Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Krauthammer: Dead Wrong on the 14th
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 5 August 2010 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

Posted on 08/06/2010 5:32:26 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob

There are parts of Fox News I cannot watch. There is that self-important blowhard. There is that worldwide ambulance chaser. But as often as I can, I watch their news program at 6 p.m. My favorite part of that program is the lightning round, and especially the contributions of Charles Krauthammer.

Charles normally dissects an issue with precision and accuracy. But not today, the 5th of August. He posed the issue whether a Congressman was right to say we need to amend the 14th Amendment to deal with the problem of anchor babies. Krauthammer made the mistake of not reading the Amendment before discussing it. So did all the other participants in the discussion.

Krauthammer correctly stated that “we should not amend the Constitution to deal with such a small problem.” He missed the opportunity to point out that the Congressman, like much of the American press and punditry, are asking the wrong question and therefore getting the wrong answer.

Let’s read the document, and see where that leads. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….” Who gets to say who are “subject to the jurisdiction”?

Skip to the last sentence of the Amendment. It is a clause that appears in many of the Amendments. “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

There you have it, in the plain language of the Constitution itself. Congress can define by statute who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. It has long since done so with regard to children born to diplomatic personnel. A child born of Japanese diplomatic personal who is born in a D.C. hospital is Japanese at birth, not American. Why is that so? Because Congress wrote a law that says so.

Congress can solve the anchor baby problem immediately by a statute. It simply has to say that a child born of a Mexican citizen who has paid a coyote to get smuggled into the US, and risked death in the deserts of the Southwest to get to an Arizona hospital is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. It can further resolve the problem by ending all preferences for all known relatives of a prior anchor baby to come into the US.

Families don’t need to be “united” in the US. They will be just as united back in Mexico, or any other nation from which pregnant women engage in “citizenship tourism.”

Those who favor open borders, where anyone who can sneak into the US is entitled to all privileges of Americans, favor the anchor baby route to make this so. After all, it’s for the children. And they add, we shouldn’t mess with the Constitution.

But the Constitution is in no danger, and both mothers and babies will be in less danger, if Congress simply writes a law to deal with the problem. And the 14th Amendment gives Congress that very power.

Why would able reporters and even college professors write and say in the press that “the Constitution is in danger,” when it isn’t? These false sources are pretending that the Constitution is in danger to keep the people from realizing that statement is false, and the solution depends only on competent Members of Congress reading and following the Constitution.

Having watched and read Charles Krauthammer’s work for decades, I know he is not corrupt, distorting the Constitution to achieve a predetermined result. Instead, Charles just failed to do his homework. But still, he was dead wrong, and contributed to the public misunderstanding of this issue.

The truth is, as that obnoxious commercial says, “It’s so easy, even a caveman could do it.” Well, if a caveman can do it, so can a Congressman (or most of them can). Rewrite the law. Solve this problem, without spending a single dime on it. Now.

- 30 -

About the Author: John Armor practiced before the Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya,yale.edu His latest book, to appear in September, is on Thomas Paine. www.TheseAreTheTimes.us

- 30 -


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; aliens; anchorbabies; foxnews; illegals; krauthammer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last
The won't be news to most Freepers. But it ought to be news to 100& of the American press. And the sentient portion of Congress (maybe 70%).

John / Billybob

1 posted on 08/06/2010 5:32:28 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

I’m getting a Google Virus Warning when visiting your site. You may want to check it out.


2 posted on 08/06/2010 5:46:43 PM PDT by jtonn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Krauthammer practiced ready, fire, aim.

He is generally more on point than this, at least compared to most of the MSM. His handicaps may have given him an advantage over the “reporters” from the “three blind mice”, Commie News, PBS and MSNBC. And certainly better than the AP (Always Propaganda) writers.

Thanks for your perspective and good observations.


3 posted on 08/06/2010 5:49:23 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..."

IMO the distinction is right there in the wording of the Amendment. Foreign citizens are ultimately subject to the jurisdiction of their native country. Thus the ability of a foreign nation to intervene with appeals on behalf of their citizens who run afoul of the law in the U.S. It is self-evident, or should be, that the newly born offspring of a foreign citizen is also subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's native country.

Lacking a court ruling to affirm that interpretation it can certainly be clarified with additional legislation but the distinction already exists in the 14th Amendment and the Executive Branch could simply assert that it is the policy, in accord with the 14th A., that children born here of foreign citizens are not U.S. citizens.

4 posted on 08/06/2010 5:50:15 PM PDT by TigersEye (Greenhouse Theory is false. Totally debunked. "GH gases" is a non-sequitur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

I got the virus warning too.


5 posted on 08/06/2010 5:51:02 PM PDT by abigailsmybaby ( I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did. Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
How do you read the 14th in light of

JUSTICE BRENNAN'S FOOTNOTE GAVE US ANCHOR BABIES

From Ann Coulter ?


6 posted on 08/06/2010 5:56:06 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
John, perhaps you should provide Krauthammer with your assessment.

If he is, indeed, as you describe him (and he appears to me), he should be aware of this.

As you, I believe many interpretations of the 14th Amendment are flawed...by a failure to recognize the final clause. Congress may certainly determine who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Especially since it was the court who previously stepped beyond their purview and determined who was "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

7 posted on 08/06/2010 5:57:19 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Krathammer is a neocon. He is big on nation building and a fiscal conservative, but on social issues he is very liberal.

Remember, he used to write for The New Republic and worked for Walter Mondale. I don't see why conservatives get so excited about him.

8 posted on 08/06/2010 5:59:06 PM PDT by bwc2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UriÂ’el-2012
I read Colter’s article. Brennan created as much trouble as he could. Congress can still solve the problem with a statute, as I said.

John / Billybob

9 posted on 08/06/2010 6:01:35 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Krauthammer also tried, last week, to tell us that the price of the Chevy Volt would be the $41,000 sticker price PLUS the $7500 tax credit. I know he majored in medicine not math, but errors like these will undermine his credibility.


10 posted on 08/06/2010 6:03:57 PM PDT by bigbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Krauthammer STILL has failed to diagnose pres_ _ent Obama
because of his love for the undocumented,
probable Kenyan/Indonesian/Pakistani.

Krauthammer is thus non credible — even in his own field.

His nonsense about law and autmobiles show that he is
deluded, himself.


11 posted on 08/06/2010 6:13:28 PM PDT by Diogenesis (“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God” - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Sounds like a top agenda item for the new Republican congress. Here’s hopin that we have one and that they get the message.


12 posted on 08/06/2010 6:13:34 PM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.....Eagle Scout since Sep 9, 1970)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
John, If you pass a statute that certain persons born in the US who are physically present in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, how would you justify prosecuting such a person if he commits a Federal crime in the US? After all, such a person is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US even though he is physically present in the US.

Or is the legal word "jurisdiction" to be given diametrically opposite meanings depending on the particular context (criminal prosecution vs. citizenship)? Or are there multiple aspects of "jurisdiction that can be changed by statute for some purposes but not others?

I don't know the answer--just asking.

13 posted on 08/06/2010 6:14:54 PM PDT by nvskibum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
This is the most cogent and rational explanation of how the 14th Amendment has been misused and misunderstood with respect to the issue of illegal immigration and “anchor babies” that I have read. Thank you.
14 posted on 08/06/2010 6:15:55 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Papa of two new Army Brats! Congrats to my Soldier son and his wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Technically he is right. You do the Math. 41K to Omamamotors +the $7500 from the tax payers, makes 48.5K.
BTW why is it not called a Hybrid since it has an engine? Because the taxpayer portion is higher for an electric.


15 posted on 08/06/2010 6:22:19 PM PDT by barb-tex (Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears: Let the weak say I am strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nvskibum; Congressman Billybob

Seems to me that the 14th Amendment is written to address a specific issue relative to citizenship. Thus, issues related to criminality are not touched upon here. It is internationally recognized that a person visiting another country is subject to being held accountable when they violate laws of that country.


16 posted on 08/06/2010 6:22:52 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Papa of two new Army Brats! Congrats to my Soldier son and his wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All

Help Texas watch her borders.
Watch live on 14 cameras and report illegal alien invaders.
Night cams in operation

http://www.blueservo.net/index.php?error=nlg

Does it work? Yes.
Recently caught on cam and reported:
String of illegals running through brush with backpacks
Numerous sightings of boats crossing the river
Numerous vehicles late at night in isolated areas
IMMENSELY satisfying.

.


17 posted on 08/06/2010 6:30:52 PM PDT by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Let’s read the document, and see where that leads. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….” Who gets to say who are “subject to the jurisdiction”?

Skip to the last sentence of the Amendment. It is a clause that appears in many of the Amendments. “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

There you have it, in the plain language of the Constitution itself. Congress can define by statute who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Perhaps it's even more than "can," but in fact, "must."

Given that the 14th specifies not only birth, but ALSO being "subject to the jurisdiction" ("and") as requirements for US citizenship, I wonder if the lack of a specific jurisdictional law for the illegal Mexican problem actually PROHIBITS any inclusion into US citizenship.

Yeah, the anchor babies have the birth part. But where is the (apparently mandatory) declaration of subject jurisdiction in law? Is there a general jurisdiction law they are eligible for, or is such inclusion lacking? And if it IS lacking (or the general law is inadequate), isn't the jurisdictional specificity requirement of the 14th incomplete - and thus the complete US citizenship requirements unfulfilled, and therefore void?

18 posted on 08/06/2010 6:36:09 PM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
In criminal cases, physical presence in the US while committing a crime normally confers jurisdiction on the US (unless jurisdiction is surrendered such as for diplomats, etc.)

My question is that when interpreting the 14th amendment, it is possible to give the legal term -- "jurisdiction"-- a different meaning than its "ordinary" meaning depending on the context? Or is the proper interpretation of the 14th amendment reference to "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" mean physical presence in the US when born? I have not read the cases such as Wong Kim Ark, etc., so I don't know the answer.

19 posted on 08/06/2010 6:56:06 PM PDT by nvskibum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jtonn
I’m getting a Google Virus Warning when visiting your site. You may want to check it out.

Got the same warning with Norton.

20 posted on 08/06/2010 7:00:06 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

I find Krauthammer dead wrong on any item pertaining to Illegal Aliens. He is Open Borders/Pro-Illegal Alien Amnesty.

Your analysis was spot on Congressman BillyBob. Notice that the ones bringing up the 14th Amendment issue (notably Lindsey Graham) are the most pro-Amnesty in Congress. The 14th Amendment issue is just a ruse to fool the public...while Graham and other pro-Illegal/Anti-American politicians try to pass Illegal Alien Amnesty


21 posted on 08/06/2010 7:07:00 PM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (JD for Senate ..... jdforsenate.com. You either voting for JD, or voting for the Liberal...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nvskibum
My question is that when interpreting the 14th amendment, it is possible to give the legal term -- "jurisdiction"-- a different meaning than its "ordinary" meaning depending on the context? Or is the proper interpretation of the 14th amendment reference to "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" mean physical presence in the US when born?

14th Amendment jurisdiction is deep voodo. But ultimately, it is CORPORATE jurisdiction, NOT common law, natural human person jurisdiction. In fact, the Bill of Rights without connection to the 14th Amendment is completely different than the Bill of Rights with connection to the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment replaces rights with privileges, and does not legally have to declare it has done so. So rights that have been turned into privileges may, under the same 14th Amendment that changed them, also still be called rights, and by their same name. But they aren't rights anymore - they are government-issued privileges called rights that may be restricted or terminated at any time by that government.

Oh, and the government is not required to define any of this, even if it is applying it in court, law, or administration.

22 posted on 08/06/2010 7:09:10 PM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: nvskibum

The 14th Amendment gives Congress the ability to provide legislative clarification regarding the issue of persons “subject to the jurisdiction”, including how that applies to instances where a person not subject to the jurisdiction is treated when a criminal act is involved. I’m of the opinion that the 14th Amendment was written specifically to address the issue of citizenship, not to address who is “under the jurisdiction” in criminal cases. I also believe that your question has already been answered by the numerous cases of illegal aliens who have been adjudicated in American courts and then returned to their country of origin upon release from jail/prison. I posit that they were deemed not to be under the jurisdiction with respect to citizenship, but were with respect to violating some law.


23 posted on 08/06/2010 7:10:39 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Papa of two new Army Brats! Congrats to my Soldier son and his wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: jtonn; Congressman Billybob

Yeah, I’m getting virus warning on the site as well.


25 posted on 08/06/2010 7:15:48 PM PDT by gitmo ( The democRats drew first blood. It's our turn now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
The amendment that is needed to this and other parts of the Constitution is: WE REALLY MEAN IT.

ML/NJ

26 posted on 08/06/2010 7:17:10 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Bump the BillyBob man.


27 posted on 08/06/2010 7:19:50 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator ( Who is John Galt?...heck...Who is Hugh Series?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Who gets to say who are "subject to the jurisdiction"? Congress can solve the anchor baby problem immediately by a statute.

Lets hope it has already been said. Otherwise, a socialist-controlled Congress could address the issue within the next few months pursuant to its agenda.

One can argue that if the aberration on which the significant "anchor-baby" policy is based simply appeared in a judicial footnote, then correcting the policy is the objective. If the open borders crowd seek a judicial review of the footnote, they should fail given the history of the 14th.

In any event, it does not seem necessary or warranted to rewrite the 14th.

Thank you for the link!

28 posted on 08/06/2010 7:21:30 PM PDT by frog in a pot (Wake up America! You are losing the war against your families and your Constitution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Well, Congressman Billybob, let me put you on the spot a little bit.

During Civil War Reconstruction, the Radical Republicans informed the southern states that they would NOT be allowed back into the Union unless they ratified the 14th Amendment.

How can a “state” that is NOT a state be allowed to vote on a constitutional amendment? And how can an amendment be considered “ratified” by a state that is not a state?

Just want to get your opinion on this conundrum....


29 posted on 08/06/2010 7:27:29 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: secondamendmentkid
1) At the present time, yes. This will not always be the case. The question is whether, when conservatives do regain “power”, there is anyone with the political balls to write such legislation.

2) I don't agree that differentiation is difficult. What is difficult is getting the votes for legislation which provides clarification of the issue.

3) Since the 14th Amendment provides the vehicle for legislative action, I'd posit that the courts would not be able to overturn said law if one were to be passed. Especially given that a law already exists that prohibits foreign diplomats from claiming U.S. citizenship for their child if born in the U.S. That provides the precedents needed.

30 posted on 08/06/2010 7:27:38 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Papa of two new Army Brats! Congrats to my Soldier son and his wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Well, how would such a statute be worded? Do we shoot for including ALL the anchor babies in the country, or just those born after a certain date? IMHO, it needs to be done, and either way, needs to be done quickly. I tasked my congresscritter a couple of years ago with exactly this same possible way out of our problem, and never got a reply, or even a sneer. Thanks, John. More publicity on this sure can't hurt.
31 posted on 08/06/2010 7:30:32 PM PDT by Southbound ("A liar in public life is worse than a full-paid-up Communist, and I don't care who he is." - HST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

” Who gets to say who are “subject to the jurisdiction”?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside

Rephrase the sentence. All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside and are under the jurisdiction of the United States.

That does not change the meaning of the sentence and explains who says who is under the jurisdiction.


32 posted on 08/06/2010 7:35:52 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jtonn
I would agree that Krauthammer missed the mark on the construction of the 14th amendment, but I believe his main point was first things first. Build the wall and secure the border. We can sort out the rest later.
33 posted on 08/06/2010 7:56:30 PM PDT by Old North State (Don't blame me, I voted for Pedro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

Ping!


34 posted on 08/06/2010 10:29:02 PM PDT by HiJinx (I can see November from my front porch - and Mexico from the back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

John, we are oftentimes on opposite sides of the liberty debates, with me calling for less government in areas you and others want more (including Krauthammer) but on this you are spot on!


35 posted on 08/06/2010 11:06:15 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Great analysis plus every day we have eveidence that Mexico considers its wayward citizens here to still be under Mexican jurisdiction. Mexico does this by issuing matricula consular ID cards to Mexican illegal aliens at its US consulates. Legal Mexicans can get them too, then they have a convenient alternate ID to use in criminal situations.

Mexico has also interfered in numerous court cases on US soil that involved illegal alien Mexicans. A well known one was in Texas where it agitated publicly and hired lawyers for an illegal alien murderer in Texas. Trying to save this scumbag from the death penalty. Mexico failed, thank God!

Mexico makes great efforts to set up voting operations on US soil so it citizens can vote in Mexican elections. Of course being an illegal alien is not a factor. The legals and illegals both can vote

Mexico is claiming jurisdiction all the time. We don’t need to amend the Constitution. We just need the right laws passed and a judge to rule on it who is not traitorous


36 posted on 08/07/2010 2:05:43 AM PDT by dennisw (2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
I just heard from the Director of the website. Under a former webmaster, they were hacked into oblivion by liberal hackers 14 times. They had to change the name. It is now www.chronwatch-america.com, which is their current site. They are trying to get Google and Norton to stop looking at the old and abandoned website.

John / Billybob

37 posted on 08/07/2010 6:23:48 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: VRW Conspirator
Thank you very much.

John / Billybob

38 posted on 08/07/2010 6:26:23 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
I haven't looked into the math of the ratification of the 14th. I do know that the rebel states were required to ratify the Civil War Amendments (the 13th, 14th, 15th). What I do not know is whether those had adequate states for ratification from the Union states, and the requirement was only to make certain that the ratification would not be undone.

John / Billybob

39 posted on 08/07/2010 6:31:20 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Off topic, is Heath going to lose this time?

I think I saw a piece saying he is in trouble.


40 posted on 08/07/2010 6:31:43 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Greetings Jacques. The revolution is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
No, your rewriting turns the Amendment on its head. As written, the Amendment requires two, separate qualifications to become a citizen at birth. Unlike modern law-writers, those of a century or two ago were very precise in their use of language.

John / Billybob

41 posted on 08/07/2010 6:36:17 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

There are parts of Fox News I cannot watch. There is that self-important blowhard...

...There is that worldwide ambulance chaser.


42 posted on 08/07/2010 6:36:24 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (Obama is the least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
Krauthammer also tried, last week, to tell us that the price of the Chevy Volt would be the $41,000 sticker price PLUS the $7500 tax credit.

Krauthammer was correct in this statement Bob. In fact he was off by about $12,500.

Read the news - Dealerships are marking the volt up an average of $20,000. Covers the $7500 rebate and puts an additional 12-13 large in the dealers pocket.

Volts are stickering for $61,000

43 posted on 08/07/2010 6:44:01 AM PDT by commish (Freedom tastes sweetest to those who have fought to preserve it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Thanks, John, you are spot-on, as usual.


44 posted on 08/07/2010 6:44:50 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (If November does not turn out well, then beware of December.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: commish

Supply and demand. I’m all for capitalist auto dealers soaking the loony libs for as much as they can get!


45 posted on 08/07/2010 6:45:16 AM PDT by GatorGirl (Eschew Socialism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Yep, gotta admit it when I’m wrong. After doing more study I admit that one does have to be born here and under the jurisdiction to be a citizen at birth.

But, that leads to a problem with your other assertion that they just make a law that illegal alliens are not under the jurisdiction without changing Article 14 doesn’t it? Seems if they are not subject to the laws of the United States we would have a whole set of additional problems.


46 posted on 08/07/2010 11:26:30 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

” Charles Krauthammer”

He is a liberal. He will move up to the line crossing into being an American but then pulls back and takes the Marxist view every time.

Without a doubt that idiot has never so much as read the United States Constitution. Not once. He constantly misquotes it. He has never read on word of the founding fathers. He constantly misquotes them and wrongly states their positions.


47 posted on 08/07/2010 11:30:38 AM PDT by CodeToad ("Idiocracy" is not just a movie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
I don't watch Rivera at all. I see the mustache, I hit the channel clicker. You're right about the blowhard. But I had in mind Greta for the ambulance-chaser. (And yes, I do know that Rivera is a lawyer. That's one more reason to be heartily ashamed of my second profession.

John / Billybob

48 posted on 08/07/2010 11:35:59 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.TheseAretheTimes.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

I like Charles quite a bit, but he’s wrong sometimes. If it’s a difference of opinion about Constitutional law of Charles vs John Armour, I would pick John.

Good article, Congressman BB.


49 posted on 08/07/2010 11:38:43 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Build a man a fire; he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire; he'll be warm the rest of his life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jtonn; Congressman Billybob

I get a virus warning as well. I’m using Firefox.


50 posted on 08/07/2010 11:40:22 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Build a man a fire; he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire; he'll be warm the rest of his life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson