Posted on 02/06/2016 1:47:14 AM PST by RC one
Edited on 02/06/2016 5:34:58 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
“Is the Illinois board of elections beholden to the constitution or can they say pretty much whatever they want?”
It’s pretty much like everything else in Illinois, try to take them to a court that has not been corrupted. The plaintiff in this action could have attempted to file an appeal, but could not afford the costs for doing so.
Sure, so what?
See Rogers v. Bellei. The statutory “clarification” wasn’t the last word. Bellei was a natrualized citizen. The statute that you deem to be a “clarification” didn’t serve the purpose that you claim.
Yep, that’s me, circa 2011. You might say I have seen the light.
At least it should serve to convince you that this is not a new subject for me and that I have spent a lot of time researching and thinking about this issue.
Re. BHO, I don’t think there is a single true thing about his concocted history. I am not sure he was born in Hawaii, I have doubts that Barack Obama was his father, and I am not even sure that Stanley Ann Dunham was his mother. I lived two doors down from the Dunhams through the period in question and never saw a grandchild, never heard them speak of one, and never connected any of the Dunhams to Barack Obama senior, never saw them together, or heard him mention her or a child. Doesn’t prove a thing one way or the other, but it does give me some reason to treat the whole story with some skepticism.
Again, you may say that my thinking on this subject has evolved over the past six or seven years.
Or devolved. ROTFL. At least you are inconsistent.
Either way, I am right.
Of course. You were right in 2009, and you are right now. Smae question, opposite answer, but both answers are right. That's John Valentine logic!
Exactly. This is an issue that has no one true answer. That’s what statutes are for.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
I’ve been busy so I didn’t know if it was known or not.
I'm not. I'm pretty sure there would be many like it from others as well.
It's "our guy" now and instead of standing on one's principles those principles are "adjusted accordingly". I'm still where I was so many years ago on the NBC issue.
To me "party over principle" means that a person is asked to abandon their core principles merely to ensure that a Party candidate is elected to office. Usually a person has several core principles that they feel strongly about. I'm sure that you have more than one yourself.
So, to me, the question becomes which of your core principles are you going to abandon solely for the sake of Party advancement? And then a person has to ask themselves if they're ready, and willing, to abandon some of their core principles for the sake of the Party, will they abandon all of their core principles for the sake of the Party. Because as soon as you give in and abandon those principles there is a push at the next election for you to abandon even more of your principles because you did so the last time and the Party knows this.
And eventually you have to look at yourself in the mirror and realize that you have no core principles any longer as you've abandoned them over time for nothing more than a short term political victory.
I simply can't sell my birthright (eventually all of my core principles) for a mess of pottage (short term political victory) else I damn my own soul.
I may be a "Birther", but I see a bunch of "Pretzels"...they're all twisted up.
What principle will you give up for the next Party candidate, John?
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.