Posted on 01/07/2009 12:49:42 PM PST by ml/nj
We disagree. What is the check and balance against the masses voting in people who will cut them checks from those who still have money? The Supreme Court?
Our current government is a mix between a democracy wherein all the representatives and the president are voted into power by the masses and a Supreme Court aristocracy.
My FRiend we are in the last days of this Republic. The people have discovered that through the power of the voting booth they can elect people who will vote them money from the treasury even if that money does not exist. The masses have spoken and they have elected Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama in the hopes that they will vote them all goodies from the treasury.
Welcome to democracy.
For those of us interested in continuing a practical investigation into these issues, I found a case that might be useful to look over: Weedin vs. Chin Bow
http://supreme.justia.com/us/274/657/case.html
Syllabus/summary here: http://supreme.justia.com/us/274/657/index.html
Ah thinks ah am a memmber of "the great unwashed" becauze ah don't haz me a OED.
Ah was wondrin, if ah had me a OED, wud that make me souperrior likes you? If ah wuz to dizcovr the orrigins of Engrish wurds, cud ah gets me a guvmint job, or mabe be on the Soopreem Cort?
Ah am sory to bothr you, but ah needs me a job, and a bath. An I wood liik to be souperrior likes you.
ML/NJ
“You claim that there is randomness in the entries of the OED and you claim that you know what it tries to do”
You have this lingering problem with my use of the term random. I understand that the editors of the OED do not choose to quote willy-nilly. But you also must understand that they cannot cover every connotation of every historical usage of every term. The various excerpts may or may not pertain to the specific definition that the Framers used. That’s one of the reasons why there’s more than one excerpt cited, because while all of them fit the overarching definition offered at the beginning of each entry, not all historical usages of the term mean exactly the same thing.
Such is why I feel comfortable referring to the excerpts largely as random as regards our purposes. Most of them seem to pertain to British law, which as we all know in myriad ways differs from U.S. law. Only one of the excerpts is contemporary to the founding generation, that being from Blackstone. We all know that the Founders were familiar with Blackstone, but this particular usage isn’t very useful, as it doesn’t adress the “right of the father”/”right of the soil” argument.
None of them clearly establish any NECESSARY connection between the “right of the father” definition and the definition as used in U.S. law. If the connection is really as clear in the text as it is to your mind, I wonder why the “right of the father” was not included in the overarching definition itself.
Morovever, different excerpts contradict eachother. The 1876 excerpt clearly upholds a “right of the soil” definition of citizenship. How am I supposed to know whether the framers preferred that definition? The OED gives me no answer.
“Am I missing something or didn’t you just say the exact same thing in different words?”
The same thing as MHGinTN, to whom I adressed my comments, said? Absolutely not. His position was that the grandfather clause itself was evidence that the Framers believed in a “right of the father” definition of natural-born citizenship. My point was that the grandfather clause was necessary simply because there was no such thing as the United States when the Founders were born.
The sentence you chose to highlight was intended by me to say that the fact that the Founders’ fathers were British subjects and the fact that the Founders themselves were born British subjects had less to do with the necessity of the grandfather clause than the fact that had they not inserted the clause, no one on earth would have been eligible to be president. And you have to have a president.
“What is the check and balance against the masses voting in people who will cut them checks from those who still have money?”
Voting in people to cut you checks is not the definition of democracy. Notice how you included the phrase “voting in people,” which indicates that we are still a representative democracy, which is what we have always been. All we’ve done is take away one layer of representation.
“They do this by providing usage examples for the first time a word was used with a particular meaning.”
They TRY to do this, but obviously do not succeed in every instance, given that, as you say, they update themselves all the time. Nothing in the laws of nature nor the laws of God tell me that the usages quoted apply directly to the meaning in the Constitution.
I see. Bit out of context aren’t you? You didn’t refute the fathers’ role, in any event.
I’m sort of curious..What do you think the ‘citizens at the time’ part of the grandfather clause meant, if there was no such thing as the United States at the time?
But, of course, you know better.
Give me a break.
Some other here may be interested in the paper, Looking It Up, about the Supreme Court's reference to dictionaries in their decisions.
ML/NJ
That is correct. However eventually all democracies vote themselves into bankruptcy.
Try to remember for one second that the best (and only) proof Obama has shown so far that he is a natural born citizen, is a document created 2007 for the election process.
Strip away all other thoughts about this case and we are still left with that singular document which can be and routinely is issued to anyone that applies for it even if they are born on foreign soil and isn’t even enough to confirm Hawaiian Birth to the State that issued it.
Birth certificates are normally created at the time of request.
"Strip away all other thoughts about this case and we are still left with that singular document which can be and routinely is issued to anyone that applies for it even if they are born on foreign soil and isn’t even enough to confirm Hawaiian Birth to the State that issued it."
Don't you find this claim a little hard to believe? Got proof?
As the SCOTUS abrogates the Constitutional contract, what does it matter what the affirmative action poseur claimed? He was going to be ushered into the position he demanded reagrdless of what he claimed. The bastard also asserted that he was born to a British subject father who was no nor ever did become a citizen of this nation. Word games are over. The lying fraud has been given the green light, the SCOTUS has been given their orders to ignore the issues, and the congress made up of our elected representatives has kept silent while the fraud is pushed forward. What’s that mob expression, ‘Fuggedaboutit’? This will no longer be a Constitutional Republic after Roberts does as he’s told and swears the lying sack of extrement in to the office.
Another good find, thanks! Do you know if all the states candidacy statements are the same in that respect?
The little asshat ignores what Jefferson wrote which points directly to the issue of the father’s allegiances, when Jefferson was writing the Virginia constitution. If you continue to feed these nasty trolls they will continue to play word games to incite confusion for their amusement.
I didn’t know that... thcodont: you think it doesn’t matter he was a dual citizen at best from birth?
What’s cool though is potentially another count of documented fraud.
Swearing to something fraudulent seems to be a pattern with this prick. He swore to his application for the Illinois Bar Association too, and it contained a blatant lie that he had used no other name(s). The poseur elect is a lying a**hole, the perfect demcorat.
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.