PDA

View Full Version : The Tea Party is not socially conservative my ass


Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

ElvisL1ves
10-25-2010, 02:54 PM
How can you call him "obviously correct" if he doesn't present his reasoning? That dissent is legalese for "Fuck the 14th, he's a damn Chink!", nothing more.

Shot From Guns
10-25-2010, 03:07 PM
Hi, Bricker! Thanks for coming to play! Have some apple cider.

You are Tycho Brahe and I claim your silver nose.

I find myself terribly confused. On one hand, you seem to be referring to a certain cadence of speech, often punctuated by italics. On the other hand, silver nose. However, as this cider is delicious, I have decided instead to focus on delighted slurping as I watch Bricker work his magic.

emacknight
10-25-2010, 03:27 PM
As early as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), we learn:

They go on to declare that Wong Kim Ark is a US citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and his birth in San Francisco, even though his parents were alien. But beyond the Fourteenth Amendment, the decision adduces to the common law of England and of the US, and finds that the overwhelming weight of it supports that view as well.

What precisely are you relying upon for the opposite view?

Didn't anyone notice Wong Kim Ark was Chinese! It's so obvious he was a robot sent from the future. Another robot was sent to put the birth notices in the paper. And the last robot become our president.

Open your eyes people.

Bricker
10-25-2010, 04:09 PM
"We" are subscribers to the dissenting opinion in that particular dispute, of course.

There's just one teeny tiny problem with relying on the dissent: it has no weight of law.

And in fact, the dissent concedes as much:

... that, if that amendment bears the construction now put upon it, it imposed the English common law rule on this country for the first time, and made it "absolute and unbending" just as Great Britain was being relieved from its inconveniences.

Yes. That is what it does. Even if weconcede the dissent's view that this is the "first time," despite the conspicuous lack of citation in support of that claim, the dissent cannot and does not claim that the construction offered is beyond the power of the Court to make.

In other words, the dissent is saying, "You're wrong," not "Your decision is of no legal effect."

Snowboarder Bo
10-25-2010, 04:22 PM
This thread was mildly entertaining what with Morella the Moron and all, but now that Bricker and Jimmy are going back and forth with real information, it's become interesting. Thanks, y'all!

emacknight
10-25-2010, 05:04 PM
This thread was mildly entertaining what with Morella the Moron and all, but now that Bricker and Jimmy are going back and forth with real information, it's become interesting. Thanks, y'all!

But now it's all serious. Can't they at least swear and insult each other? At this rate the mods will move it to GD.

Jimmy Chitwood
10-25-2010, 05:11 PM
There's just one teeny tiny problem with relying on the dissent: it has no weight of law.
...
In other words, the dissent is saying, "You're wrong," not "Your decision is of no legal effect."

Well, right. They are nuts, after all.

But I'm not sure what you're looking for here even in a universe where I really hold these beliefs. Of course it doesn't have the weight of the law; that's why it's a dissent. The point I'm doing my best to make is that, just as the dissenting justices said "you're wrong" with respect to the historical narrative supporting that particular interpretation of "jurisdiction," your modern day birther is saying, essentially, that the weight of the law is and has always been wrong.

Nobody who goes to the trouble to concoct this kind of constitutional argument, as far as I can tell, actually thinks that a pro forma application of existing federal statutes would result in a declaration of Obama's ineligibility. They're saying there's a latent defect, so to speak, in the way all these cases have proceeded, stretching all the way back to the 19th century, which hasn't ever been an issue because no president before Obama actually ran afoul of the "appropriate" rule. But he, of course, does. Regrettably so.

Also emacknight's butt stinks.

Starving Artist
10-25-2010, 05:20 PM
Because his entire fucking raison d'etre on this board is to nitpick other people's arguments, especially when it involves the law in any way, and then claim that he does it equally to conservatives and liberals. Liberal posters and liberal posts far outweigh the number of conservative posters and conservative posts on this board, and, while I don't know for sure, it's possible that liberal posters make more claims about the law than do conservative ones. And then there's the question as to whether liberal and conservative posters err about matters of the law in equal proportions.

So, do you have a cite showing that liberal and conservative posters post about legal matters in equal numbers? And do you have a cite that they err in regard to the law either in equal numbers? If not, then you have no cause to expect Bricker to critique them in equal numbers.

Euphonious Polemic
10-25-2010, 05:24 PM
Hush up.

We're listening to the adults now.

descamisado
10-25-2010, 05:26 PM
She said "equally," not "equal numbers," which one can clearly infer to mean that errors, wherever found and regardless of by whom committed, would be subject to the same electron microscope.

ETA: Thanks, Bricker, for jumping in (again) and educating us all.

Jack Batty
10-25-2010, 05:45 PM
Hush up.

We're listening to the adults now.

No kidding. This thread has been ground to it's knees with Supreme Court cites. Although, I have to admit, "Kwock Jan Fat v. White" is about the coolest court case I ever heard. It sounds like a 4chan topic.

emacknight
10-25-2010, 05:49 PM
Pardon, but I don't see "people believe UHC is good because they're young" anywhere in there.

And you know why?

Because it suggests a host of inaccuracies and nonsensities that are nowhere to be found in what I actually said.

But then you already knew that, didn't you? Otherwise you'd have paraphrased my comments honestly.

Yes, I do know why that prase didn't appear, because I paraphrased. Are you familiar with what the term "paraphrase" means? Try looking it up, along with "nonsensities."

Then look back on the flaming pile of turd you posted here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=580311) to see if you should be questioning someone else's honesty.

Starving Artist
10-25-2010, 06:14 PM
She said "equally," not "equal numbers," which one can clearly infer to mean that errors, wherever found and regardless of by whom committed, would be subject to the same electron microscope.SFG clearly criticized Bricker for correcting liberal posts disproportionately to conservative ones. The only way she could know if he was doing that would be if she had: knowledge as to the number of posts regarding legalities between the two sides; knowledge of number of factual errors committed by both sides; and knowledge that Bricker was responding to liberal errors disproportionately percentagewise.

And I'd be very surprised if she had factual answers to any of these three questions at the time she made her post. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone has the answers to them...or could determine the answers to them.

elucidator
10-25-2010, 06:30 PM
Liberal posters and liberal posts far outweigh the number of conservative posters and conservative posts on this board.....

How come you never mentioned this?

emacknight
10-25-2010, 07:04 PM
SFG clearly criticized Bricker for correcting liberal posts disproportionately to conservative ones.

You've inaccurately paraphrased Shot From Guns. The key point was that Bricker is fond of pointing out how balanced he is. He likes to remind us that he has defended Obama and criticized Bush. So the challenge was thus put forward to "put his money where his mouth is." Show that he's balanced by applying his legalese nitpicking to a conservative troll.

Bricker then gave Morella the smack down she so richly deserved. Proving both that he is a man of his word, and that logic/integrity trumps partisan bullshit.

kaylasdad99
10-25-2010, 08:07 PM
Also emacknight's butt stinks.
Also, Jimmy Chitwood called Chief Justice Harlan's a concurring opinion, not a dissent.

Somebody smarter than I will need to extrapolate the implications this has in the matter of the odor of Mr Chitwood's butt. :p

Jimmy Chitwood
10-25-2010, 08:58 PM
Harlan concurred with Chief Justice Fuller's dissent.

It smells like basil.

kaylasdad99
10-25-2010, 09:21 PM
Harlan concurred with Chief Justice Fuller's dissent.

It smells like basil.:smack:

Time for kaylasdad99 to go back to reading for comprehension class.

Also,mmmm, basil (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Morella
10-25-2010, 10:37 PM
Because his entire fucking raison d'etre on this board is to nitpick other people's arguments


raison d'être. There is an accent circumflex over the e.

Just while we were on the subject of nitpicking...

Morella
10-25-2010, 10:41 PM
This is your knowledge of the Constitution?

Now, which one of these ended slavery, do you think? It isn't a tough question - it is even on the naturalization exam.

Actually, it is a bullshit question, because both were about ending slavery. The purpose of the 14th amendment was never to make citizens out of anchor babies, or a president out of a Kenyan-Indonesian Muslim.

