Footwedge;1376496 wrote: And I'm sure there are some that believe Obama was birthed through the anus.

Now that you mention it...I've often thought he must have shit for brains.

Was seriously reading along thinking it was ridiculous and the C section part totally caught me off guard. LOL'd hard at that one.

Terry_Tate;1376573 wrote:Was seriously reading along thinking it was ridiculous and the C section part totally caught me off guard. LOL'd hard at that one.

I lol'd hard once I got through half of it. I ROFL'd hard once C-section was mentioned.

What was even 'funnier/sadder' today was I let my Obama supporter Co Worker read it. Then I had to explain it to him...UGH!!!

There are people who fill stereotypes from both ends of the polical spectrum. I acknowledge there are these people you cite. I also suggest there are plenty of nutjobs representing the extreme right wing. Neither is representative.

majorspark;1376479 wrote: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.

Well Scalia's particular brand of originalism doesn't care about "intent" right? It's what was the plain meaning of the words on the page to the people at the time if they were reading it. So, if we had a time machine and brought in the founding fathers and just had them read the words and ask them what they mean. Or, you just go to a dictionary from the time period.

I don't mean to run a reductio on that method...I just think it's at least a position that a reasonable person might conclude based on that method that is at least worthy of consideration and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand...even if the person writing the article appears to be either a troll or a loon.

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.

In any newspaper I have known you have to submit your name, address, and phone number in order for the paper to verify with you that you submitted a letter-to-the-editor. Anonymous is not allowed............................. unless, I guess, you are "Proud to be a Democrat"

QuakerOats;1376779 wrote:In any newspaper I have known you have to submit your name, address, and phone number in order for the paper to verify with you that you submitted a letter-to-the-editor. Anonymous is not allowed............................. unless, I guess, you are "Proud to be a Democrat"

Yeah, printing an anonymous letter struck me as unusual, although this appears to have been a request to remain anonymous. But printing it strikes me as a bit of a prank, perhaps by a retiring editor or simply a gag from someone in an industry dying a slow death.

Also, if that was fake it's purely ingenius. It takes a good bit of talent to come up with something so subtlely stupid.

BoatShoes;1376694 wrote:Well Scalia's particular brand of originalism doesn't care about "intent" right? It's what was the plain meaning of the words on the page to the people at the time if they were reading it. So, if we had a time machine and brought in the founding fathers and just had them read the words and ask them what they mean. Or, you just go to a dictionary from the time period.

Scalia cares about "intent". Intent and meaning of the words within the context of the Constitution and the history surrounding its formation. I know this is not the "intent" you are referring to. Something along the lines of what Scalia refers to as "evolutionary constitutional jurisprudence". Which by its very nature is more subject to ones ideological and personal beliefs.

BoatShoes;1376694 wrote:Or, you just go to a dictionary from the time period.

LOL. Come on Boat you there is more to it than that.

BoatShoes;1376694 wrote:I don't mean to run a reductio on that method...I just think it's at least a position that a reasonable person might conclude based on that method that is at least worthy of consideration and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand...even if the person writing the article appears to be either a troll or a loon.

Reasonable? You can't be serious. Using Scalia's "method" as you call it, no person possessing an ounce of reason could come to that hair brained conclusion. Here is an article that references his "method". Read it and honestly tell me a reasonable person using his "method" could come to to such a conclusion.

https://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm

I think he's just trying to say Scalia is a moron and therefore any moronic reading of the Constitution, no matter how unrelated, would be something he agrees with.

I'm sure there's a latin phrase describing that sort of fallacy, but I can't think of it right now.

majorspark;1377255 wrote:Scalia cares about "intent". Intent and meaning of the words within the context of the Constitution and the history surrounding its formation. I know this is not the "intent" you are referring to. Something along the lines of what Scalia refers to as "evolutionary constitutional jurisprudence". Which by its very nature is more subject to ones ideological and personal beliefs.



LOL. Come on Boat you there is more to it than that.



Reasonable? You can't be serious. Using Scalia's "method" as you call it, no person possessing an ounce of reason could come to that hair brained conclusion. Here is an article that references his "method". Read it and honestly tell me a reasonable person using his "method" could come to to such a conclusion.

https://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm

Well, I don't know, it is possible. Judge Richard Posner for instance, who is by all means a conservative/libertarian oriented jurist, who has had a kind of public feud with Justice Scalia over for a little while has suggested similar problems for an iron-clad commitment to Scalia's method of statutory interpretation. I.E. "No Vehicles in the Park" Could mean No Ambulances in the Park

The overall point is that no method of interpretation is immune from problems.

Judge Posner's scathing review of Scalia's most recent book:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/magazine/books-and-arts/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism

jhay78;1377499 wrote:I think he's just trying to say Scalia is a moron and therefore any moronic reading of the Constitution, no matter how unrelated, would be something he agrees with.

I'm sure there's a latin phrase describing that sort of fallacy, but I can't think of it right now.

Yeah, that's it. I'm saying a Supreme Court Justice is a moron. :rolleyes: