Free Republic

your link is to the wrong substance

I would far prefer Biden as president. Is it possible for anyone to be worse than Obama?

Barrett is a democrat, supporter of obama, and I would guess a supporter of the various democrat/obama health plan(s).

In another thread a freeper posted the following:

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u358/zczc3185/Birth_cert_coats_7c.jpg

“If Barack’s mom is a U.S. citizen, and if he was born in Hawaii, then he is “natural born.””

True enough, but if he were not born in Hawaii then he may not be a “natural born” citizen.

“In 1961, the hospitals reported birth to Vital Statistics and they sent a list to the newspapers weekly. The newspapers have been spoken with in Hawaii about this.”

So if Obama were born in a Hawaii hospital then the hospital would have sent the notification of birth to the Department(?)of Vital Statistics and then the Department of Vital Statistics would have made the list available to the newspapers. But...

What happens for a home birth? I suspect there was and is a mechanism which permits the parents to register a home birth at the Department of Vital Statistics. If true, then it would be possible for an infant born outside of Hawaii to be registered as a Hawaii birth. There might be a number of reasons for parents to lie about the location of the birth—one of which is that US citizenship can be useful.

So false information provided by the parent(s) to the Department of Vital Statistics winds up in the local newpapers but still remains false information though it comes from the Department of Vital Statistics.

Your statement:

“I hate to see FReepers do things that do not represent true conservative thought.”

might be more accurately expressed:

“I hate to see FReepers do things that do not represent my version of true conservative thought.”

It’s possible that McCain may decide that his best play is to bring the conservative Republicans back into the deal with Bush, the Democrats, and the Republican senators.

He can once again portray himself as the guy that crosses party lines to “get the job done for the American people”.

One of the problems of having picking McCain over someone like Duncan Hunter

Other notables with community organizer experience:
Usama Bin Laden
Lenin
Marx
Mao Zedong
Stalin

Any ideas why federal law enforcement wasn’t involved/mentioned since this situation involved an interstate drug shipment?

bs9021, too bad your snippet didn’t include the next few
sentences in the article. It might have changed steve-b’s
response.

---

The next sentences from the M. Stanton Evans article:

---

I devote two chapters to this issue, showing (a) that the
alleged documentation of McCarthy’s supposed lying about the
numbers was a backstage concoction of the State Department, and
(b) that the charge of McCarthy’s having claimed 205 was
debunked in 1951 by investigators for a Democratically controlled
committee of the Senate. (Curiously, after the investigators
turned in a 40-page report that in essence backed McCarthy,
their memo would abruptly vanish—to be recovered later.)

A democrat’s opponent is always divisive.

“After Bork, and especially after Thomas, they became bloody brawls, and both parties made the federal judiciary a Christians vs the Lions forum”

Both parties a bloody brawl? I don’t seem to remember that happening.

I largely agree with your statement:

“We can’t have the President or the congress ruling on the constitutionality of laws that are enacted by congress and passed by the President.”

However, no one has argued for this point. The thing some of us have noticed is that it is very easy for any unelected judge to temporarily (lower courts) or permanently (Supreme Court) block/interfere with laws produced by the elected congress. We feel that ‘very easy’ is too easy.

One way to get a better balance would be a constitutional amendment possibly one along the lines that I suggested in the earlier posting.

I think my mindset is that either the judiciary or the legislature may have it wrong in a given case. I think it wiser to give a substantially more weight to the will of the legislature in constitutional cases. Note that ‘substantially more’ does not mean ‘always’ or even ‘most of the time’.

The president/executive is not involved in this issue. Attempts by the executive to thwart the will of a judge via the appeals process is entirely proper —until the Supreme Court decides otherwise.

Just another Joe:

Your outline is a nice description of the current setup but note that questions concerning the constitutionality of a law represent a very small fraction of a judge’s job.

Judicial review (making a determination on a law’s constitutionality) was not a role assigned by the US Constitution to the judiciary. It was, however, a power that Justice John Marshall (the first? Chief Justice) took and a power that has been used by the judiciary ever since.

It certainly makes sense to review legislation for violations of constitutionality else what good would a constitution be? And the only sensible branch of government to do the review would be the judiciary but since this issue was directly addressed by the Founders, the proper (in my opinion) constraints were never imposed on judicial review.

So I would like to see a constitutional amendment that made it somewhat harder to rule a law unconstitutional. Perhaps one that required issues of constitutionality be decided only by the decision of a unanimous Supreme Court. Such an amendment would change the power balance between the elected congress and the unelected judges to a balance that deferred more properly (I feel) to the legislature.

Nomorjer Kinov:

Thank you for reminding me (in your remarks to gondramB and dcwusmc) that “the Congress recently limited the scope of the court’s appellate jurisdiction and they simply ignored the restriction.”

I should go back and look at that case. Funny, I don’t recall any of the main stream press referring to a “constitutional crisis” when that occurred. It seems to represent a perverse counter example to my earlier statement above to ‘Just another Joe’ in which I agreed that the judiciary is the proper entity to review constitutional issues.

——What if the opinions of a majority of US representatives ——and the President go against the Consitution?

What if the opinion of a single judge goes against the Constitution? What if the opinion of a federal appeals court goes against the Constitution. What if a split opinion by the Supreme Court goes against the Constitution? What if a unanimous opinion by a newly liberal Supreme Court goes against the Constitution?

You are exactly right. My only quibble would be with the term “loophole”. The items you mention were intentionally added to the tax code.

sourcery

“By the time most voters are paying attention, it will all be “old news.” “

The phrase “old news” gives the MSM the necessary cover to
fail to follow-up adequately on stories previously covered (however inadequately).

Given MSM bias’, I think that the phrase “old news” will not reduce the repetition of negative (or perceived negative) coverage of Republican candidates by the MSM.

Remember what appeared to happen preceding the Clinton impeachment. Stories with only some of the warts were leaked to and published by the MSM. Then as more complete information became available about a given story, less than adequate coverage by the MSM was possible since “It’s old news”. I think for Republican candidates the “It’s old news” scenario will be replaced by the “Startingly new developments” scenario which permits the MSM to revist
essentially old news.

LurkedLongEnough

Your wrote:

...
Of course, all of the males disappeared after a few weeks once they made their requisite appearance. Half of the female staff were excellent contributors and blended in well despite their different mode of dress. The other half of them also disappeared.
...

Are you based in the US? What do you mean by disappeared? What was the immigration status of these people? Do you know what became of any of them?

What did Corsi write that triggered your statement that “Corsi has crossed the bright line into insanity”?