Well, they both have wings.
Posted on 12/31/2008 4:33:55 PM PST by dascallie
On Friday, I guess we will see what the contents reveal ( the word is, it is stated within the language of the decree that the couple "have" one son of the union (Obama Jr), born in KENYA.)
If true, this will be a blockbuster revelation, recored on a legal document.
We will see.
-------------------------------------------------------------
IP: 98.206.74.240
Dec 31st, 2008 - 4:27 PM Re: URGENT: PLEASE BROADCAST THIS EVERYWHERE
Ed Hale has announced that the Divorce Decree of ObamaSr and Dunham will be posted on Friday, January 2nd. Tonight at 7:45 pm cst Ed will be on with Bobby and Mark to discuss more details.
Good! I hope it's real. We shall see.
oh and for bonxboy, don't get too worried, there's always the chance it's not true. Say a prayer.
Just waiting for the bamanaughts to show up here in force.
i think they have arrived.
You are NOT going to be allowed back into the class until you do your homework!
I am guessing that you have not found a definition of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, Case Law of Legislation.
Well, that is odd, since Fed Ex does not have one single 747 in its current fleet!
LOL!
You ALREADY know that a definition of “natural-born citizen is not to be found in any of those places.
First, the Constitution USES the phrase, as it does many others, in the expectation that the reader will know what is meant. And readers did know what was meant at the time. It is only with the passage of a couple centuries, linguistic drift, and the unfortunate lowering of standards of education that the meaning haas become if not uncertain, then certainly not understood by the average joe.
Then, I note that statue law cannot be used as a vehicle to define Constitutional terms. So that comment must be dismissed as a red herring.
That leaves case law. Nope, there too, the term has not been definitively clarified. Why? Because at no previous time in our history have we had a Presidential usurper, and therefore there was no opportunity for case law to be developed. There is useful dicta in US v. Kim Wong Ark, but is is not controlling. Hopefully, before the end of January 2009, there will be some case law directly on point.
Keep in mind that this qualification is required for only ONE position in all our Land: the Presidency, and it was important enough to be enshrined in the Constitution, and it was, until now, self-policed by gentlemen. It’s not surprising that the qualification while unique, would not have been tested in Court until the age of civility and gentlemanly conduct had ended.
Typical. Focus on the least relevant detail in the entire account. Forget LEAST relevant, it is totally non-relevant.
Why is it that they did not clarify natural born citizen as such in the 14th Amendment?
It wasn’t the subject of the Amendment. Mere citizenship was.
The drafters of the 14th were not trying to re-write the well-understood qualifications for the Presidency. They were trying to ensure citizenship for the descendants of slaves without granting it to indians.
If it was not relevant, why did the writer elect to include a piece of information that can so easily be proven to be false?
Air Fleet
672 aircraft, including:
68 Airbus A300-600s
66 Airbus A310-200/300s
13 ATR 72s
27 ATR 42s
85 Boeing 727-200s
4 Boeing DC10-10s
10 Boeing DC10-30s
58 Boeing MD10-10s
10 Boeing MD10-30s
58 Boeing MD11s
10 Cessna 208As
242 Cessna 208Bs
4 Fokker F-27s
16 Boeing 757-200s
Not a Single Boeing 747 in the FedEX fleet, yet the writer claims that an aircraft that does not exist needed a new part.
http://about.fedex.designcdt.com/our_company/company_information/fedex_express
And what other rights have the SCOTUS seen in the 14th Amendment?
Take a look at Plyler and how the Court granted Constitutional protections to illegal aliens under the Equal Protection Clause.
I can think of several scenarios where this kind of misinformation makes it into print. He might have been told that the plane was a 747 by someone who couldn’t tell a 747 from a Cessna 172. He might have THOUGHT he heard someone say 747. Who knows? Who cares?
Maybe the poster could tell you why he specifically mentioned a 747. I don’t give a R’s A what kind of plane it is as long as it delivers the goods.
You don’t have to convince me that the 14th was badly drafted. This is the amendment that is credited with the legitimization of “anchor babies” when that was precisely the sort of result the Amendment was intended to PREVENT!
When your drafting is ambiguous enough to be turned around by a court in the face of the legislative history and made to mean the exact opposite of what the drafters had intended that’s, at least in part, bad drafting.
WE know that there is at least on piece of false information in the account and that should lead the reader to question all the information.
I do not disagree with you on your analysis of the 14th and it is that understanding of the 14th and how it has been interpreted that should help you realize that there is no way the present Court is going to did up writing from the 18th century to try to determine the definition of a natural born citizen.
Not-to-mention, FedEx has at least 10 757s. Easy to mistake for a 747.
Boeing doesn’t label the aircraft as “747” or “757” on the outside. At least not in large enough letters to see that, even at close proxemity.
On another thread about this tonight someone had copied info from a Fedex site explaining that sometimes Fedex uses other airlines’ planes.
You can look for it if you like, or not, as the case may be.
Well, they both have wings.
Scalia recently used that 18th century book as a reference for something he was talking about - I think at a speech he gave. More knowledgeable freepers wrote about it.
Why do you want 0bama to be president and care nothing about his lack of eligibility so much? Do you like him or something?
Exactly, I was going by size of the aircraft.
Unless you know to look for a “hub” on the plane to differentiate them, I doubt you’d know otherwise.
They are basically the same size otherwise, you’d have to certainly agree to that.
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.