Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers
Of course, I try to use logic and reason and an understanding of language with them, as they copy and paste off-topic cases and off-the-mark quotes.

Much of what birthers post works against them, but they dont get it.

They can not find, anywhere, anyone with authority who actually agrees with them.

It does not matter, they invent “case law” out of thin air, which does not support them, and often contradicts them, and run with it.

The whole world is made up of “stupid” people like me, and the 1,000 or so radical birthers are the ONLY people with any “wisdom” in their eyes.

297 posted on 08/01/2012 7:38:03 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies ]


To: Kansas58
I'm cross-posting this post here. Might as well combine arguments in one place.

First, Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists is NOT “controlling” as you state, on 1st Amendment or Church/State issues. Next?

Why do you say this, given that the phrase "church and state" does not exist in the Constitution, and the only place that "wall of separation between Church and State" comes from is Jefferson's letter? Clearly, Jefferson's letter is the source of this concept, which has been what has survived for over 200 years.

Even this Wikipedia artcle on the Establishment Clause cites Jefferson's letter. Do you have another source for the common interpretation of the First Amendment Establishment clause?

You are making a HUGE leap, with your weak arguments.

Given that this is in reply to my quoting the Preamble to the Constitution, I will say that my argument is the strongest of all, because it relies SOLELY on the Constitution, and does not need outside support to interpret it. Since the Article VI Supremacy clause says that "any Thing in the Constitution" is supreme Law of the Land, and the Preamble is a Thing in the Constitution, it should be given deference to interpretations that rely on outside support.

I have posted before that I think that SCOTUS was wrong in Minor when they said that they had to look elsewhere for the definition of natural born citizen, because the definition was right there in front of them in the Preamble. Sometimes, when one over-thinks things, one becomes blind to the obvious.

The Constitution was ordained and established to preserve liberty for the people and their posterity. Only the posterity are eligible to be the head of the country in order to secure its preservation.

-PJ

300 posted on 08/01/2012 9:50:28 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It doesn't come naturally when you're not natural born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson