Free Republic

That’s not really what the study shows. If you read the study it shows that the gap between the calculated and measured warming since the turn of the century is not due to systematic errors of the models, but because there are always random fluctuations in Earth’s climate. The study also showed that that the models do not generally overestimate human-made climate change and that global warming is therefore highly likely to reach critical proportions by the end of the century. The study also states, “The claim that climate models systematically overestimate global warming caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations is wrong.”

Really, you should read the study itself, not some spinsters interpretation of it.

From the same Wong Kim Ark case, the SCOTUS held:

"The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Further the Court holds:

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."

Secondly, this issue, if there even is one, would have to be settled by the Supreme Court. I don't see the current SCOTUS deciding a political question such as Jindal's qualifications to be President. The best the "he's not a natural born citizen" crowd has is the SCOTUS dicta in Minor v. Happersett (written before the Ark case) where the Court quips that, "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

Some 135 years ago the SCOTUS punted on the issue. I see the Court punting on the same issue if it came before the Court.

Looks like some people here have really retired their intelligence.

How about a plan without a public option (say something like “Romney Care”) but with extensive tort reform like that in Texas?

Maybe a Texas/Mass compromise?

Lose the public option for good, get tort reform that is badly needed...

...Just a thought...

This happens in the US, already! Don’t believe me, look up Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Housing_Authority_v._Midkiff ).

The forced sale of private land to non-land owners. Read this case and you’ll wonder why everyone was so surprised by the Kelo Decision.

A woman's husband DOES NOT determine and choose if she gets into heaven or not. I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. God determines the whether a person enters heaven.

I've been LDS my whole life, I've heard a lot of "misconceptions" of our faith; the best from my uber-liberal law school students, but this is the first I've heard this one. I'm surprised I haven't got this one asked of me at school.

But no, it's not true. The only judge of who is able to enter heaven will be the one, true, just and merciful God.

Yeah....I swear I heard him say it under his breath...gonna have to wait to hear the play back...

Did he just swear under his breath...F*ck?