Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $69,485
81%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 81%!! Less than $16k to go!! Let's git 'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by wrhssaxensemble

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Farewell, Archie: Beloved comic book character to die

    07/14/2014 5:06:35 PM PDT · 81 of 81
    wrhssaxensemble to RayChuang88

    Thank you Ray. I did not know this or read this anywhere else and it is definitely an important thing to keep in mind. I’m more familiar with Elseworlds (I don’t read Archie) and definitely get the angle now then. There are some really interesting Elseworld storylines out there that would be absolute garbage if interjected into continuity.

  • Supreme Court Strikes Down Obamacare Abortion Pill Rule as Violation of Religious Liberty

    06/30/2014 9:56:54 AM PDT · 95 of 129
    wrhssaxensemble to Triple

    “So, is just part of the law unconstitutional?

    Is this the only part?

    Does the USSC get effectively ‘line item veto’?”

    The way our judicial system works, the court can only decide on what is before it. All that was before it was the issue of the birth control mandate. All that was before it last time was the issue of the individual mandate. While the found this part constitutional and the other unconstitutional, those decisions make no judgement on the remainder of the law.... someone has to bring up cases on those portions for that to happen.

  • Wisconsin gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

    06/07/2014 11:52:29 AM PDT · 80 of 114
    wrhssaxensemble to rollo tomasi

    Is this better?

    “What are the “common laws” or “stare decisis” clauses that deconstructed the standard definition of female-male matrimony?”

    Clauses? stare decisis and common law are based on judicially given opinions, not a written law itself. We follow the common law here, not the continental system (which is used in places like France or Spain).

    To get to your point though, it seems (and I apologize if I am misreading you) that you are arguing that the definitions of marriage previously used were specifically applied only to traditional couples. While historically these were likely the facts, the language in the opinions themselves seem to not impose such restrictions.

    Most of the discussion of marriage has used broad statements like that Marriage is “a fundamental human relationship” [Boddie v. CT] or “an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects” [ Griswold v. CT] and it is the “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.” [Turner v. Safley].

    There is no SCOTUS case, as far as I am aware, that explicitly indicates that marriage by its very definition is solely for heterosexual couples. Hence, in the absence of such a definitive language, our system applies it broadly through the 14th Amendment and, as a fundamental right, the state has an incredibly high burden to meet in restricting it. A mere popular vote isn’t going to cut it.

    “Race and prisoners were specifically enumerated in your examples and maintained the standard definition of marriage. If not why wasn’t there same sex “protections” in place already and spelled-out.”

    Simply because SCOTUS hasn’t addressed the issue yet. Even if they had made comments on it, based on the sets of facts of the cases presented to the Court, such statements would be mere dicta and non-binding. You need an actual case presenting these facts to be heard by SCOTUS before you would get the sort of discussion you seem to be advocating.

    “I believe in enumeration (Especially when adhering to Natural Laws) not your penumbras under a “living Constitution”.

    I don’t disagree with you- except maybe on natural law (I don’t oppose the idea but to have any real power it has to be reduced to writing, as our founders did in drafting the constitution to reflect the principles of the Declaration). Despite your efforts to smear me, I also don’t believe in a “living constitution.”

    A “living constitution” is generally nothing more than a person trying to get away with playing politics so as to avoid the actual law. There is a difference, however, between that and the facts presented here. The U.S. constitution is silent on marriage largely because it is, and should be, a state issue since it is not a power enumerated to the Federal government (which btw may strike out DOMA even if there was no P&I clause).

    So the question then becomes whether an individual’s rights under the U.S. constitution (or state constitution but let’s keep it to US for our purposes) are violated by the state government’s actions. Our system, as adopted from English common law, uses court precedential interpretations of written law to determine the law.

    Our highest court has held, in very broad terms, that marriage is a fundamental right. It has also held that the Equal Protection Clause requires, in most cases, equal application of recognized fundamental rights. Consequently, the right to marriage must be extended to everyone provided the facts meet the definition of marriage which, as noted above, has been drafted very broadly. SCOTUS has given no indication, as highest interpreters of written law, that its broad view on marriage excludes same sex couples in any way.

    Despite what you may want to think, this analysis is based on the clear language of precedent and how our judicial system operates, not concepts of a “living constitution.” A “living constitution” approach would instead say “well all prior cases said marriage is between a man and woman but society has changed to the point where that distinction shouldn’t matter anymore.” I am not, and have not, said that. Instead I am applying the law on its face to the facts. Sorry it produces an outcome you don’t find desirable.

    “Also marriage licenses were issued way before the late 1800’s, especially in larger settlements.”

    In some cases sure but they weren’t as widespread of a requirement as once the progressives came in. On as large a scale as is currently (required for every single marriage) it is has only existed as a requirement since 1929.

  • Wisconsin gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

    06/07/2014 11:33:53 AM PDT · 78 of 114
    wrhssaxensemble to rollo tomasi

    “What are the “common laws” or “stare decisis” clauses that deconstructed the standard definition of female-male matrimony?” Clauses? stare decisis and common law are based on judicially given opinions, not a written law itself. We follow the common law here, not the continental system (which is used in places like France or Spain). To get to your point though, it seems (and I apologize if I am misreading you) that you are arguing that the definitions of marriage previously used were specifically applied only to traditional couples. While historically these were likely the facts, the language in the opinions themselves seem to not impose such restrictions. Most of the discussion of marriage has used broad statements like that Marriage is “a fundamental human relationship” [Boddie v. CT] or “an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects” [ Griswold v. CT] and it is the “expression[] of emotional support and public commitment.” [Turner v. Safley]. There is no SCOTUS case, as far as I am aware, that explicitly indicates that marriage by its very definition is solely for heterosexual couples. Hence, in the absence of such a definitive language, our system applies it broadly through the 14th Amendment and, as a fundamental right, the state has an incredibly high burden to meet in restricting it.
    A mere popular vote isn’t going to cut it.

    “Race and prisoners were specifically enumerated in your examples and maintained the standard definition of marriage. If not why wasn’t there same sex “protections” in place already and spelled-out.” Simply because SCOTUS hasn’t addressed the issue yet. Even if they had made comments on it, based on the sets of facts of the cases presented to the Court, such statements would be mere dicta and non-binding. You need an actual case presenting these facts to be heard by SCOTUS before you would get the sort of discussion you seem to be advocating.

    “I believe in enumeration (Especially when adhering to Natural Laws) not your penumbras under a “living Constitution”. I don’t disagree with you- except maybe on natural law (I don’t oppose the idea but to have any real power it has to be reduced to writing, as our founders did in drafting the constitution to reflect the principles of the Declaration). Despite your efforts to smear me, I also don’t believe in a “living constitution.” A “living constitution” is generally nothing more than a person trying to get away with playing politics so as to avoid the actual law. There is a difference, however, between that and the facts presented here. The U.S. constitution is silent on marriage largely because it is, and should be, a state issue since it is not a power enumerated to the Federal government (which btw may strike out DOMA even if there was no P&I clause). So the question then becomes whether an individual’s rights under the U.S. constitution (or state constitution but let’s keep it to US for our purposes) are violated by the state government’s actions. Our system, as adopted from English common law, uses court precedential interpretations of written law to determine the law. Our highest court has held, in very broad terms, that marriage is a fundamental right. It has also held that the Equal Protection Clause requires, in most cases, equal application of recognized fundamental rights. Consequently, the right to marriage must be extended to everyone provided the facts meet the definition of marriage which, as noted above, has been drafted very broadly. SCOTUS has given no indication, as highest interpreters of written law, that its broad view on marriage excludes same sex couples in any way. Despite what you may want to think, this analysis is based on the clear language of precedent and how our judicial system operates, not concepts of a “living constitution.” A “living constitution” approach would instead say “well all prior cases said marriage is between a man and woman but society has changed to the point where that distinction shouldn’t matter anymore.” I am not, and have not, said that. Instead I am applying the law on its face to the facts. Sorry it produces an outcome you don’t find desirable.

    “Also marriage licenses were issued way before the late 1800’s, especially in larger settlements.” In some cases sure but they weren’t as widespread of a requirement as once the progressives came in. On as large a scale as is currently (required for every single marriage) it is has only existed as a requirement since 1929.

  • Wisconsin gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

    06/07/2014 9:56:52 AM PDT · 74 of 114
    wrhssaxensemble to rollo tomasi

    “considering you avoided everything else especially “marriage” loll” What exactly are you talking about? Again, read Turner v. Safley. My point has never been that same sex couples are either of a racial minority group or prison inmates. However, Turner appears to expand the court’s finding of a fundamental right to marriage beyond categories of law discriminating against race (in that case, they found it unconstitutional to deprive a prison inmate of the right to marry). The case shows, despite what appears to be your claim, that the deemed fundamental right to marriage is not limited to striking down racially biased laws.

    All I am doing is citing Supreme Court precedent. Since we are a common law system ultimately stare decisis is the cornerstone of our legal system. Again, if you disagree with precedent, fine. But based on precedent, I just don’t see any other way for a judge to decide the issue.

    From a policy perspective, the government should be out of marriage entirely (afterall, marriage licenses weren’t issued until the progressives took over in the late 1800s/early 1900s). Leave it up to private religious and secular groups who they want to treat as married within their own groups and force no one else to recognize their decisions.

  • Wisconsin gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

    06/07/2014 8:57:16 AM PDT · 68 of 114
    wrhssaxensemble to rollo tomasi

    With the utmost of respect intended, your point is moot. Check out Turner v. Safley. Prisoners are not a particular race. The only reason I cite to Loving is that it seems to be the most well known case and the first large on point one on the subject.

  • Wisconsin gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

    06/07/2014 8:40:46 AM PDT · 63 of 114
    wrhssaxensemble to All

    To those who keep arguing the bans should be enforceable because only x% support it- that is a valid point but only if you presuppose the action does not violate the rights of another. Otherwise you turn a republic protecting individual rights into simple rule by the majority with no rights. Thus the question becomes whether any rights are violated by the ban. As shown in cases like Loving, marriage is a fundamental right according to SCOTUS. The Equal Protection clause requires application of fundamental rights equally across citizens. A fundamental right can only be overcome by the government through meeting an incredibly high burden. Ultimately the inky way you can oppose these decisions overturning bans on same sex marriage is if you overturn the rpecedent upon which they rely (e.g. loving) and are you really advocating things like banning interracial marriage (which would happen in the absence of loving)?

    I will never understand how so many claim to be in favor of less government and more individual rights but if it applies to anything someone else does that makes them feel iffy about their own lives or beliefs without any direct physical harm, they demand the government step in at once.

  • U.S. concluded in 2010 that Bergdahl walked away (It's true)

    06/03/2014 7:23:09 AM PDT · 110 of 153
    wrhssaxensemble to Extremely Extreme Extremist

    “Wait until Obama finds out about this....boy I hate to be in Rice’s shoes when Obama’s mad...”

    Based on Benghazi, what can position can she be promoted to now for this lie?

  • Republicans Should Hope Jeb Bush Runs

    05/08/2014 12:44:35 PM PDT · 51 of 56
    wrhssaxensemble to dfwgator; All

    Susana Martinez is the answer for 2016. I like Cruz and Paul but Martinez is (by and large) not too far different and far more likely to appeal to the broader electorate. Plus if Hillary does run, she can’t play the gender card—— at least not as easily.

  • The ObamaCare speech he never gave

    11/05/2013 4:06:11 PM PST · 2 of 6
    wrhssaxensemble to Beave Meister

    Saw this on Drudge. It’s fantastic.

  • Memo: Administration bungled Obamacare long before GOP had power to obstruct

    11/03/2013 6:48:06 AM PST · 1 of 9
    wrhssaxensemble
  • Kudlow: Liberal entitlement-state dream is crumbling

    11/02/2013 6:15:42 AM PDT · 1 of 19
    wrhssaxensemble
  • Bono: Only Capitalism Can End Poverty

    08/13/2013 7:34:19 AM PDT · 1 of 37
    wrhssaxensemble
  • Is Obama worried about Connecticut?

    10/09/2012 4:26:05 PM PDT · 26 of 26
    wrhssaxensemble to All
  • Is Obama worried about Connecticut?

    10/07/2012 6:55:56 PM PDT · 9 of 26
    wrhssaxensemble to All

    Except notice:

    “This Saturday, your neighbors in New Haven are continuing that work by knocking on doors in nearby battleground states, asking voters to support President Obama. It’s critical work — can you join them?”

    There aren’t really any nearby battleground states..... New Hampshire is 3 hours away and Pennsylvania is about 6. Those might not seem like far in the bigger states like Texas but it’s a little far for New England I imagine

  • Is Obama worried about Connecticut?

    10/07/2012 6:38:25 PM PDT · 1 of 26
    wrhssaxensemble
    This is the most recent email sent out by the campaign. The nearest swing state though is New Hampshire (or maybe Pennsylvania). Both of them are far too far from here to make a trip knocking on doors really worth it..... Does this mean Obama is worried about Connecticut polling?
  • Election prediction (vanity)

    10/07/2012 5:49:17 PM PDT · 14 of 24
    wrhssaxensemble to uncitizen

    Do you think he’d even give one? I can’t see him giving a respectful one if he does... He will probably either attack the electoral process or the Americans who voted against him (he’ll pretend they are all millionaires who hate the middle class)in the process

  • Election prediction (vanity)

    10/07/2012 5:47:04 PM PDT · 12 of 24
    wrhssaxensemble to Psalm 73

    Writing Brown in Mass off as a loss? He seems to be quite a bit behind Warren (the idea of her as a senator horrifies me)

  • Election prediction (vanity)

    10/07/2012 4:43:30 PM PDT · 1 of 24
    wrhssaxensemble
  • CU-Boulder prof's updated forecast still gives win to Mitt Romney

    10/05/2012 10:30:19 AM PDT · 21 of 21
    wrhssaxensemble to All
  • Early Voting Statistics (NC,IA,OH and others)

    10/03/2012 1:11:02 PM PDT · 79 of 90
    wrhssaxensemble to Ravi

    I guess my question though is more why- I mean there’s not any big cities in those are there?

  • Early Voting Statistics (NC,IA,OH and others)

    10/03/2012 11:36:24 AM PDT · 69 of 90
    wrhssaxensemble to Ravi; All

    These numbers- assuming they are correct, which you’ve given me no reason to doubt- are quite impressive. The Dems have lower %s in all the counties where 2008 %s were given except for Trumbull and Jefferson counties. Any idea why these two stand out?

  • Romney beating Obama in poll on foreign affairs

    09/28/2012 6:10:02 AM PDT · 1 of 4
    wrhssaxensemble
    I'm hoping no one else posted this yet.. I didn't see it when I searched for Bloomberg or foreign
  • Has Romney Begun "Carpetbombing" Ads in the Swing States Yet?

    09/25/2012 7:19:36 PM PDT · 22 of 71
    wrhssaxensemble to All

    Both Obama and Romney ads in CT. Used to see more Romney ones but now seeing more Obama than Romney. Why bother wasting $$on ads in CT if you are Obama? It’s closer than it probably should be but not like he’s really at risk of losing here

  • Hannity Guest Dick Morris Confidently Declares Obama's Defeat

    09/24/2012 7:59:01 PM PDT · 78 of 94
    wrhssaxensemble to mia

    If I recall he predicted McCain would win but only if he went after Obama on the economy and his votes as a Senator, neither of which he did and instead chose to play nice while Obama hammered him about Bush so McCain lost.

  • ARG Poll: 0 49%, R 47%

    09/22/2012 11:24:06 AM PDT · 42 of 42
    wrhssaxensemble to All

    Oh and the 52.522-45.948/51.030-46.765 with Romney in the lead would seems to comes pretty close to the economic model prediction from the University of Colorado which has been right every election since 1980; they are predicted Romney 52.9%, Obama 47.1%

    http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says

    Any thoughts?

  • ARG Poll: 0 49%, R 47%

    09/21/2012 10:27:48 AM PDT · 35 of 42
    wrhssaxensemble to Sans-Culotte

    Also, although some people love Obama, he has hardly the charming personality Clinton does... never underestimate the importance of personality to some people

  • ARG Poll: 0 49%, R 47%

    09/21/2012 10:22:38 AM PDT · 33 of 42
    wrhssaxensemble to All

    Consider this:

    Rasmussen was the closest poll in 2008 according to something I read the other day. If you take Rasmussen’s Summary of Political Affiliation (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation) that someone posted here earlier and apply it to this poll you end up with:

    Using August Rasmussen party ID numbers:

    Romney 52.522% =((.1 *.333 dems) + (.92*.376 repub) + (.5*.292 ind))
    Obama 45.948% =((.9 *.34 dems) + (.08*.349 repub) + (.43*.292 ind))

    Now even if we assume August was a fluke in the number of people identifying with the GOP:

