Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Wow impressive logic......You might want to study the Ohio problem. I think their are several volumes regarding that border dispute. It was admitted in 1952. That is fully documented. It is not a problem for me that you don’t want to know.
If you believe Lakin is doing the right thing, then you ought to follow his example. Disobey any laws passed after 20 Jan 2009, post Youtube videos explaining why you refuse to obey the law, and then use your court case to ‘discover’ Obama’s birth certificate, or to get the Supreme Court to define NBC is a formal ruling.
I think Lakin is a dupe, but he does have courage.
I’ll donate $$ and time to get conservatives elected in AZ. I’ve taken part in Tea Party protests to get Gabby Giffords to discuss health care. I plan to go to the debate between her & Jesse Kelly: “Jesse will also debate Giffords this Wednesday, Oct 20th in Sierra Vista at Buena High School, 5225 E. Buena School Road. That event will go from 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm. You may want to arrive early for a good seat.”
I’ll miss this one tonight because I don’t want to try to find parking around the U of A:
“The first debate between Jesse and Gabrielle Giffords will take place tonight in the Student Union Ballroom at the University of Arizona. The doors open at 6:00 pm and close at 6:45 pm. The debate will begin at 7:00 pm and ends at 8:00 pm.
Seating is limited so you may want to arrive several hours early if you want to attend in person. You can also watch the debate on KUAT Channel 6 or listen at KUAZ 89.1 FM/1550 AM. More information is available at www.azpm.org.
Debate watching party: If you cannot make it to the live event, join other supporters at Sam Hughes Place, Championship Dining to watch the debate and meet afterwards. Located at the SE corner of Campbell Ave and 6th Street.”
You would be surprised how many folks think Ohio has been a state for more than 58 years...
BS, how did the BOR change what the Constitution reads?
Your premise that the Constitution or the BOR grants or changes the original intent of the said Constitution is bogus.
The Constitution does not give rights, it protects them and restricts the Government from taking them away.....because they are God Given
It doesn't matter what Madison put in the Constitution????
Are you nuts?
We all are. For your reference, that kinda' why we're on FR to begin with.
"So it is clear as the ringing of a silver bell that anyone who haunts these threads fighting against real conservatives who are trying to find the truth are enemies of the United States of America."
Two bones I have to pick with this bit. One; 'fighting a against true conservatives' implies that while you and ron are true conservatives, the rest of us are cheap imitations at best. Two; I don't take kindly to being called an enemy of America. Who the hell are you to make such a claim, little man?
If you take note, i've not said one way or the other what I think of the birth cert. battle. My arguement is solely against ron's vicious posting habits.
That 1st statement says it all.
Your first statement said, "We are defining the 'ROOT' meaning here, not the function of the term. Do you not agree that there is a 'FUNCTION' to the term." So first you say we're not talking about the function, then you ask me about the function. That's confusing--it has nothing to do with my ability to interpret the Constitution.
And I don't know what you want me to get from Story. I see nothing in there about the root of a word, or its etymology, or its history. I see a lot about considering a term in context. And I see, in one of the bits you elided, where he quotes Blackstone in saying that illustrations of a word's meaning "may be further derived from the subject-matter, with reference to which the expressions are used." Where else is the term "natural-born X" used? Why, in English common law. It sounds like Blackstone would think that was an obvious place to look, then, for what "natural born citizen" could mean.
And one place the phrase was not used was in Vattel, whether in French or in the translations available at the time the Constitution was written. In other words, later translations used "natural born citizens" because the phrase was already used in the Constitution, not the other way around.
And there is a strong legal argument for, yet you take the bamsters side........HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.....makes you wonder.
Go back to your wet dream of WKA....your Chinese infatuation.
If you want to spread the truth about your man, get into the threads that do so, why waste inordinate amounts of time here on threads you deem a waste of time?
Ah, that would be the same military that is legally obligated* to put a stop to the invasion of AZ even without orders from the President OR the consent of the Congress? If they are so obligated to do that, what makes you think that they would act to prevent a such coup d'état?
*Article 4, SECTION. 4. - The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
By the way, after you succeed with this coup, how are you going to get the politicians in 3/4 of the states to ratify these changes, and who will be running the country in the years before any ratification can be accomplished.
I don't understand why you think it would take years.
I guess you will simply have to establish a personal dictatorship to see things done right, Mr. Cromwell/Mussolini.
You know, that's really funny, because I never suggested installing myself as a dictator.
P.S. - What Makes you think that a personal dictatorship would be any less desirable than our current impersonal & bureaucratic dictatorship?
‘Ohio, which was not admitted to the union until 1952’
Ohio admitted in 1803, no states admitted between Arizona (1912) and Alaska (1959).
Although Ohio was admitted in 1803, a flaw was found in its paperwork, and it was not corrected until 1952. Good trivia question for a discussion over beers.
I know enough to know that the Constitution doesn't lay out much detail on the process of admission of a state. Certain formalities that were instituted during the process of admitting later states weren't followed, while others were. Clearly, though, since Congress passed an act authorizing the people of Ohio to form a government, and that that "the said State, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union upon the same footing with the original states in all regards whatever," it seems pretty clear what the intent of Congress was. The people of Ohio did form a state government, and in 1803, that state's representatives were seated in Congress.
‘I don’t understand why you think it would take years.’
For obvious reasons, including the fact that in a number of states the legislature doesn’t meet every year.
If an absolute dictatorship is such a good idea who do you suggest be the Fuehrer, or Caesar?
Yes, the interpretation of it is (the 14th).....see Rogers wet dream of it in WKA
Do you really believe the Founders wanted this to be President. There is nothing natural about him.
Hi there James.
Just wanted you to know I got a copy of my Long Form from Hawaii.
I think this settles a bet doesn’t it?
Ooops
Obamao.......the "noob" is back, what say you?
Sorry for the double tap.
>‘I don’t understand why you think it would take years.’
>
>For obvious reasons, including the fact that in a number of states the legislature doesn’t meet every year.
I didn’t know that; the States that I’m familiar with [admittedly few] meet at least once a year.
>If an absolute dictatorship is such a good idea who do you suggest be the Fuehrer, or Caesar?
I never said it was a good idea; I did however imply that it might be no less a horrible an idea than our current rule-by-bureaucrats.
Uh, by including their text in the Constitution. Once enacted, the BOR became part of the Constitution as much as Article I, Sec II.
Your premise that the Constitution or the BOR grants or changes the original intent of the said Constitution is bogus.
Yes it does. That's why they call it an amendment to the Constitution.
It doesn't matter what Madison put in the Constitution????
Are you nuts?
Not as nuts as you are, apparently. By the way, Madison also wrote this:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,
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.