Posted on 01/19/2016 8:55:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
I am having a hard time deciding if you are willful, or just stubborn. Either way, you are misleading, and I wouldn't trust you with my socks.
If you want to end the discussion, it probably is not a good idea to decsend to the personal insult level.
As to the substance of this issue, the Supreme Court authorities draw a distinction where the deficiency is eligibility.
Good point. Now, please put me on your ignore list.
Yes that is odd. I mean, it is common (back then) for a divorced woman to maintain the last name of the man. But once remarried usually - not always - that name is changed to the current husband. It may be that she had not done all of the paperwork to have her name changed at that point.
I still use my first husbands last name. I have changed it to my current husbands on about half of my “official” stuff. Frankly, I just like the way it sounds in combination with my first name, LOL. I don’t like my first husband particularly, and haven’t seen him in decades, I don’t even know where he lives. I’ve been remarried about 10 years now, and my husband has given up asking when I will finally quit using the “other” last name.
.
Back to the thread.
by electing Ted, you legitimize Obama.
Ping to # 170 , and to comments after the ping yesterday. Don't worry if you can't keep up. Nor can I; information overload.
NB: Heidi Cruz helped prepare, and endorses a form of "governance" inconsistent with our form of government.
http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
May I just thank you for an interesting and highly informative thread (apart from the recent snarky insults). I appreciate the knowledge shared here and the intelligent discussion, which is sadly not the norm these days on FR.
Some of us have been following (and some researching in depth) the murky origins of 0 since he announced his candidacy in 2007. There is so much smoke there. I long to see the fire.
You are correct. Interparty actions have equal but opposite reactions.
For instance; when the GOP allowed the special prosecutor and the media to focus the Bill Clinton impeachment investigation on his sex life instead of his chief executive law-breaking, they squandered any possible GOP impeachment power for a century (assuming survival of the US).
Now, if they hypocritically back Cruz without settling this matter, there will be no going back.
It's been hard for me to realize that this talented Senator may have let his wealthy connections and his ambition push him into this corner; but everybody's human. I so wish he had followed his own original instincts and backed the winner in the polls and likely nominee so he could become AG or judge of the SCOTUS. Then the issue may have lay dormant until he could fix it.
The shoddy journailism in that article is astounding to behold. The author "studied at" Columbia University, so no surprise that his Marxist indoctrination glides so effortlessly over such whoppers as "it goes without saying" that a claim in an Arab-language article suggesting Hillary Clinton worked with the Muslim Brotherhood to bring about the Islamic State "is a fake and that the passage does not exist."
No, it does not and should not "go without saying." But this is the Washington Post under Jeff Bezos.
Nor are his glib claims of Obama's Christianity -- and that anyone who doesn't believe that is just a racist -- at all believable; since no one can know the state of Obama's salvation except the Christ Himself; yet by his actions, Obama has thrown overwhelming doubt on such a claim.
He named his first dog Bo after himself, so I thought it was a compliment to Sunni Islam when he named his second dog Sunny. But now I'm wondering if it weren't a slap in their face, since dogs are not "kosher" in Islam.
Ping to an interesting post
Wait; there's a gap in my information stream. Barry was born in Canada? What do you mean by that?
-—since dogs are not “kosher” in Islam.-—
Neither are h0m0s!
.
>> “Further, the Bellei case actually supports the birther case” <<
Not even close to true.
You have to read only the published majority opinion to see what it found.
You are trying to twist the opinion by adding in minority dicta.
.
>> “Further, the Bellei case actually supports the birther case” <<
Not even close to true.
You have to read only the published majority opinion to see what it found.
You are trying to twist the opinion by adding in minority dicta.
.
Dicta from dissenting justices is not relevant.
(but it tickles the fancy of the deceivers)
.
Dicta from dissenting justices is not relevant.
(but it tickles the fancy of the deceivers)
But there is a strong boylove subculture in those countries. Dogs, not so much.
Yes it is because the dissent is not on whether or not Belli was naturalized, it was on whether or not he could have his citizenship stripped from him. Both the concurring and dissenting justices agreed he was naturalized. It is just in the dissent they spelled out why.
By the way, the definition of naturalized in the dissents opinion is not dicta since it directly addresses the specifics of the case before them, that being he had to be determined naturalized first before they could strip his citizenship from him.
Yeah, they love them to death.
After they use them, they throw them from high buildings!
Sad but true.
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.
![â€Image](http://i44.tinypic.com/9ulyxd.jpg";)