Strict Constitutionists

ZappasGuitar said:
Watch in amazement as the Amazing Yurskin puts his telepathic powers to work telling another what they really meant.

Of course NOWHERE in my OP did I state the 14th meant we can't debate the issue...but since when has something as trivial to Yurskin as the truth, ever stopped him from putting whatever words he wants in other people's mouths?
Click to expand...

yurtie =
screwball.jpg
 
ZappasGuitar said:
How come all the strict constitutionists on these boards aren't discussing the Democrat plan to invoke the 14th amendment to end the debt ceiling debate?

After all, the 14th does state:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payments of pension and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned."
Click to expand...

I believe the phrase is "Strict Constructionist."
 
If we are going to talk strict constitutionalists... we could discuss the "natural born citizen" requirement to seek the presidency. Seems the SCOTUS has struggled with clearly defining "natural born citizen" and scholars might argue the distinction of "natural born" requires both parents to be citizens, or residing (at least) in the US or US territory. Even if Obama's bogus birth certificate is legit... he is still not Constitutionally qualified, or at least there is a Constitutional question. ...IF we're going to talk "strict constitutionalists."
 
Dix: Libs only want to talk about the Constitution when they think they can use it, like Zap attempted here, to reduce liberty. Otherwise it never enters their conversation.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
How come all the strict constitutionists on these boards aren't discussing the Democrat plan to invoke the 14th amendment to end the debt ceiling debate?

After all, the 14th does state:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payments of pension and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned."
Click to expand...

Because 'strict constitutionalists' are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
 
Dixie said:
If we are going to talk strict constitutionalists... we could discuss the "natural born citizen" requirement to seek the presidency. Seems the SCOTUS has struggled with clearly defining "natural born citizen" and scholars might argue the distinction of "natural born" requires both parents to be citizens, or residing (at least) in the US or US territory. Even if Obama's bogus birth certificate is legit... he is still not Constitutionally qualified, or at least there is a Constitutional question. ...IF we're going to talk "strict constitutionalists."
Click to expand...

Which "scholars" might argue those things? Can you name them?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Try and ask a straightforward question and THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^is the response you get from Yurt.

Insults, name calling and ridicule...you'd think one who whines as much as Yurt does about threads started by trolls might try and take the high road once in a while...

But then, this is Yurt we are talking about here.
Click to expand...

My suspicions are that Yurt and LEGION TROLL are one in the same...
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Which "scholars" might argue those things? Can you name them?
Click to expand...

Sure I can, and I can also point you to Supreme Court opinions which actually make that very argument.

Minor v. Happersett (1874) -- 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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) --[dissenting opinion]-- it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

Schneider v. Rusk (1964) -- We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President.

Oh yeah, the scholar... Lawrence B. Solum, Georgetown Law. He wrote an entire essay on the subject... I would think anything you could write an essay on, might be something you could make an argument for or against... therefore it is 'arguable'.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263885&amp
 
Yurt said:
again...what does that have to do with a court challenge? you claimed no one said otherwise, yet, zappa was talking about "debate".
Click to expand...

Are not the politicians up on capital hill DEBATING whether or not to raise the debt limit?

Quit being obtuse and maybe we can finally have a civil discussion.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Are not the politicians up on capital hill DEBATING whether or not to raise the debt limit?

Quit being obtuse and maybe we can finally have a civil discussion.
Click to expand...

let's see, you attack me, then want a civil discussion...:rolleyes: you've been asked a question MULTIPLE times but refuse to answer it, so now, you want YOUR question answered, a civil discussion WHILE you attack me.

yes, they are debating it. what does that have to do with a court challenge? and what does that have to do with strict constitutionalists? and what does that have to do with "shall not be questioned"?
 
Dixie said:
Sure I can, and I can also point you to Supreme Court opinions which actually make that very argument.

Minor v. Happersett (1874) -- 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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) --[dissenting opinion]-- it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

Schneider v. Rusk (1964) -- We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President.

Oh yeah, the scholar... Lawrence B. Solum, Georgetown Law. He wrote an entire essay on the subject... I would think anything you could write an essay on, might be something you could make an argument for or against... therefore it is 'arguable'.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263885&amp
Click to expand...


From the abstract of the article that you posted:

As a matter of inclusion, anyone born on American soil with an American parent is clearly a "natural born citizen."
Click to expand...

Clearly, it is not arguable.
 
Yurt said:
let's see, you attack me, then want a civil discussion...:rolleyes: you've been asked a question MULTIPLE times but refuse to answer it, so now, you want YOUR question answered, a civil discussion WHILE you attack me.

yes, they are debating it. what does that have to do with a court challenge? and what does that have to do with strict constitutionalists? and what does that have to do with "shall not be questioned"?
Click to expand...

My GOD do you EVER tell the truth?

I posted the OP and you IMMEDIATELY attacked me, setting the tone for our entire discussion since.


Yurt said:
what far left wing site did sappy get this question from...

the question is nonsense

and STY has it right, as usual dung is wrong

and sappy shows his ignorance once again...no one is questioning the validity of the US debt

another failed strawman
Click to expand...


See that? That's your FIRST response to my OP and it's FILLED with attacks, so don't go whining because right out of the box you start spitting your hate at me and all it got you was the same attitude back that you dish out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top