To: Sterco
What a large cache of foolish clap-trap. The doctrine is not only well settled, it makes perfectly sound jurisprudental sense. Your tortured interpetation is so far afield that is not capable of a reasoned discussion. Irrational premises cannot be debated rationally.
11 posted on
04/24/2005 9:10:56 AM PDT by
middie
To: middie
Can you clarify which way you stand on this issue?
13 posted on
04/24/2005 9:14:26 AM PDT by
eno_
(Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending.)
To: middie
You are off base. The way that Congress can solve this problem by legislation is in my column. Read that, and report back.
John / Billybob
14 posted on
04/24/2005 9:16:03 AM PDT by
Congressman Billybob
(Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
To: middie
Excuse me? Are you saying the child of someone who has crossed our border illegally as in the manner of invasion should automatically be a US citizen. To me that is the most absurd notion that I can think of. The founding fathers were thinking of this issue when the issue was addressed. They always rewarded those breaking our laws in the Constitution didn't you know that?
15 posted on
04/24/2005 9:16:50 AM PDT by
Sterco
To: middie
Namecalling is cute but inconclusive and useless.
Can you provide any facts to support your namecalling?
16 posted on
04/24/2005 9:17:59 AM PDT by
Publius6961
(The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
To: middie
...it makes perfectly sound jurisprudental sense. Not to everyone, apparently.
Other than knowing big words, can you explain how and why it makes "perfectly sound jurisprudental sense"?
Hint: circular reasoning won't work for this one. What is the end and what is the means?
18 posted on
04/24/2005 9:21:51 AM PDT by
Publius6961
(The most abundant things in the universe are ignorance, stupidity and hydrogen)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson