Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Stacking the Court


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Stacking the Court Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/23/2010 7:12:26 PM   
slutslave4u


Posts: 217
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

John McCain was born on a US military base, not in a hut in Africa.


Funny, though: Panamanians born in the same hospital wouldn't have been US citizens.

John McCain inherited his citizenship from his parents. As did Barack Obama regardless of where he was born.




Why does it always come down to others debating whether or not he is a natural citizen or not? By birth of his mother yes he is, no matter where he was born.....what all are debating is whether or not he was actually born in Kenya as MANY say and believe he was.....IF that comes to be true, then by that he is not legal to be a sitting President of the US to my recollection unless I am mistaken, but I do not believe I am. 

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/23/2010 7:12:54 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		Maybe because they weren't US citizens serving in the military .

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/23/2010 7:16:58 PM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slutslave4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

John McCain was born on a US military base, not in a hut in Africa.


Funny, though: Panamanians born in the same hospital wouldn't have been US citizens.

John McCain inherited his citizenship from his parents. As did Barack Obama regardless of where he was born.




Why does it always come down to others debating whether or not he is a natural citizen or not? By birth of his mother yes he is, no matter where he was born.....what all are debating is whether or not he was actually born in Kenya as MANY say and believe he was.....IF that comes to be true, then by that he is not legal to be a sitting President of the US to my recollection unless I am mistaken, but I do not believe I am. 


If that was true, then John McCain would clearly be disqualified because he is known to have been born in Panama.

Actually, the Constitution says "natural-born citizen". NOT "born on US soil".

< Message edited by cadenas -- 1/23/2010 7:28:02 PM >

(in reply to slutslave4u)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/23/2010 7:19:25 PM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
Maybe because they weren't US citizens serving in the military .


Exactly. Being born on a military base does not make any difference; it's still foreign territory. McCain is a citizen because he inherited his citizenship from his parents.

And Obama would be, too, even if he had really been born in Kenya.

Incidentally, from what I hear about 25% of the Canadian population also are US citizens for the same reason; many don't even know that they are.


< Message edited by cadenas -- 1/23/2010 7:21:42 PM >

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/23/2010 7:34:27 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		what is really disgusting is that apologists allow and support his skirting the law by not providing the actual affidavits of birth.

any wonder the government is corrupt when the people of this country are corrupt.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/23/2010 7:46:48 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		Being born on a military base to a father serving in the military is indeed different. You are a citizen. Just ask move on .org.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/23/2010 8:57:49 PM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
Being born on a military base to a father serving in the military is indeed different. You are a citizen. Just ask move on .org.


Being born to a US citizen parent is enough. You are a citizen just from that. On military base or off, with a parent serving in the military or totally civilian - doesn't matter.


(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/23/2010 9:11:16 PM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
what is really disgusting is that apologists allow and support his skirting the law by not providing the actual affidavits of birth.


Huh? Affidavit of birth? You mean, his birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii is not enough? http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg

The fact that Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaiian Department of State confirmed that he personally examined the original vital records isn't enough, either?

And if he really wasn't born in Hawaii, then why did both of Honolulu's newspapers publish a birth announcement for him? Or are you claiming that somebody broke into the newspaper archives, ripped out the page with birth announcements, and replaced it with another one? Or maybe his parents put the announcement into the newspaper because they planned to make him, a black boy in the 1960s, President of the United States?

How about the teacher who personally witnessed his birth?

Not that any of that matters - when somebody makes such outlandish claims as yours, it is up to you to come up with the proof.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/23/2010 9:25:43 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline 		I default to Conservative, I lean right... I believe that Barak Obama was born in Hawaii. I know John McCain was NOT born in the United States and was not a natural born citizen. Being born on a Military Base in a sovereign country does make a natural born citizen

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/23/2010 11:59:47 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Supreme Court justices cannot be impeached. It is a lifetime appointment.

No. They can and have been impeached. See Samuel Chase.

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/24/2010 5:53:11 AM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

John McCain was born on a US military base, not in a hut in Africa.


Funny, though: Panamanians born in the same hospital wouldn't have been US citizens.

John McCain inherited his citizenship from his parents. As did Barack Obama regardless of where he was born.



Wrong issue.  The President is required to have been born on US soil.  Being a citizen is not the sole requirement.

Back on topic...

I was furious when a bunch of neocon tools didn't like the courts' rulings in the Schiavo case, and tried to assert Congress over the courts.  It's VITAL that the three branches of government maintain their independence from each other

Despite the accusations of "legislating from the bench" from conservatives, I feel like the courts do a very good job of impartially interpreting the laws.

Brain, the article's author seem to have fallen into the neocons' trap of assuming that the court's job is to interpret laws in the way he or she would like.  It's not.  The court's job is to interpret the law as faithfully as possible to the intent of the law as passed.

The author, Jean Edward Smith, seems to feel that the court "in thumbing its nose at popular values" and somehow it's power should be overridden - by Congress.  That's incredibly dangerous and stupid.  As originally envisioned, Congress should pass laws, and the President veto or accept them, and then the court interpret them.  The author's premise is that once Congress and the President enact law, then Congress should make the Court irrelevant.  That takes out one of the three branches of government from the equation.

The Times sure has gone downhill since Murdoch bought it if they publish this drivel.


_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/24/2010 7:58:59 AM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline 		Sigh…

What a bunch of whiny-ass shit.

“Were not getting our way! WAH! WAH! WAH!”

McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional from the get-go. What part of “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” don’t people understand?

And now we have a bunch of crybabies calling on the President to stack the court?

Grow the fuck up!

I seriously doubt the President Obama would be so colossally stupid as to try this nonsense. If he did, it would be hilariously fun watching the Democrat Senators and Congressmen falling all over each other in their panicky haste to distance themselves from it.


_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to slutslave4u)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/24/2010 8:28:29 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		I agree with you that stacking the court is a bad idea. It was a bad idea when FDR tried it.

quote:

What part of “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” don’t people understand?


I just explained what's wrong with this on another thread:

http://www.collarchat.com/m_3024789/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#3025263

We limit speech in several ways. The point you raise is not the problem.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/24/2010 9:05:20 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
How many threads on this do we have now. Six? Seven? Eight?

Too many.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I agree with you that stacking the court is a bad idea. It was a bad idea when FDR tried it.

quote:

What part of “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” don’t people understand?


I just explained what's wrong with this on another thread:

http://www.collarchat.com/m_3024789/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#3025263

We limit speech in several ways. The point you raise is not the problem.


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/24/2010 9:08:29 AM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

We limit speech in several ways.


The fact that the Constitution has been violated before is not an argument for violating it now.

With the sole exception of using speech in a way that can directly lead to physical harm (shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is no fire) there is simply no excuse to violate the free speech of others.

Advertising tobacco does not directly harm others (you actually have to use it). Nor does advertising for a particular candidate.

And if mommy and daddy don't want junior watching nasty stuff on television then they should toss the tv into the garbage.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/24/2010 9:13:00 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		And yet...

Those restrictions stand, upheld by the court.

Corporate cash for elections, though, may flow, despite the obvious point that they've ample resources to drown out other voices (e.g., purchasing all advertising slots in a district 30 days before an election).

Life isn't that simple, Marc.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 1/24/2010 9:37:20 AM >

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/24/2010 9:35:37 AM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

<nevermind--waste of time>


Of course it is.

Few people today truly understand - or at lease give a shit - about such concepts as Freedom, Rule of Law, Choice, Personal Responsibility, and Respecting the Rights of Others; even when (especially when) we disagree with them.

That last one is a real bitch, huh?

"How dare those people say things I don't like! We need a law to stop them!"

How does the old saying go? A censor is someone who knows more than he thinks you ought to.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/24/2010 9:38:01 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		See amended post.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/24/2010 10:04:06 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
I wonder. Is there any chance that the new ad revenues will save the New York Times from total ruin?

But no, I don't think there's any chance that there will be any monopolizing effect on speech. Different carriers can refuse ads and there is always the Internet, and I have confidence that if any company really does try to monopolize a given area's advertisements there will be severe blowback.

People are getting turned off by negative ads, see the Massachusetts results for one example of this. The DNC poured millions in there to no avail, in fact it seems to have harmed Croakley more than it helped her.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And yet...

Those restrictions stand, upheld by the court.

Corporate cash for elections, though, may flow, despite the obvious point that they've ample resources to drown out other voices (e.g., purchasing all advertising slots in a district 30 days before an election).

Life isn't that simple, Marc.


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Stacking the Court - 1/24/2010 10:09:49 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		This won't affect the Times at all. As you well know, we're talking primarily TV advertising. Will it help networks? Well, won't it just change who buys the ad time?

Really? You think a business will refuse ad money? Why?

Companies aren't going to directly advertise and risk "blowback" of course--they'll continue to funnel it through 529s and such. They are just free now to do so without limits.

Negative ads are going nowhere. People say they don't like them, but all the research shows that they work, very well.

The Brown campaign certainly had its share of negative ads. Really. Cherry picking. [That election also has more to do with state politics, I suspect, than Republican fantasies would have it. It's not like the state went suddenly red.]


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Stacking the Court Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109