Morella
10-25-2010, 10:51 PM
That said, I feel you have made no case at all above. You analysis fails to address the original birth certificate


What original birth certificate? Have you seen it?

Now turning to the meat of the matter for my arrival in this thread, the discussion of jus soli citizenship under US law.

Um... you're wrong.

No, Sir. You are wrong.

What precisely are you relying upon for the opposite view?

We can start with this:

The 14th Amendment
By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
February 1, 2005


We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Morella
10-25-2010, 10:58 PM
But now it's all serious. Can't they at least swear and insult each other? At this rate the mods will move it to GD.

Why should we swear at each other when we can say nice things in French? Va te faire enculer, petit con! :)

Morella
10-25-2010, 11:00 PM
Bricker then gave Morella the smack down she so richly deserved. Proving both that he is a man of his word, and that logic/integrity trumps partisan bullshit.

Morella ain't quite down for the count yet.

emacknight
10-25-2010, 11:01 PM
Out of curiosity, when the 14th was written (1868) what immigration laws would have been on the books? Would the concept of illegal alien have even existed as we know it?

Oh, and I forgot to mention, I've seen the original.

Jimmy Chitwood
10-25-2010, 11:08 PM
I'm the best scout team moron you'll find, but there's no beating the real thing, is there? At least now I get to play for my team.

This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means

This is where you go off the rails, for the record - that "highest possible authority" bit. Turns out there is a highest possible authority, and it's not your boy. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule." That's Marbury v. Madison, and that's constitutional law. What Mr. Jacob Howard (MI) had to say about the subject is emphatically not the law.

The judiciary has of course been heard repeatedly on the question about jurisdiction, and we know what they had to say about it. No getting around it, really, and you can hardly claim fealty to the Constitution or to the United States if you're going to abandon the entire scope of what's actually happened. Maybe you'd prefer a different jurisdiction.

Bricker
10-25-2010, 11:16 PM
What original birth certificate? Have you seen it?

No. But neither have I seen China. Yet I accept the existence of China, because Occam's Razor demands it. To assume China doesn't exist assumes a conspiracy among many unrelated people. So, too, with Obama's birth certificate.

I notice you don't address the newspaper announcement I mentioned.


Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:


Whew.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Our law absolutely respects that distinction. Children born to ambassadors and foreign ministers do not gain citizenship. This is because ambassadors and foreign ministers are not subject to the jurisdiction of our lives. They have diplomatic immunity, and cannot be arrested for violations of our law. At most, we may expel them from the country.

But ordinary aliens are subject to our laws. Sven Jorgenson, a Swedish citizen, will go to prison here if he robs a convenience store here. And as aliens subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, their children born here are citizens, by the plain meaning of the text.

You would like us to construe the phrase "...foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States..." as a list of three our four things; that foreigners, aliens, and ministers are all different classes. It seems obvious that he meant that the foreigners and aliens ARE the ministers and ambassadors.

But in the end, it's only of academic interest. Because "P.A. Madison" has no particular authority to interpret the Supreme Court. As persuasive as you may find his insight, it's of no relevance to the authoritive construction of the Constitution.

The stubborn insistance otherwise reminds me of the tax protestors: they insist that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, and therefore the entire IRS is unconstitutional... and that all that's necessary to avoid income tax is to point out this flaw, at which point the courts will be reduced to embarrased throat clearing as they hastily dismiss your case.

That simply doesn't happen. Let's say you're right: let's say that the entire set of caselaw, Wong Kim Ark and all its progeny, was decided on the basis of a mistaken interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's say the entire citizenship body of law is based on an esential wrongness.

So?

Now what?

Do you believe that merely announcing that will result in the country shredding reams of US Reporter decisions?

It's clear to me that you're wrong. But even if you're right about the error, from a practical standpoint there's nothing to be done. Right or wrong in the past, it has BECOME right by dint of established practice, and no force now except a constitutional amendment can possibly change it.

So (a) you're wrong, and (b) if you're right, who cares?

Morella
10-25-2010, 11:32 PM
Didn't anyone notice Wong Kim Ark was Chinese! It's so obvious he was a robot sent from the future. Another robot was sent to put the birth notices in the paper. And the last robot become our president.

Open your eyes people.

Indeed...

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

emacknight
10-25-2010, 11:32 PM
Does anyone remember Morella referring to Obama's mother as a minor? She was 19 when she had him.

She is also a citizen (unless her parents were also illegals), so regardless of the mysterious Kenyan sent back in time to impregnate her, wouldn't the son of a US citizen who was born in the US, be a citizen?

Lobohan
10-25-2010, 11:35 PM
Does anyone remember Morella referring to Obama's mother as a minor? She was 19 when she had him.

She is also a citizen (unless her parents were also illegals), so regardless of the mysterious Kenyan sent back in time to impregnate her, wouldn't the son of a US citizen who was born in the US, be a citizen?It depends. Is that citizen black? Because let's get real here. Morella don't like the dark meat.

emacknight
10-25-2010, 11:35 PM
His mother was a minor. Whether or not she was a US citizen, I don't know.

What amazes me is, here I am, open-minded, asking questions from you people, ignoring your insults, giving you an opportunity to educate me, and all you can do is call me stupid. Who is really coming across as stupid here?

Yup, she did say his mother was a minor. To you answer your first question, his mother was a citizen. And to your second question, it is you that is coming across as stupid.

emacknight
10-25-2010, 11:40 PM
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

Damn, where is Starving Artist to point out plagiarism?

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/anchor_babies.html

emacknight
10-25-2010, 11:43 PM
It depends. Is that citizen black? Because let's get real here. Morella don't like the dark meat.

Does the constitution mention half-ricans?

No seriously, let's pretend Morella is right and we have this new rule. What happens if a Mexican sneaks into the country and knocks up a pretty white girl? Is the little mixed-blood a wizard or a muggle?

Morella
10-25-2010, 11:46 PM
No. But neither have I seen China. Yet I accept the existence of China, because Occam's Razor demands it. To assume China doesn't exist assumes a conspiracy among many unrelated people. So, too, with Obama's birth certificate.

Oh geez...we need you on the religous debate forum! Here I thought that the existence of God was not inherently disprovable, and along comes Bricker with this jewel. The face of science has been changed forever.

I notice you don't address the newspaper announcement I mentioned.

Yes, because I haven't seen it, and because, as I mentioned previously, whether or not there is a birth certificate, or a birth announcement, makes no difference.

Whew.

Feel better?

Our law absolutely respects that distinction. Children born to ambassadors and foreign ministers do not gain citizenship. This is because ambassadors and foreign ministers are not subject to the jurisdiction of our lives. They have diplomatic immunity, and cannot be arrested for violations of our law. At most, we may expel them from the country.

But ordinary aliens are subject to our laws. Sven Jorgenson, a Swedish citizen, will go to prison here if he robs a convenience store here. And as aliens subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, their children born here are citizens, by the plain meaning of the text.

Just when I thought we were taking it up a notch from the strawman crap that I've been getting. That does not meet the definition of "complete jurisdiction", as I have documented very well. If you're going to ignore my argument, there isn't much point in continuing this discussion.

The stubborn insistance otherwise reminds me of the tax protestors: they insist that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified, and therefore the entire IRS is unconstitutional... and that all that's necessary to avoid income tax is to point out this flaw, at which point the courts will be reduced to embarrased throat clearing as they hastily dismiss your case.

Yes, and it reminds me of good filet mignon, escargot in butter wine sauce, and a bottle of Bourdeaux Chateau Coufran 1986...or maybe that was something totally unrelated to this discussion that I just happened to be thinking about?

That simply doesn't happen. Let's say you're right: let's say that the entire set of caselaw, Wong Kim Ark and all its progeny, was decided on the basis of a mistaken interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's say the entire citizenship body of law is based on an esential wrongness.

So?

Now what?

Yes..."so?"...indeed. Were we supposed to be accomplishing something here? I thought we were just arguing on a message board. This is my day off...I don't really feel the need to accomplish anything.

Do you believe that merely announcing that will result in the country shredding reams of US Reporter decisions?

Do you believe in UFOs?

So (a) you're wrong, and (b) if you're right, who cares?

Certainly not me. I'm just trying to bring out the best of the bullshit from the liberals around here, so I can know who to laugh at after the election.

emacknight
10-25-2010, 11:51 PM
Certainly not me. I'm just trying to being out the best of the bullshit from the liberals around here, so I can know who to laugh at after the election.

Being?

Hahahaha, you made a typo, now Obama is a citizen.

Morella
10-25-2010, 11:53 PM
Yup, she did say his mother was a minor. To you answer your first question, his mother was a citizen. And to your second question, it is you that is coming across as stupid.

How do you know that she was a citizen? I haven't bothered to double-check whether or not she was a minor, but I will.

emacknight
10-25-2010, 11:55 PM
Now that we've gotten to the bottom of this one, should we figure out who really blew up the WTC? I know it'll sound far fetched, but if you think about it, Chinese robots sent from the future really makes the most sense. Who has the most to gain from the US being in a secret war with secret Muslims? China!

The Other Jeffrey Lebowski
10-26-2010, 12:00 AM
Just when I thought we were taking it up a notch from the strawman crap that I've been getting.

You've can't be serious. As far as I can tell, I am the only poster who mentioned the strawman to you, like a week ago, and you have since brought it up 2 or 3 times in pointing out how unfairly you're being treated here in this thread. In addition, my entire "attack" was asking you if you were familiar with the term, to which you responded in the affirmative.
Me think the lady doth protest too much.

emacknight
10-26-2010, 12:00 AM
How do you know that she was a citizen? I haven't bothered to double-check whether or not she was a minor, but I will.

ooooh, I get it, none of us are "citizens."

Deep.

Morella
10-26-2010, 12:04 AM
Documenting the "Barry"...

At the age of ten, Obama returned to Hawaii and lived with his maternal grandparents; later his mother and sister returned as well. Called "Barry" by his family and friends, he was sent to a prestigious private academy in Honolulu,

http://www.notablebiographies.com/news/Li-Ou/Obama-Barack.html

Of course, that's kind of silly, like finding a reference to Reagan being called "Uncle Ronnie".

God dammit, his mother was an ugly bitch.

Morella
10-26-2010, 12:07 AM
You've can't be serious. As far as I can tell, I am the only poster who mentioned the strawman to you, like a week ago, and you have since brought it up 2 or 3 times in pointing out how unfairly you're being treated here in this thread. In addition, my entire "attack" was asking you if you were familiar with the term, to which you responded in the affirmative.
Me think the lady doth protest too much.

I think it is ironic that you accused me of making strawman arguments, and then the liberals around here started making them to me. I don't, however, see anything unfair about it. A liberal doesn't have a good argument, or a brain, to use, so they use whatever they have. That's fair enough. I'm just challenging Bricker to do better, because I know that he can.

The Other Jeffrey Lebowski
10-26-2010, 12:13 AM
I never made an outright accusation, and, for you to claim so, and to refer to one simple question as "all the crap that you've been getting", is disingenuous.

DMC
10-26-2010, 12:21 AM
We can start with this:

The 14th Amendment
By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
February 1, 2005
Excellent choice of constitutional "scholar", and the quotes aren't meant to convey anything other than pure unadulterated sarcasm. By the way, were you aware that this particular "scholar" says the constitution doesn't give you a fundamental right to own private firearms, but was instead targetted solely at militia ownership? In other words, he thinks it is perfectly fine for cities and states to outlaw firearm ownership if they so desire. Still sound like your kind of guy?

Ale
10-26-2010, 12:24 AM
Whack! banned. Is it for terminal obtuseness in this thread or there was something else going on in others?

Jean-René Anafoutra
10-26-2010, 12:46 AM
Whack! banned. Is it for terminal obtuseness in this thread or there was something else going on in others?

Well, it appears to me that no one can win an argument with Morella, and so the only recourse they had was to ban her. How pathetic!

Bosstone
10-26-2010, 12:51 AM
Try harder.

DMC
10-26-2010, 12:51 AM
Well, it appears to me that no one can win an argument with Morella, and so the only recourse they had was to ban her. How pathetic!Hi Morella, welcome back! Don't get too comfortable on that couch, as you'll be leaving soon.

Kobal2
10-26-2010, 12:52 AM
Whack! banned. Is it for terminal obtuseness in this thread or there was something else going on in others?

Could have been for that bit of gratuitous French aimed at emacknight. What she said means "Go get fucked up the ass, you moron", which runs afoul of the language rules. Twice if the mods equate con with cunt (which would be correct etymologically, but not semantically).
Usually only nets you a warning though, so :confused:

Jean-René Anafoutra
10-26-2010, 12:55 AM
Could have been for that bit of gratuitous French aimed at emacknight. What she said means "Go get fucked up the ass, you moron", which runs afoul of the language rules. Twice if the mods equate con with cunt (which would be correct etymologically, but not semantically).
Usually only nets you a warning though, so :confused:

Umm...I wouldn't translate it exactly that way, but...I think that Morella's banning had more to do with her getting the best of their constitutional "expert". What is funny is that people who claim to be interested in getting at the truth are really only interested in the "truth" that jibes with the liberal agenda. Again, pathetic. :)

Snowboarder Bo
10-26-2010, 12:56 AM
Yes, because I haven't seen it, and because, as I mentioned previously, whether or not there is a birth certificate, or a birth announcement, makes no difference.


Then why did you bring it up? Or is that another one of your lies?

Robot Arm
10-26-2010, 12:56 AM
Could have been for that bit of gratuitous French aimed at emacknight. What she said means "Go get fucked up the ass, you moron", which runs afoul of the language rules. Twice if the mods equate con with cunt (which would be correct etymologically, but not semantically).
Usually only nets you a warning though, so :confused:Oh, I wanted to be the one to provoke her.

Pixiesnix
10-26-2010, 01:09 AM
Umm...I wouldn't translate it exactly that way, but...I think that Morella's banning had more to do with her getting the best of their constitutional "expert". What is funny is that people who claim to be interested in getting at the truth are really only interested in the "truth" that jibes with the liberal agenda. Again, pathetic. :)

[sniffle] She just can't quit the SDMB. It touches the heart, really. Or maybe the spleen.

mhendo
10-26-2010, 01:11 AM
Well, the trolling wasn't sufficient for a ban, but the sock-puppet apparently did the trick.

Bosstone
10-26-2010, 01:12 AM
Yeah, that pretty much clinches it as a troll. True nutbars will set up a sock but will freely admit it's them. Acting like you're someone else? That's just dicking around.

Kobal2
10-26-2010, 01:25 AM
That is the most transparent socking I've ever seen. Nice trolling skills, there. The username being a loose anagram for "I don't give a fuck" in French is a nice touch. All in all, a solid effort.

E-Sabbath
10-26-2010, 05:26 AM
They're saying there's a latent defect, so to speak, in the way all these cases have proceeded, stretching all the way back to the 19th century, which hasn't ever been an issue because no president before Obama actually ran afoul of the "appropriate" rule. But he, of course, does. Regrettably so.


Not actually true. Chester A. Arthur had a british parent, and thus, was not an American Citizen, despite being born on American Soil.
https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

At least, according to this line of reasoning.

I've got some lovely sharp cheddar from Vermont to go with that cider.

Gyrate
10-26-2010, 06:06 AM
Not actually true. Chester A. Arthur had a british parent, and thus, was not an American Citizen, despite being born on American Soil.
https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

At least, according to this line of reasoning. I know this wasn't your point, but from that site (bolding mine):Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life. That looks like a pretty clear admission that Arthur was an American citizen at birth. The fact that he was also a British citizen from birth is irrelevant. That whole argument falls down by itself.

My daughter was born in London, England. The spouse and I are both US citizens (and UK permanent residents). Although she was legally a dual citizen from birth, one of the pieces of paper the Embassy gave us when we registered the birth had some wording on it (sorry, I don't have it at hand) saying that it had not yet been legally determined whether her circumstances at birth made her a "natural-born citizen" of the US for the purposes of running for President or not*. The US State Department does not have a view and the courts apparently haven't taken one yet, so anyone claiming to know definitively is lying.

