Posted on 07/22/2024 9:33:51 AM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Jul. 22, 2024) — Trump will have the legal standing in federal courts to do so if she is nominated for that office by the DNC. And Trump should do so to force SCOTUS to take up the issue of the “natural born Citizen” term as it applies to whom can constitutionally serve as the President and Commander in Chief (and VP per the 12th Amendment) and resolve it. The courts evaded the issue using “lack of standing by the plaintiffs” for Obama and then also for Harris for VP. They should not do that again. Former Chief Justice Marshall‘s words from the past tell them they should not evade the issue.
To Kamala Harris: Fool the voting electorate once, shame on you. Fool the voting electorate twice, shame on us. She owes allegiance since birth to the English monarch – formerly Queen Elizabeth and now King Charles! Click on the image below for more details.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
You said, “I bet few people on this forum or any other can match the length and depth of my reading on this particular subject.”
Unfortunately, your understanding of this particular subject is inversely proportional to your amount of reading. . .
“who were not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are, in the very words of the Constitution, natural born citizens”
Both of her parents were here on student visas and were still subject to the sovereignty of India and Jamaica. She is not a Natural Born citizen.
I think she might have had to have elected Indian Citizenship by her 21st birthday for this to be true. She can still apply for Jamaican citizen ship under the Jamaican Constitution because her father was a Citizen. Jamaica is no longer a commonwealth country.
John Bingham, framer of Amendment XIV that made Obama, Harris and Haley US citizens
John Bingham had nothing whatsoever to do with drafting or introducing the citizenship clause, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment did not change prior citizenship law but placed the existing law beyond the power of Congress to change. President Barack Obama, Vice President Kamala Harris, Nimrata Haley, Marco Rubio, Charles Evans Hughes, Bobby Jindal, and Vivek Ramaswamy — all natural born citizens, as was Vice-President and President Chester Arthur, born of a foreign father in 1829.
The 14A draft of Bingham had no citizenship clause. Here is Senator Jacob Howard introducing the Citizenship Clause in the Senate:
Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 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 PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]
Mr. HOWARD. 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 so 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.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan will be read.
The Secretary read the amendment, which was in line nine, after the words "section one," to insert:
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.So that the section will read :
Sec. 1. 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 resideNo State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I presume the honorable Senator from Michigan does not intend by this amendment to include the Indians. I move, therefore, to amend the amendment — I presume he will have no objection to it — by inserting after the word "thereof" the words "excluding Indians not taxed." The amendment would then read:
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.Mr. HOWARD. I hope that amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.
Mr. COWAN. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of "citizenship of the United States." What does it mean? What is its length and breadth? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.
It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be an elector. An elector is one who is chosen by the people to perform that function, just the same as an officer is one chosen by the people to exercise the franchises of an office. Now, I should like to know, because really I have been puzzled for a long while and have been unable to determine exactly, either from conversation with those who ought to know, who have given this subject their attention, or from the decisions of the Supreme Court, the lines and boundaries which circumscribe that phrase, "citizen of the United States." What is it?
So far as the courts and the administration of the laws are concerned, I have supposed that every human being within their jurisdiction was in one sense of the word a citizen, that is, a person entitled to protection; but in so far as the right to hold property, particularly the right to acquire title to real estate, was concerned, that was a subject entirely within the control of the States. It has been so considered in the State of Pennsylvania; and aliens and others who acknowledge no allegiance, either to the State or to the General Government, may be limited and circumscribed in that particular. I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it wore overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of Cal-
- - - - -
ifornia are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have the free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask, are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point.
As I understand the rights of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the United States. She cannot forbid his entrance; but unquestionably, if she was likely to be invaded by a flood of Australians or people from Borneo, man-eaters or cannibals if you please, she would have the right to say that those people should not come there. It depends upon the inherent character of the men. Why, sir, there are nations of people with whom theft is a virtue and falsehood a merit. There are people to whom polygamy is as natural as monogamy is with us. It is utterly impossible that these people can meet together and enjoy their several rights and privileges which they suppose to be natural in the same society; and it is necessary, a part of the nature of things, that society shall be more or less exclusive. It is utterly and totally impossible to mingle all the various families of men, from the lowest form of the Hottentot up to the highest Caucasian, in the same society.
It must be evident to every man intrusted with the power and duty of legislation, and qualified to exercise it in a wise and temperate manner, that these things cannot be; and in my judgment there should be some limitation, some definition to this term "citizen of the United States." What is it? Is it simply to put a man in a condition that he may be an elector in one of the States? Is it to put him in a condition to have the right to enter the United States courts and sue? Or is it only that he is entitled as a sojourner to the protection of the laws while he is within and under the jurisdiction of the courts? Or is it to set him upon some pedestal, some position, to put him out of the reach of State legislation and State power?
Sir, I trust I am as liberal as anybody toward the rights of all people, but I am unwilling, on the part of my State, to give up the right that she claims, and that she may exercise, and exercise before very long, of expelling a certain number of people who invade her borders; who owe to her no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own — an imperium in imperio; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him, but, on the other hand, have no homes, pretend to own no land, live nowhere, settle as trespassers where ever they go, and whose sole merit is a universal swindle; who delight in it, who boast of it, and whose adroitness and cunning is of such a transcendent character that no skill can serve to correct it or punish it; I mean the Gypsies. They wander in gangs in my State. They follow no ostensible pursuit for a livelihood. They trade horses, tell fortunes, and things disappear mysteriously. Where they came from nobody knows. Their very origin is lost in mystery. No man today can tell from whence the Zingara come or whither they go, but it is understood that they are a distinct people. They never intermingle with any other. They never intermarry with any other. I believe there is no instance on record where a Zingara woman has mated with a man of any other race, although it is true that sometimes the males of that race may mate with the females of others; but I think there is no case in history where it can be found that a woman of that race, so exclusive are they, and so strong are their sectional antipathies, has been known to mate with a man of another race. These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society. They impose upon the simple and the weak everywhere. Are those people, by a constitutional amendment, to be put out of the reach of the State in which they live? I mean as a class. If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right, then they will have it: and I think it will be mischievous. I think the honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not know that anybody would agree to that. It is true that our race are not subjected to dangers from that quarter, because we are the strongest, perhaps; but there is a race in contact with this country which, in all characteristics except that of simply making fierce war, is not only our equal, but perhaps our superior. I mean the yellow race; the Mongol race. They outnumber us largely. Of their industry, their skill, and their pertinacity in all worldly affairs, nobody can doubt. They are our neighbors. Recent improvement, the age of fire, has brought their coasts almost in immediate contact with our own. Distance is almost annihilated. They may pour in their millions upon our Pacific coast in a very short time. Are the States to lose control over this immigration? Is the United States to determine that they are to be citizens? I wish to be understood that I consider those people to have rights just the same as we have, but not rights in connection with our Government. If I desire the exercise of my rights I ought to go to my own people, the people of my own blood and lineage, people of the same religion, people of the same beliefs and traditions, and not thrust myself in upon a society of other men entirely different in all those respects from myself. I would not claim that right. Therefore I think, before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less dangerous and much less pestiferous to society than I look upon Gypsies. I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow-citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit.
Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, I have failed to learn, from what the Senator has said, what relation what he has said has to the first section of the constitutional amendment before us; but that part of the question I propose leaving to the honorable gentleman who has charge of this resolution. As, however, the State of California has been so carefully guarded from time to time by the Senator from Pennsylvania and others, and the passage, not only of this amendment, but of the so-called civil rights bill, has been deprecated because of its pernicious influence upon society in California, owing to the contiguity of the Chinese and Mongolians to that favored land, I may be excused for saying a few words on the subject.
If my friend from Pennsylvania, who professes to know all about Gypsies and little about Chinese, knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypies, (and which I concede to him, for I know nothing to the contrary,) he would not be alarmed in our behalf because of the operation of the proposition before the Senate, or even the proposition contained in the civil rights bill, so far as it involves the Chinese and us.
The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.
Now, I will say, for the benefit of my friend, that he may know something about the Chinese in future, that this portion of our population, namely, the children of Mongolian parentage, born in California, is very small indeed, and never promises to be large, notwithstanding our near neighborhood to the Celestial land. The habits of those people, and their religion, appear to demand that they all return to their own country at some time or other, either alive or dead. There are, perhaps, in California today about forty thousand Chinese — from forty to forty-five thousand. Those persons return invariably, while others take their places, and, as I before observed, if they do not return alive their bones are carefully gathered up and sent back to the Flowery Land. It is not an unusual circumstance that the clipper ships trading between San Francisco and China carry at a time three or four hundred human remains of these Chinese. When interred in our State they are not interred deep in the earth, but laid very near the surface, and then mounds of earth are laid over them, so that the process of disinterment is very easy. That is their habit and custom; and as soon as they are fit for transmission to their own country they are taken up with great regularity and sent there. None of their bones are allowed to remain. They will return, then, either living or dead.
Another feature connected with them is, that they do not bring their females to our country but in very limited numbers, and rarely ever in connection with families; so that their progeny in California is very small indeed. From the description we have had from the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania of the Gypsies, the progeny of all Mongolians in California is not so formidable in numbers as that of the Gypsies in Pennsylvania. We are not troubled with them at all. Indeed, it is only in exceptional cases that they have children in our State: and therefore the alarming aspect of the application of this provision to California, or any other land to which the Chinese may come as immigrants, is simply a fiction in the brain of persons who deprecate it, and that alone.
I wish now to address a few words to what the Senator from Pennsylvania has said as to the rights that California may claim as against the incursion of objectionable population from other States and countries. The State of California at various times has passed laws restrictive of Chinese immigration. It will be remembered that the Chinese came to our State, as others did from all parts of the world, to gather gold in large quantities, it being found there. The interference with our own people in the mines by them was deprecated by and generally objectionable to the miners in California. The Chinese are re-
- - - - -
garded, also, not with favor as an addition to the population in a social point of view; not that there is any intercourse between the two classes of persons there, but they are not regarded as pleasant neighbors; their habits are not of a character that make them at all an inviting class to have near you, and the people so generally regard them. But in their habits otherwise, they are a docile, industrious people, and they are now passing from mining into other branches of industry and labor. They are found employed as servants in a great many families and in the kitchens of hotels; they are found as farm hands in the fields; and latterly they are employed by thousands — indeed, I suppose there are from six to seven thousand of them now employed in building the Pacific railroad. They are there found to be very valuable laborers, patient and effective; and, I suppose, before the present year closes, ten or fifteen thousand of them, at least, will be employed on that great work.
The State of California has undertaken, at different times, to pass restrictive statutes as to the Chinese. The State has imposed a tax on their right to work the mines, and collected it ever since the State has been organized — a tax of four dollars a month on each Chinaman; but the Chinese could afford to pay that and still work in the mines, and they have done so. Various acts have been passed imposing a poll tax or head tax, a capitation tax, upon their arrival at the port of San Francisco; but all such laws, when tested before the supreme court of the State of California, the supreme tribunal of that people, have been decided to be unconstitutional and void.
Mr. HOWARD. A very just and constitutional decision, undoubtedly.
Here is the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting that part of the Constitution:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63 (1898)
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
“I do not stand here to cavil with men who are not read in the horn-books of the law; but I assert that every man born within the limits of the Republic, or under its flag at sea, of parents who were not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are, in the very words of the Constitution, natural born citizens”from the Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862)
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=058/llcg058.db&recNum=64 [dead link]
Obviously, this carefully crafted quote of Bingham was from years before the 14th Amendment citizenship clause was introduced by Sen. Jacob Howard. I here provide a fuller quote to place it in context, emphasizing the quote above in blue font.
Mr. BINGHAM. I confined my proposition exclusively to slaves held by rebels, the aiders and abettors.Mr. WRIGHT. I know that the gentleman in his printed remarks—
Mr. BINGHAM. No sir; in my spoken remarks.
Mr. WRIGHT. I will do the gentleman no harm or injustice.
Mr. BINGHAM. Well.
Mr. WRIGHT. I know that the gentleman in his printed remarks—for I have read them carefully—has it reported in that way, and I have no doubt that his speech was reported as it was uttered; but I understood the gentleman in listening to him—and it excited me at the time—to say that he was in favor of the unconditional emancipation of all the slaves in the United States.
Mr. BINGHAM. If the gentleman will allow me, I will say that I did not touch upon that subject at all; but I have no hesitation in saying for myself that, whenever my own judgment satisfies me that it is essential to the common defense to shiver every fetter that binds any man within the limits of the Republic, the power is in this House and ought to be exercised.
Mr. WRIGHT. But the gentleman from Ohio must not blow his own brains out for the purpose of eliminating and carrying out an idea.
Mr. BINGHAM. Oh, no; there is no trouble about my brains.
Mr. WRIGHT. I have the gentleman's reported speech, and I find that he did make use of this language:
"Pass your law, proclaim it at the head of your Army, excuse it summarily by allowing these unwilling supporters of the rebellion to escape from their masters through your lines and receive your protection in return for their loyalty; and these children of oppression will make such an exodus from the house of their bondage as the world has not seen since that exodus of God's people which the dark-eyed daughters of Israel celebrated in that sublime song:
"'The Lord hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.'"Let me say to the gentleman that I fear that the music which should go at the head of that exodus had better be the requiem in the "Dead M arch of Saul" than that song which the dark-eyed daughters of Israel sang on the banks of the Red Sea. Where would you march that arm of four millions of slaves? Would you march them to Ohio, or to the State of Pennsylvania, or to the State of New York? No sir; the gentleman of Ohio would be as much opposed to that as any man, perhaps, on this floor who has a due regard for his State sovereignty. What would he do with them? Would he drive them into the sea? Would he let them perish from want and starvation?
