Posted on 02/19/2012 3:57:01 AM PST by Chance Hart
I don’t need them to tell me what to think, either.
However, they are very smart people, and have conservativism and the constitution as their grounding.
My goodness...Levin is a constitutional scholar! You don’t think he’s worth listening to?
You must be one highly intelligent, well read, extremely educated person to know as much as you do, and not need anyone else to help you along the road to education.
I bow before your such a smart self.
You say embarrassed...I say arrogance.
Tomato...tomahto...
Meh
I would suggest you rid yourself of that tendency to bow before mere mortal men.
I am fully aware that both have publicly dismissed the issue. What you cannot seem to comprehend is the fact that their arguments go straight to the heart of the issue.
The fact that both of them agree that the children of Illegal Aliens cannot be citizens because they are "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that anyone in this circumstance also cannot regard the 14th amendment as the source of citizenship for themselves.
The fact that their arguments contradict their opinion of the birther issue is an irony which has yet to be realized by either.
I have also recently discovered two more Scholars who agree with my side.
The Expatriation Act of 1868 led President Ulysses S. Grant to write, in 1873, that the United States had "led the way in the overthrow of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance".Dr. Edward J. Erler of California State University, San Bernardino, and Dr. Brook Thomas of the University of California, Irvine, have argued that this Act was an explicit rejection of birth-right citizenship as the ground for American citizenship, basing that argument on the debate that surrounded the passage of this act.
“I would suggest you rid yourself of that tendency to bow before mere mortal men.”
Bowing before you?
I’m over it.
obumpa
I fully admit my cynicism sometimes gets the best of me and thus I can’t resist adding my 2 cents to this long thread.
Is it possible that broad oversight is provided by the “Powers that Be”, and that they oversee the process and hold rank above the Parties and politics? Are Parties and politics there to make us believe we the people have some control?
Does the PTB determine Presidential candidates, and in the end Presidents, and determine those items that may not be discussed in the media because it may create overriding problems or threaten their system? To question or threaten Obama’s qualifications is an affront to the PTB. The signals are sent very subtly and the “wise” ones understand and heed them. The Judge Napolitano touched on it on Fox Business News in a 5 minute rant as he sacrificed his job.
Do you think the Democrats actually picked newbie candidate Obama? Was it decided that it was the Democrats turn to win? Who picked Obamas weak opponent and kept out the strong candidates? There was a time that the Tea Party was a concern, and so they were reigned in by using the racist canard. The PTB wants movements affiliated to one or the other political fold, just as with OWS? Two Parties and subservient organizations are easier to control than headless movements or 4 or 6 parties.
Could Breitbart have crossed a red line with his investigations on Obama? There are more than a couple serious rants out there about the “interests” controlling the system, and one (Carlin - American Dream from the “left”) also died thereafter.
But this hypothesizing makes absolutely no sense at all. Of course we the people control the system and the PTB. It is the will of the people who pull all the strings of power and politics just as our founders intended. Right?
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.