    Romney 51.030% =((.1 *.340 dems) + (.92*.349 repub) + (.5*.311 ind))
    Obama 46.765% =((.9 *.340 dems) + (.08*.349 repub) + (.43*.311 ind))

    So assuming this poll was, besides party identification weighting, done correctly and Rasmussen’s numbers are correct (given their accuracy in 08 I’m rather inclined to believe these numbers) ultimately Romney has a lead of between 4.265% and 6.574%, on average 5.4195%. At this time in 2008 most polls had Obama ahead of McCain by 2% and ultimately Obama ended up ahead by 7.3%

    bottom line: There is still a lot that can happen before election day and who knows how poll numbers translate into actual electoral college votes but right now Romney likely has 2-3 times the lead Obama has over McCain at this time in 2008

  • Live Thread: GOP Nat'l Convention Day 2 (Paul Ryan speaks tonight!)

    08/29/2012 6:41:22 PM PDT · 366 of 1,261
    wrhssaxensemble to All

    Pawlenty of all people gave a great energizing speech.... who knew?

  • Positively Republican on FB is saying that Clint Eastwood will speak at the GOP convention tonight.

    08/29/2012 5:37:32 PM PDT · 4 of 59
    wrhssaxensemble to Winstons Julia

    I thought the surprise guest was scheduled for tomorrow night before Rubio introduces Romney? Interesting the rumor is about tonight.... I’m REALLY hoping that the surprise guest will be Nancy Reagan

  • Obama Honored Fallen SEALs By Sending Their Parents a Form Letter Signed By Electric Pen

    08/29/2012 5:34:30 PM PDT · 1 of 31
    wrhssaxensemble
  • The end?

    08/24/2012 12:58:48 PM PDT · 10 of 19
    wrhssaxensemble to Ditter; All

    no need to give money. This email list is free- someone signed me up as a joke (who I have no idea) but I’ve kept myself on it to keep up to date with these awful emails... it’s also interesting to see emails coming from Debbie Wasserman Schultz in particular that just completely twist everything so terribly

  • Study which correctly predicted every presidential race since 1980 says huge Romney win

    08/24/2012 6:43:17 AM PDT · 4 of 35
    wrhssaxensemble to All
  • Study which correctly predicted every presidential race since 1980 says huge Romney win

    08/24/2012 6:38:51 AM PDT · 1 of 35
    wrhssaxensemble
    Even Minnesota and Pennsylvania.... thoughts?
  • Obama 2016? (What if 2012 Isn’t Obama’s Last Campaign?)

    08/15/2012 1:45:01 PM PDT · 52 of 67
    wrhssaxensemble to Jonty30; All

    Or even scarier- pull a Taft and convince the next Dem president to name him to SCOTUS

  • Romney: Obama’s Campaign Disgraces Presidency

    08/14/2012 7:42:59 PM PDT · 56 of 68
    wrhssaxensemble to GQuagmire

    I’ve been saying since Ryan was named that Obama is desperate now to dump Biden and replace him with someone like Hillary. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is some act to take him out on health issues or so Joe “can spend more time with his family.”
    The timing in relation to the Ryan announcement seems too perfect to be a coincidence.

  • TRENDING: Doppelganger alert: John Kerry to play Romney in Obama debate prep

    08/13/2012 7:11:15 AM PDT · 31 of 31
    wrhssaxensemble to Diogenesis

    “WHICH OF THE TWO IMPOSED GAY MARRIAGE...” The Massachusetts Supreme Court found gay marriage to be a right in Goodrich. Last I checked neither was on that court...

  • Is it really Paul Ryan?

    08/11/2012 12:12:17 AM PDT · 29 of 76
    wrhssaxensemble to RaisingCain

    True. The fact I am up at 3 am (after being up at 5 this morning to go to work) just so I can track who might be named as VP- a post that except in the very rare occurrence of a tie in the senate does not really matter a whole lot- certainly puts some merit to my girlfriend’s allegations that I am a nerd. haha

  • Is it really Paul Ryan?

    08/10/2012 11:46:10 PM PDT · 6 of 76
    wrhssaxensemble to Jake8898

    I’m with you. I like Ryan but it’s a little short-sighted, I think, to take him from his current position where he excels. Additionally, he doesn’t help (and may even hurt) with states like Florida where many Senior see any change, for better or worse, to Social Security or Medicare as the end of the world

  • Is it really Paul Ryan?

