
Moorhead City is surrounded by two Marine bases. Cherry Point MCAS and Camp Lejuene

Very true. I'd be curious to see how many people would agree with his definition of "natural born citizen".Cleveland Buck;1375545 wrote:I would say that might be the dumbest, least informed human being on Earth, but I bet close to half of the electorate is just as ignorant.
51%-52% or so actually.but I bet close to half of the electorate is just as ignorant.
You just can't believe someone would be this drunk on Democrat Kool Aid, can you? Have you seen the Obamaphone video from last Fall? Have you seen the "Obamamoney" video from Detroit? Have you ever seen Al Sharpton or Ed Schulz rant incoherently? Certainly you know the Kool Aid is strong.Dr Winston O'Boogie;1376311 wrote:THere are idiotic democrats and republicans. But this goes beyond any of that. My gut tells me that this letter was written as a gag by someone who was trying to make a point. No way to prove that, but that's me guess.
Well...just to point out...under Justice Scalia's theory textualist/originalist constitutional jurisprudence wherein you ought to infer the meaning of the words in the Constitution based upon their plain language meaning at the time they were written...you might argue that "natural born" did not include C-section's since they weren't performed until 1881 under that theory.jhay78;1376304 wrote:"Natural born"= no C-section, no petosin, and no epidural . . . lol.
Anyone seeking the office of president must have a mom that is tough as nails. :laugh:
The problem is arguing that the term meant something a hundred years from being invented.BoatShoes;1376435 wrote:Well...just to point out...under Justice Scalia's theory textualist/originalist constitutional jurisprudence wherein you ought to infer the meaning of the words in the Constitution based upon their plain language meaning at the time they were written...you might argue that "natural born" did not include C-section's since they weren't performed until 1881 under that theory.
It's not totally outrageous...
I actually find it kind of interesting.
Well I agree there may be some problems with it but that is Scalia's whole jurisprudence right? He interprets the constitution based upon the following principle; "it's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the bill of rights or who ratified the Constitution."queencitybuckeye;1376437 wrote:The problem is arguing that the term meant something a hundred years from being invented.
And what was meant by those who ratified was not a method of giving birth. Its geographical location or within the jurisdiction of the US. Determines natural citizens by birth with no legal process necessary to attain it. "Naturalized" for those born outside the boundaries or jurisdiction of the US who had to go through a legal process to be granted citizenship. That was the intent of the founders.BoatShoes;1376446 wrote:Well I agree there may be some problems with it but that is Scalia's whole jurisprudence right? He interprets the constitution based upon the following principle; "it's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the bill of rights or who ratified the Constitution."
You're trying to twist an "Originalist" interpretation as something ridiculous. When in now way shape or form could anyone come to this conclusion by using it. The dude that wrote the article is not very bright.BoatShoes;1376446 wrote:I don't really agree but I do find it interesting that a person being rejected as an obvious liberal to be dismissed out of hand is basically articulating something that may follow from that particular method of constitutional interpretation that is promoted by a famous Conservative jurist.
I think any chance of this guy being smart enough to come to the ignorant conclusion you have come up with went out the window when he mentioned Chicago a safe city and the constitution being written a 100 years ago.BoatShoes;1376446 wrote:Well I agree there may be some problems with it but that is Scalia's whole jurisprudence right? He interprets the constitution based upon the following principle; "it's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the bill of rights or who ratified the Constitution."
I don't really agree but I do find it interesting that a person being rejected as an obvious liberal to be dismissed out of hand is basically articulating something that may follow from that particular method of constitutional interpretation that is promoted by a famous Conservative jurist.
LOL. I actually did laugh out loud there. Good play ole boy.HitsRus;1375727 wrote:51%-52% or so actually.
Well said. This was a plant...a sandbagger if you will. Probably written by one with the political views of Quaker Oats.Dr Winston O'Boogie;1376311 wrote:THere are idiotic democrats and republicans. But this goes beyond any of that. My gut tells me that this letter was written as a gag by someone who was trying to make a point. No way to prove that, but that's me guess.
That would certainly be unnaturally born.Footwedge;1376496 wrote:Well said. This was a plant...a sandbagger if you will. Probably written by one with the political views of Quaker Oats.
And I'm sure there are some that believe Obama was birthed through the anus.