However - born in the US to a US citizen parent = natural-born citizen. I think that one's been settled, no?

*Fortunately we had the foresight to put an announcement in the Honolulu papers and bribe the Governor of Hawaii, just in case. ;)

emacknight
10-26-2010, 09:02 AM
Oh, I wanted to be the one to provoke her.

Maybe next time, until then, learn from the master.

However - born in the US to a US citizen parent = natural-born citizen. I think that one's been settled, no?

No, there are three more conditions: not a Kenyan, not a Muslim, not a liberal President.

You know what I don't get about conspiracy theories and their theorists: how is it they never realize nothing can disprove them?

To prove Obama is a citizen requires a birth certificate. But showing the birth certificate just means that it's an obvious forgery. So if you can't verify the birth certificate, you can't verify citizenship. There is nothing that can possibly prove he was born in the US to a US citizen. So then why bother? Wouldn't you realize the entire system for establishing natural-born-citizenship is unverifiable, and thus its requirement to be President is irrelevant.

If we were to apply this new system of citizenship, we could essentially trace all African Americans back to a parent that wasn't allowed to be a citizen. Hence their children can't be citizens, so their children's children aren't citizens. We're left with a few New Englanders and a couple of people from Virginia that are inbred enough to legitimately claim noble heritage.

Squink
10-26-2010, 09:13 AM
No, there are three more conditions: not a Kenyan, not a Muslim, not a liberal President.So Obama makes citizen under the "not a liberal President" clause, or do you have to hit all three?

Shot From Guns
10-26-2010, 09:16 AM
Time to head to ATMB to see if there's a thread about the banning. Somehow, I doubt it.

Mmmmmmmmmmmn, it's a beautiful morning!

Jimmy Chitwood
10-26-2010, 09:39 AM
Not actually true. Chester A. Arthur had a british parent, and thus, was not an American Citizen, despite being born on American Soil.
https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/

At least, according to this line of reasoning.

You're right. I left that part out because you have to draw the line somewhere, but to be completely precise I should have said that Obama's the first president who was known to run afoul of the rule, because Arthur supposedly lied about his father's citizenship status (as seen in the URL of your link, for instance). The fact that he felt the need to conceal that is further evidence that it was widely known to be a rule. If he hadn't lied about it, it would have been resolved right then and there and we'd never have run into all this trouble with the Kenyan.

According to that line of reasoning.

Euphonious Polemic
10-26-2010, 10:01 AM
Well, the trolling wasn't sufficient for a ban, but the sock-puppet apparently did the trick.

It was probably the blatant admission of trolling at the bottom of post #1033. The sock puppet entered the picture after the banning.

Gyrate
10-26-2010, 10:12 AM
It was probably the blatant admission of trolling at the bottom of post #1033. The sock puppet entered the picture after the banning.
In the thread about the woman who binned the cat she also wilfully ignored an instruction from Lynn Bodoni not to post descriptions of animal torture, which probably didn't help her case any.

42fish
10-26-2010, 10:30 AM
As for his mother, how in the hell do you know where she has been? Did you follow her around?


No, I was the one following Ann Dunham around back in 1961. Followed her all the way to a hospital in Beijing. As I watched from concealment, two doctors handed her an infant and said, 'You must call him Barack Hussein Obama.'

She replied, 'But I had my heart set on Cody Dylan for his first and middle names.'

'Silence, carbon-based lifeform!' came the reply. 'We have determined that Barack Hussein Obama is the name that will be most effective at hypnotizing voters of the future into voting for the one.' I was confused by what all this meant, especially the carbon-based lifeform part, but thought maybe it was some Chinese idiom that they were translating too literally.

Then, one of the doctors said, 'One more thing.... You must hang THIS over his crib' as he handed her a mobile with little windmills hanging off it. As the windmills started spinning around, a chill went down my back. (Later, I realized it was because they had turned on the air conditioning to set the mobile in motion. Still, at the time, it was dramatic.)

Then, I got a good look at the doctor's face and saw the cold, dead eyes of a robot! Unfortunately, he saw me at the same time and yelled out, 'Intruder! Seize him!' I managed to elude the robots through a series of dramatic escapades that I shan't detail until I learn who will play me in the inevitable movie. (I'm hoping for Matt Damon, but realize that anyone ranking higher than, say, Drew Carey on the attractiveness scale is going to qualify as an improvement over reality.)

I returned to the States, only to discover that no one believed my story. No one, until I met up with a shadowy figure that put me in touch with emacknight's anti-Chinese-robots-from-the-future underground. There I learned the true meaning of what I had seen. I also learned that the underground, in order to document the so-called 'birth' of Barack Hussein Obama, had made sure that part of Ann Dunham's passport could never be altered. Unfortunately, the operative in charge of this mission had been killed by the Chinese robots before finishing his job. The only part that was fixed in place was the final 'a' of 'China.' The robots, scouting around for a five-letter country ending with 'a,' changed the rest of the passport so it would look like she had been to 'Kenya' instead.

Now that you know the TRUTH, contact emacknight to learn what to do. In 2011, Barack Obama will attempt to subdivide eight secure blue states in order to produce eight more Democratic senators and ensure his victory in the Electoral College in the following year. (This is why he made that 58 states slip of the toungue: a glitch in his coding.) His announcement will be the signal for the underground to go into action. More I cannot say in a public forum.

In the meantime, check all your electronic devices and appliances. If any say 'Made in China,' they are spies for the future-bots and must be destroyed. I recommend using a sledgehammer (but not one made in China, of course). I have done this to all my made-in-China appliances. Well, except my waffle iron. Hey, I love waffles and, besides, what can it possibly do? Hey, why is the waffle iron light on? I'm not using it. Hold on a minute....

HELP! OUCH! Get it off me! Help! Fuc..mmph...mmph. GAACK.

kaylasdad99
10-26-2010, 10:46 AM
Maybe he was dictating it...

Shot From Guns
10-26-2010, 12:37 PM
Did he remember to check where the dictation device was made?!

E-Sabbath
10-26-2010, 12:55 PM
I know this wasn't your point, but from that site (bolding mine): That looks like a pretty clear admission that Arthur was an American citizen at birth. The fact that he was also a British citizen from birth is irrelevant. That whole argument falls down by itself.



My point exactly.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 01:18 PM
Impeach him! He's what? Oh. Well, dig his ass up, and impeach him!

Kobal2
10-26-2010, 01:31 PM
You know what I don't get about conspiracy theories and their theorists: how is it they never realize nothing can disprove them?

To prove Obama is a citizen requires a birth certificate. But showing the birth certificate just means that it's an obvious forgery. So if you can't verify the birth certificate, you can't verify citizenship. There is nothing that can possibly prove he was born in the US to a US citizen.

Of course there is. Real Americans can tell other Real Americans by sight. *suspicious* Can't you ?

Snowboarder Bo
10-26-2010, 03:07 PM
Then, one of the doctors said, 'One more thing.... You must hang THIS over his crib' as he handed her a mobile with little windmills hanging off it. As the windmills started spinning around, a chill went down my back. (Later, I realized it was because they had turned on the air conditioning to set the mobile in motion. Still, at the time, it was dramatic.)

:D:p:D

emacknight
10-26-2010, 03:18 PM
Now that you know the TRUTH, contact emacknight to learn what to do.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm against this plan...

The US is Canada's largest trading partner. Every dollar that goes to Chinese windmills is a $1.50* lost to Canada. Or, well, it would be if we made windmills.

*I assume they exchange rate is still shit.

Euphonious Polemic
10-26-2010, 03:32 PM
*I assume they exchange rate is still shit.

How long have you been gone?

Currently at 1.025, (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/markets/indexes/summary/?q=cad/usd-i) and has been at par not so long ago.

emacknight
10-26-2010, 03:51 PM
How long have you been gone?

Currently at 1.025, (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/markets/indexes/summary/?q=cad/usd-i) and has been at par not so long ago.

Excellent, our plan is moving along nicely. Now tell me, have there been any shake ups in the PMO? Any top officials getting fired unexpectedly???

Shot From Guns
10-26-2010, 03:57 PM
Any top officials getting fired unexpectedly???

From cannons? Robocannons? Operated by robots?