    08/10/2012 11:38:36 PM PDT · 1 of 76
    wrhssaxensemble
  • Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president

    10/20/2011 8:56:07 AM PDT · 87 of 169
    wrhssaxensemble to edge919

    No. It states that but then proceeds to say that there are questions as to whether one born in the US but of non-citizens is natural born. It ultimately doesn’t resolve that issue but only says there is less support for it. It merely states that it is unquestionable that US born children of US citizens are natural born (they also qualify as native born) but some have questioned whether one who is born in the US but not of citizens is natural born. It doesn’t say one way or the other on the issue just that some have argued over it and thus is it is less established or clear than if both requirements were met. And again, this is just dicta anyway.

  • Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president

    10/20/2011 8:49:09 AM PDT · 86 of 169
    wrhssaxensemble to edge919

    It was merely dictum in Minor. The point in Minor was not to define the term natural born citizen for purposes of the natural born citizen requirement but rather to determine whether the 14th Amendment mandated that women have the right to vote as US citizens. Bingham drafted that Amendment about 80 years after the term was used for the presidency requirement which means it may or may not actually view the term “natural born citizen” similarly as the founders. Further, the term “natural born citizen” nowhere appears in the 14th Amendment. The Amendment merely states “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States”; that is it protects the rights of citizens. The natural born issue was not important to the holding in Minor and thus merely dicta with no real weight beyond possibly being persuasive.

    It was also merely dictum in Wong Kim Ark.

  • Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president

    10/20/2011 8:37:52 AM PDT · 82 of 169
    wrhssaxensemble to CodeToad

    Fair point. Perhaps I shouldn’t have capitalized the terms.

  • Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president

    10/20/2011 8:36:53 AM PDT · 81 of 169
    wrhssaxensemble to battletank

    Native is a higher standard. If you qualify as native you also qualify as natural born. So you don’t really have a point here...

  • Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president

    10/20/2011 8:31:01 AM PDT · 78 of 169
    wrhssaxensemble to Forty-Niner

    Jus Soli is of the soil; you are born there. Jus Sanguinis is of the blood; you have a blood line. Exactly as I said.

  • Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president

    10/20/2011 8:24:10 AM PDT · 75 of 169
    wrhssaxensemble to edge919

    Plus all that quoted dictum in Minor says is that it is clear that at least someone who was born in the US and has 2 citizen parents is a natural born citizen- something I don’t think anyone is arguing against. It’s where one of those elements is missing that is at issue. And all the court said about it (if you even assume what they said has ANY weight)is “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Of course there have been doubts- otherwise the arguments over this issue would not continue. It doesn’t say conclusively, however, one way or the other that they are not natural born. The dicta merely says those who have both are without a doubt natural born.

  • Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president

    10/20/2011 8:17:35 AM PDT · 73 of 169
    wrhssaxensemble to edge919

    Also, the text in Minor v. Happersett that states “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea”

    is also dictum and as such has no real weight behind it.

  • Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president

    10/20/2011 8:11:06 AM PDT · 72 of 169
    wrhssaxensemble to Forty-Niner

    And again as I have said to everyone attacking me- your support for how “wrong” I am is...?

  • Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president

    10/20/2011 8:10:20 AM PDT · 71 of 169
    wrhssaxensemble to MHGinTN

    And you still have yet to prove that I was wrong in anything I wrote... if it was clearly as misguided as you claim you’d be poking holes through it with actual facts. Here we are multiple posts later and still no holes being poked by you.

  • Birthers say Marco Rubio is not eligible to be president

    10/20/2011 8:08:27 AM PDT · 70 of 169
    wrhssaxensemble to edge919

    Which cases are you referring to? Vivian Daniel’s concurrence in Dred Scott? Fuller’s dissent in Wong Kim Ark? Neither is controlling law and both are only sources of dicta. They, like Black’s have only persuasive authority (if any). To the best of my knowledge there are no cases directly on point and those two only tangentially address the issue and have no force of law. Black’s is at least based on common law definitions which have been adopted across courts in Anglo-American legal history for defining those terms. I’m not saying SCOTUS won’t at some point possibly say that the clause does require both birth in the US and US citizen parents but the current law is open to interpretation at best. You can’t definitively say one way or the other what the term “natural born citizen” means by merely referring to currently existing SCOTUS case law.