Bruce - But after thinking about it...I do think...I still don’t think...
Daisy - Glad to see you are thinking! :)
Bruce - Wow. You suspect I’m a “cultural marxist” because my legal interpretation of the 14th Amendment is different from yours...
Daisy - I didn’t say I suspect, I said clarify yourself...now you have. Good.
Bruce - despite everything I’ve said about Obama here and in other threads?
Daisy - Sorry, I haven’t been avidly following all your comments on all the threads. Only context I have of you is this thread. You have made negative inferences on this thread about Obama, yes -while at the same time!- calling those who question the birth certificate BIRTHERS. Seems like if you wanted people on this thread to respect your ideas you’d use non-descriptive terms for them. Just sayin’.
Bruce - You know, it is people who share your activist view of Constitutional law...
Daisy - My activist view? I wish you actually knew me. You’d get a real kick out of that statement. I have not claimed to be a lawyer, to know law, to be well acquainted with a lawyer, or to have read law books...I have read pros and cons on this subject since it’s first discovery, and have over time come to believe what I believe. The only activism I am interested in is preserving this republic to whatever extent I may be able to help, admittedly limited.
Bruce - You’re just not well-read enough to know it.
Daisy - :) You’re on to me! No, I am not well-read on legal matters or how to debate legal matters. Congratulations! You win! So I guess then you know, being the incredibly well educated person that you are, that there is a big difference between a “not well-read” person and a person “willing to twist the plain meaning of the Constitution to suit their own political ideology.”
I didn’t realize that caring about this country and not wanting it to be subverted by the likes of those who would seek to give Obama an out by “plainly interpreting” the constitution without taking into consideration the context in which the “plain interpretation” appears (ie. historical context and understanding that persons of the time surrounding the text in question had of it) were political ideologues.
My grandmother always said, “there’s more than one way to skin a cat!” This -common- phrase may be too colloquial for you, but I am SURE by your posts on this thread you know how to practice its meaning.
Bruce - Have a...day.
Daisy - You wish me one added day to my life? How generous of you! Thank you! I’ll go one better, Mr. Bruce! Have a GREAT day!
The funny thing is that I've gotten into pretty heated arguments with some lefties on that issue in other forums. The case for Obama being a Marxist might be even stronger than you think.
Obama went to Harvard Law School in the 80's. During that time, the trendy, almost dominant school of legal on that campus was "Critical Legal Studies". I learned about it in law school myself, read about it, have friends who were there then, etc. Anyway, it is a core marxist theory of law.
There is no way you could have been at Harvard during that period and not been familiar with the "Crits". Given the predominant sentiment there at that time, and given what I know from folks who were there then, Obama was pretty tight with those folks. And, he managed to get elected President of the law review, which was not going to happen there at that time if you were opposed by the Crits. Before I even knew about Wright and Ayers, I had Senator Obama tagged as Crit, or at least a crit sympathizer. And if you look at everything he's done his whole life, from his books, to his political career, to various statements he's made, to all his radical associates, I think it is impossible for a reasonable person not to conclude that he is either a Marxist, or is strongly sympathetic to Marxist ideas.
You have made negative inferences on this thread about Obama, yes -while at the same time!- calling those who question the birth certificate BIRTHERS. Seems like if you wanted people on this thread to respect your ideas you’d use non-descriptive terms for them. Just sayin’.
Fair point. I was using that as a shorthand for a point of view, and didn't mean it to be offensive.
You’re on to me! No, I am not well-read on legal matters or how to debate legal matters. Congratulations! You win! So I guess then you know, being the incredibly well educated person that you are, that there is a big difference between a “not well-read” person and a person “willing to twist the plain meaning of the Constitution to suit their own political ideology.”
Well, my apologies then. I just have a difficult time understanding why people who admittedly don't know the law that well make dogmatic legal assertions. "Activists" are folks who are results-oriented. They look at a case, figure out what they want to have happen, and then come up with a theory to support it. That's what happened with the horrible commerce clause decision of Wickard v. Filburn, and Roe v. Wade. I think that's what a lot of folks here are doing. The problem is that twisting the law to suit ends, even if you believe those ends to be noble, is that it eliminates the protections to Constitution is supposed to provide us.
By the way, Bobby Jindal is popular among a lot of conservatives. I love the guy. But under the laws of India, because he was born of an Indian father after 1950, India considers him an Indian citizen, and under the arguments advanced here, he's not eligible to be President either.
I hate Obama. I crossed party lines and voted for Hillary in the primary because I wanted to be able to vote against this marxist twit twice. Ronald Reagan was my Commander in Cheif, and this guy has the exact opposite view of the U.S that I do.
But that still doesn't mean I'm willing to make a crappy legal argument just because I would like the result. As a lawyer -- and one that has represented individual rights and other conservative organizations for free in court -- a bad legal argument leaves a rotten taste in my mouth even if I like the result. Of course, in those pro bono cases, I've had both the law and the moral right on my side, which is always fun.
And again, apologies for rudeness. You have a great day too.