mccain not eleigible to be prez

[Cancel 2016.2]

It has plenary power to extend citizienship to whomever it chooses but it does not have any power whatsover to define what the COnstitution means by "natural born citizen."

We are talking about two distinct powers: 1) the power over naturalization versus 2) the power to define and give meaning to the text of the Constitution. Congress can do #1. It cannot do #2. What we are talking about here, whether a person is a "natural born person" for purposes of Article II falls squarely within the realm of #2 and Congress has no power or authority to resolve that issue.

I'm through with this conversation. Really, it is a very simple concept. Congress has no power to define what the text of the Constitution means.

Ok, seriously, you are being a complete tool. Of course you are through with this conversation. You have had your ass completely kicked on it.

You are correct in that it is a very simple concept. You wish to attempt to play semantics because you now realize just how wrong you are.

Citizenship upon birth is natural born you twit.

 

[Socrtease]

The last line in Article One Section Eight.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

So laws defining what citizenship by birth is is within the necessary and proper clause.

And with that consider your ass necessarily and properly schooled.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And with that consider your ass necessarily and properly schooled.

Actually, I think it was schooled a long time ago. It is my fault he is not accepting his defeat. Had it just been you explaining it to him, he would not have been this stubborn. Unfortunately, he and the others that will now avoid the thread like the plague will never accept that I was correct on this.

It is too painful a thought for them to bare.

 

[Bonestorm]

Actually, I think it was schooled a long time ago. It is my fault he is not accepting his defeat. Had it just been you explaining it to him, he would not have been this stubborn. Unfortunately, he and the others that will now avoid the thread like the plague will never accept that I was correct on this.

It is too painful a thought for them to bare.

Sadly, you are still 100% wrong on the issue. I realize that you think that you have "schooled" me, but that fact remains that all I am saying is that the courts have not had occasion to consider the precise meaning of the term "natural born citizen" in Article II of the Constitution and therefore there is some doubt, however slight, as to its meaning.

At this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree although this is a fairly simple concept. Congress has NO POWER to define the terms used in the Constitution. That the Congressional power to establish uniform rules for naturalization does not grant Congress the power to define what the Constitution means by "natural born citizen" in Article II.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Sadly, you are still 100% wrong on the issue. I realize that you think that you have "schooled" me, but that fact remains that all I am saying is that the courts have not had occasion to consider the precise meaning of the term "natural born citizen" in Article II of the Constitution and therefore there is some doubt, however slight, as to its meaning.

At this point, we'll just have to agree to disagree although this is a fairly simple concept. Congress has NO POWER to define the terms used in the Constitution. That the Congressional power to establish uniform rules for naturalization does not grant Congress the power to define what the Constitution means by "natural born citizen" in Article II.

Citizenship upon birth is a natural born citizen. It isn't hard.... I ask you AGAIN .... what other possible definition could there be?

 

[Bonestorm]

Citizenship upon birth is a natural born citizen. It isn't hard.... I ask you AGAIN .... what other possible definition could there be?

Your assumption is that Congress has the power to define the "natural born citizen" as the term is used in Article II. It doesn't have that power. So, it doesn't fucking matter.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Your assumption is that Congress has the power to define the "natural born citizen" as the term is used in Article II. It doesn't have that power. So, it doesn't fucking matter.

translation....

" I realize there is no other possible definition, but I don't want to admit I am completely wrong on this"

 

[Bonestorm]

translation....

" I realize there is no other possible definition, but I don't want to admit I am completely wrong on this"

Translation: Congress could pass legislation that a person born in China is a citizen at birth but that doesn't mean that that person is a "natural born citizen" for Article II purposes because Congress has no power to define the term.

You seem to gloss right over the central issue: who decides what the term "natural born citizen" of Article II means? The answer is the courts. They haven't defined it. That's why there is some doubt, however, slight, as to the meaning. That's why there is an issue. That's why McCain's campaign admits that there is some doubt. The arbiter of the meaning of those words has not had occasion to decide what they mean. Hence, doubt.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Translation: Congress could pass legislation that a person born in China is a citizen at birth but that doesn't mean that that person is a "natural born citizen" for Article II purposes because Congress has no power to define the term.

You seem to gloss right over the central issue: who decides what the term "natural born citizen" of Article II means? The answer is the courts. They haven't defined it. That's why there is some doubt, however, slight, as to the meaning. That's why there is an issue. That's why McCain's campaign admits that there is some doubt. The arbiter of the meaning of those words has not had occasion to decide what they mean. Hence, doubt.

Bottom line.... you are a complete moron. Congress has the power to define who is a citizen. If you are BORN under one of those definitions you are a natural born citizen.

Give it up. You act like there is another possible definition. You have been shown by Socrtease that they DO have the power. Yet you continue to play your idiotic game. You are a joke.

 

[Bonestorm]

Bottom line.... you are a complete moron. Congress has the power to define who is a citizen. If you are BORN under one of those definitions you are a natural born citizen.

Give it up. You act like there is another possible definition. You have been shown by Socrtease that they DO have the power. Yet you continue to play your idiotic game. You are a joke.

Fair enough. Wallow in your ignorance. Clearly, the distinction between defining who a citizen is and defining what the words of the Constitution mean is lost on you.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Dung... if you cannot do the following then you should really get help....

Give me one other possible definition of natural born citizen..... other than the one I have provided....

Natural born citizen.... entitled to citizenship upon birth.

If there is only one possible definition, then Congress isn't defining it you twit. It only has one possible meaning.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Fair enough. Wallow in your ignorance. Clearly, the distinction between defining who a citizen is and defining what the words of the Constitution mean is lost on you.

Right... the only ignorance on display is yours. Clearly you are incapable of understanding that this isn't some vague term. There is no other definition, thus Congress is not "defining words of the Constitution". That is just a desperate grasping at straws by you to avoid admitting you are wrong. It is self explanatory you idiot. Otherwise you would be able to define it in another manner. Yet you can't... can you?

 

[Damocles]

I can't believe you are still talking about this. McCain was born a citizen, he's eligible to be President. It's just silly semantics with no legal basis played by Huckabee supporters and insane Democrats who think they can win it all if McCain was just not the candidate.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I can't believe you are still talking about this. McCain was born a citizen, he's eligible to be President. It's just silly semantics with no legal basis played by Huckabee supporters and insane Democrats who think they can win it all if McCain was just not the candidate.

Ahh... so Dung is a closet Huckabee fan. THAT explains his idiocy.

 

[Bonestorm]

Right... the only ignorance on display is yours. Clearly you are incapable of understanding that this isn't some vague term. There is no other definition, thus Congress is not "defining words of the Constitution". That is just a desperate grasping at straws by you to avoid admitting you are wrong. It is self explanatory you idiot. Otherwise you would be able to define it in another manner. Yet you can't... can you?

So, your position is that the terms of the Constitution are self-explanatory? You should really inform the rest of the country starting with the nine members of the Supreme Court. I'm sure they will be delighted to hear the news. The whole point of the original article and the point that the various folks cited in the article were making is that the text of the Constitution is never clear and it is open to interpretation by the courts. Until the courts make a ruling on what those words mean, their precise meaning is unclear. Hence, doubt.

To recap, from the article:

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.

I'm an idiot. Ted Olson is an idiot. McCain's campaign are idiots. Constitutional scholars are idiots. But you, with your extensive legal training, are correct.

Gotcha.

 

[Bonestorm]

I can't believe you are still talking about this. McCain was born a citizen, he's eligible to be President. It's just silly semantics with no legal basis played by Huckabee supporters and insane Democrats who think they can win it all if McCain was just not the candidate.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying he isn't a "natural born citizen." All I am saying is that there is some doubt, however small, because the courts have not had occasion to rule on the question of what those words mean.

That's all.

SF and Soc seem to think that Congress has decided what those words mean that and that there is absolutely no doubt, not a scintilla of doubt, that McCain is a "natural born citizen." They're wrong. If they would just graciously accept that I would be grateful.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So, your position is that the terms of the Constitution are self-explanatory? You should really inform the rest of the country starting with the nine members of the Supreme Court. I'm sure they will be delighted to hear the news. The whole point of the original article and the point that the various folks cited in the article were making is that the text of the Constitution is never clear and it is open to interpretation by the courts. Until the courts make a ruling on what those words mean, their precise meaning is unclear. Hence, doubt.

To recap, from the article:


I'm an idiot. Ted Olson is an idiot. McCain's campaign are idiots. Constitutional scholars are idiots. But you, with your extensive legal training, are correct.

Gotcha.

Strawman attempts are beneath you. Leave those to Gumby. I said the phrase natural born citizen is most certainly self explanatory. Not that all text in the Constitution is. I note again for the record that you cannot come up with just one other definition for it. So I take that as your acceptance that the phrase is indeed self-explanatory.

and yes, you are an idiot.