel who has expressed some amount of doubt on the issue? Is it pathetic that legal scholars have debated it? Is it pathetic that Repub senator and McCain supporter introduced legislation in an attempt to settle the matter?

I don't see anything wrong with the Times article. It's an interesting matter and if anything, they expressed support for McCain on the matter. They did not present argument from one person that did not say that McCain should be eligible. Your beef with them on this pretty pathetic.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Is it pathetic that McCain hired counsel who has expressed some amount of doubt on the issue? Is it pathetic that legal scholars have debated it? Is it pathetic that Repub senator and McCain supporter introduced legislation in an attempt to settle the matter?

I don't see anything wrong with the Times article. It's an interesting matter and if anything, they expressed support for McCain on the matter. They did not present argument from one person that did not say that McCain should be eligible. Your beef with them on this pretty pathetic.

Yes, yes, no

Of course you don't see anything wrong with the piece. You like the fact they put another hit on McCain. But in publishing it, they left that doubt hanging there to make people think this is an issue and it isn't.

 

[Bonestorm]

Is it pathetic that McCain hired counsel who has expressed some amount of doubt on the issue? Is it pathetic that legal scholars have debated it? Is it pathetic that Repub senator and McCain supporter introduced legislation in an attempt to settle the matter?

I don't see anything wrong with the Times article. It's an interesting matter and if anything, they expressed support for McCain on the matter. They did not present argument from one person that did not say that McCain should be eligible. Your beef with them on this pretty pathetic.

It's an entirely academic exercise but an interesting one nevertheless.

 

[Socrtease]

Yes, Congress has the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization, but that does not give Congress the power to define what the term "natural born citizen" means in Art. II, Section 1 of the US Constitution. That's like saying that since Congress has the power to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy they can define what "Commander in Chief of the army and navy" means in Art. II, Section 2.

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.

YOu stupid fuck! Natualization means who is a NATURAL citizen. There is no defintion in the constitution at all. People who go through the process of becomeing a natualized citizen do so through a different part of the same code.

Title 8 defines NATURALIZATION - The conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever. 8 USC

The part of the code that has been mentioned in this post repeatedly is how they confer NATURAL BORN status, the rest of the code deals with how you can receive citizenship if you DON'T meet the requirements of being natural born. You should stick to whatever it is you do, cause the law ain't your calling.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes, Congress has the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization, but that does not give Congress the power to define what the term "natural born citizen" means in Art. II, Section 1 of the US Constitution. That's like saying that since Congress has the power to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy they can define what "Commander in Chief of the army and navy" means in Art. II, Section 2.

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.

funny, but weren't you the one earlier who told me to defer to those legal experts who knew more than me since I wasn't a lawyer?????

Perhaps you might want to take your own advice. Or better yet, continue on, I will enjoy that more.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's an entirely academic exercise but an interesting one nevertheless.

It is "academic" only in the sense you are getting schooled.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes, yes, no

Of course you don't see anything wrong with the piece. You like the fact they put another hit on McCain. But in publishing it, they left that doubt hanging there to make people think this is an issue and it isn't.

What's the hit? They left doubt handing there BECAUSE THERE IS DOUBT HANGING THERE. McCain's fucking campaign acknowledges that the doubt exists and told the Times that doubt exists. How in the world is it improper for the Times to report what McCain's campaign said?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What's the hit? They left doubt handing there BECAUSE THERE IS DOUBT HANGING THERE. McCain's fucking campaign acknowledges that the doubt exists and told the Times that doubt exists. How in the world is it improper for the Times to report what McCain's campaign said?

You really are having a hard time admiting you were wrong aren't you. Trying to pawn it off on the fact that for some reason McCains lawyer said he was still researching it.... is pathetic.

It is a hit job because you and I both know that the average dem who read that piece of shit article is going to go around spouting off on the topic over and over and over again. It is a hit job because they will continue to play make believe just as you are doing that the issue isn't clear. It is.

 

[Bonestorm]

YOu stupid fuck! Natualization means who is a NATURAL citizen. There is no defintion in the constitution at all. People who go through the process of becomeing a natualized citizen do so through a different part of the same code.

Title 8 defines NATURALIZATION - The conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever. 8 USC

The part of the code that has been mentioned in this post repeatedly is how they confer NATURAL BORN status, the rest of the code deals with how you can receive citizenship if you DON'T meet the requirements of being natural born. You should stick to whatever it is you do, cause the law ain't your calling.

Soc - With all due respect, the idea that Congress has the authority to define what the term "natural born citizen" means in Article II of the Constitution is laughable. So is the idea that Congress attempted to define what those words mean without ever using those words.

Congress certainly has the power to define and set the requirements for citizenship through its naturalization powers, but it does not have the power to define what the text of the Constitution means. This is pretty basic separation of powers stuff. Really.

 

[gonzojournals]

Dungheap wants to get schooled some more...I like watching it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Soc - With all due respect, the idea that Congress has the authority to define what the term "natural born citizen" means in Article II of the Constitution is laughable. So is the idea that Congress attempted to define what those words mean without ever using those words.

Congress certainly has the power to define and set the requirements for citizenship through its naturalization powers, but it does not have the power to define what the text of the Constitution means. This is pretty basic separation of powers stuff. Really.

LMAO.... it defines what a citizen is. If you qualify as a citizen upon birth, how the hell are you anything other than a naturally born citizen.

Please, enlighten me.

 

[Cancel7]

YOu stupid fuck! Natualization means who is a NATURAL citizen. There is no defintion in the constitution at all. People who go through the process of becomeing a natualized citizen do so through a different part of the same code.

Title 8 defines NATURALIZATION - The conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever. 8 USC

The part of the code that has been mentioned in this post repeatedly is how they confer NATURAL BORN status, the rest of the code deals with how you can receive citizenship if you DON'T meet the requirements of being natural born. You should stick to whatever it is you do, cause the law ain't your calling.

You know, that was a very interesting article and this was at one point, a very interesting conversation until the raging idiot lost his temper and ruined another thread. And now you are doing the same, why? WTF is there to get so angry about?

Absolutely nothing.

Not really a winning argument, and not a very interesting one either.

 

[gonzojournals]

Darla, as usual, adds nothing to the thread.

If another election ends up in the Supreme Court, I am out of here.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Darla, as usual, adds nothing to the thread.

If another election ends up in the Supreme Court, I am out of here.

Of course she isn't going to add value to this conversation. She was one of the morons chirping about how I should listen to the lawyers/experts.... then one shows up and says they were wrong and they immediately ignore what he is saying.

She is just a bitter little person.