Mr. BINGHAM. Will the gentleman me to ask him a question.
Mr. WRIGHT. Certainly,
Mr. BINGHAM. Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? These is not a test-book referred to in any court which does not recognize the principle I assert. I do not stand here to cavil with men who are not read in the horn-books of the law; but I assert that every man born within the limits of the Republic, or under its flag at sea, of parents who were not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are, in the very words of the Constitution, natural born citizens; and I want to know whence comes the power which the gentleman speaks of, to drive them from the land of their nativity, I care not what their color?
Mr. WRIGHT. Let the gentleman keep cool, and I will answer his proposition. He refers me to a clause in the Constitution. For his edification, I will read it:
"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States."
It is the "citizens of each State" who are entitled to these privileges and immunities.
Mr. BINGHAM. Pray, sir, who are the citizens of the States?
Mr. WRIGHT. I will tell the gentleman who are citizens. Each State, not having yielded the power of declaring citizenship in the Constitution of the United States, reserved it to herself; and Pennsylvania has not only decided through her courts, but has adopted it as a cardinal principle in her constitution, that black men are not citizens.
I brought this up yesterday and a freeper basically said “she’s eligible” and “the courts won’t touch it”.
This legal idiocy helped win votes for Obama. The courts touched it, washed their hands, and disposed of it. Hundreds of times.
BIRTHER SCORECARD (last updated 2015)
https://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/birther%20case%20list.pdf
Original decisions, total cases: 226
Birther wins: 0
Total appellate court rulings: 120+
Birther wins: 0
Total supreme court rulings: 35
Birther wins: 0
Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009) aff’d, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 663 (2010).
Kerchner v. Obama, No. 85 MD 2012 (Pa. Commw. Ct., Mar. 2, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on 2012 ballot)
Being an anchor baby doesn't make one a Natural Born Citizen.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 658-59:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 649, 662-63 (1898)
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said: "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."
I didn't do any name calling. You need to address your complaint to "Penelope Dreadful".
Parties? State officials? Voters? Electors? Congress? The Chief Justice?
Well what we have learned from past experience is *NOBODY* is in charge of enforcing the "Natural Born Citizen" clause.
Nobody. Not the courts, not congress, not State secretaries of state, not legislatures.
Nobody.
The way it should work is *EVERYBODY* in any position of authority should be responsible for ensuring constitutional compliance, but that is clearly not what we have now.
Kamala Harris was born into the allegiance of Jamaica and India.
I just want to see her husband get a promotion. Second Gentleman is so lame.
Just stop. She was born in Oakland, CA. She is a natural born citizen. Birther legal fantasies are not going to change anything.
Firstly, I didn't say it "proves" Obama was born in Canada. It just demonstrates it to be probable that he was born in Canada.
Secondly, what does "proof" have to do with changing anyone's mind who is not receptive to having their mind changed? Do you see all the fake proof that Alvin Bragg used to "convict" Trump?
Seriously, I argue with a lot of people, and one thing I have learned is that it is very difficult to get people to change their minds, no matter how much proof you present to them. Most people are not objective or open minded and will simply reject evidence they don't like.
Our courts do it all the time. Remember all the election fraud evidence in Arizona? Court didn't care. Just ignored it.
I should have added his name too.. it wasn’t meant to be directed to you.. apologies
Exactly. People want to believe what they want to believe, and they want to reject anything which contradicts what they want to believe.
The Democrats believe the 2020 election was fair, and will refuse to look at any evidence that it was not. Republicans who have bothered to look at the evidence are convinced it was corrupt and rigged, but they don't control the media, so nothing happens.
You only regurgitated the common opinion of people in your vocation, and most of them have never bothered to look at evidence to the contrary. And you don't either.
It's not just on this subject. Lawyers are all about "precedent" and they will mindlessly follow it like robots until the next "precedent" overturns the one they previously believed.
They regard the supreme court like they would the Pope speaking "Ex Cathedra" and simply refuse to consider the possibility that the Highest court may have erred in their judgement or understanding.
And this is how we get Plessy v Ferguson.
If we were having an argument about that decision prior to 1954, you would be assuring me that "Separate but Equal" is correct, and I'm a moron for just not believing what all the "expert" lawyers tell me.
Didn't even need to read it to realize you had arrived.
:)
Her. "Penelope Dreadful" is a "her."
But no problem. :)
All I noticed was “dreadful” ;)
That's my impression too. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.