|
icantfindaname posted:So have the Republicans come up with a candidate that isn't either Mitt Romney or a theocratic fascist yet? Jeb, Trump, Paul and Perry(depending on how you want to classify folksy stupid).
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
Idran posted:This might be a stupid question, since it was someone trying to devil's-advocate a stupid argument that I didn't have the legal knowhow to argue against, but I once ran into someone claiming that if he had been born in Kenya, then because his mother had only moved to the US in 1960, according to federal law that wouldn't actually be true. Is there anything to that, or were they just being obstinant for the sake of being obstinant? I feel a little silly even asking this, since I feel like this might just be feeding into the whole birther thing (and it was ridiculous rules lawyering anyway, since he outright agreed that yes he was born in Honolulu anyway), but I'd like to have an actual counterargument the next time we talk. There's no indication that's actually true. I'm not sure there's ever been anyone who had citizenship invalidated for being born outside the country to a person who was a citizen but hadn't spent the stated number of years before a certain age within the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
edit: nm, I mis-read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There's no indication that's actually true. I'm not sure there's ever been anyone who had citizenship invalidated for being born outside the country to a person who was a citizen but hadn't spent the stated number of years before a certain age within the US. So it's a thing where the restriction is probably invalid, but it's never actually been applied in that regard so there's never been opportunity to challenge it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Now George Romney, on the other hand, he was definitely not born in the US. Didn't Romney's family originally move to Mexico to avoid persecution for polygamy?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Jeb, Trump, Paul and Perry(depending on how you want to classify folksy stupid). I hope Trump runs, it's like every day is Christmas morning when he's on the trail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Bob Dole is the rare exception where there was very little Bob Dole could do to hurt Bob Dole's brand. Even still, I'm pretty sure that all Bob Dole did was succeed in best case scenario for the rebuttal and everyone forgot everything Bob Dole said or that Bob Dole even gave the rebuttal. Bob Dole seemed like a good guy, but even though I was a Rush Limbaugh consuming idiotic young Republican at the time I knew that Bob Dole wasn't actually going to become the president. Remember that Bob Dole worked with Ted Kennedy to put together the original Food Stamps bill, and considered it one of his greatest triumphs as a legislator. Last year, the Republican Congress destroyed the program at the behest of the Heritage Foundation. Two years ago, Bob Dole appeared before the Senate to gather support for a U.N. treaty that protected the rights of the disabled in other countries. Republicans voted down the treaty, muttering about "American sovereignty" and "Agenda 21". Bob Dole is no longer Republican enough for Republicans. loving Christ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:Remember that Bob Dole worked with Ted Kennedy to put together the original Food Stamps bill, and considered it one of his greatest triumphs as a legislator. Last year, the Republican Congress destroyed the program at the behest of the Heritage Foundation. You forgot to add that he was in a wheelchair when he went to there for the UN disabled rights treaty. Edit: Nintendo Kid posted:There's no indication that's actually true. I'm not sure there's ever been anyone who had citizenship invalidated for being born outside the country to a person who was a citizen but hadn't spent the stated number of years before a certain age within the US. Not to mention that unless Obama has Kenyan citizenship (Or anywhere else really) then they cant strip him of his citizenship since SCOTUS has found that making someone stateless by removing their citizenship is a severe attack and restriction of their rights. Communist Zombie fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Bob Dole is the rare exception where there was very little Bob Dole could do to hurt Bob Dole's brand. Even still, I'm pretty sure that all Bob Dole did was succeed in best case scenario for the rebuttal and everyone forgot everything Bob Dole said or that Bob Dole even gave the rebuttal. Bob Dole seemed like a good guy, but even though I was a Rush Limbaugh consuming idiotic young Republican at the time I knew that Bob Dole wasn't actually going to become the president. Be honest: you just wanted to see how many times you could say "Bob Dole" in a single post in an increasingly-dated play on his own habit during that election of referring to himself in the third person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Be honest: you just wanted to see how many times you could say "Bob Dole" in a single post in an increasingly-dated play on his own habit during that election of referring to himself in the third person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:Bob Dole is no longer Republican enough for Republicans. loving Christ. Half of them, probably more, never knew Dole. It's not surprising that they'd ignore him on an issue that they were already going to vote against anyway. Also, they're horrible people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Joementum posted:McCain's case is more of a gray area because he was born in the Canal Zone, which was an American territory and people born in the territories are US citizens. That's how, for example, Governor Luis Fortuno of Puerto Rico occasionally gets mentioned as a potential candidate or (more likely) VP pick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Be honest: you just wanted to see how many times you could say "Bob Dole" in a single post in an increasingly-dated play on his own habit during that election of referring to himself in the third person. I find it impossible to use pronouns in reference to Bob Dole. I also have an urge to pronounce Clinton as Clin Ton. TV rots your brains, kids.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Having a Matt Foley personal story would rule. I'd prefer Mark Foley
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Didn't Romney's family originally move to Mexico to avoid persecution for polygamy? Yup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Idran posted:This might be a stupid question, since it was someone trying to devil's-advocate a stupid argument that I didn't have the legal knowhow to argue against, but I once ran into someone claiming that if he had been born in Kenya, then because his mother had only moved to the US in 1960, according to federal law that wouldn't actually be true. Is there anything to that, or were they just being obstinant for the sake of being obstinant? I feel a little silly even asking this, since I feel like this might just be feeding into the whole birther thing (and it was ridiculous rules lawyering anyway, since he outright agreed that yes he was born in Honolulu anyway), but I'd like to have an actual counterargument the next time we talk. According to the US constitution you're a citizen at birth if either a) you're born in the US or b) at least one biological parent is a citizen. I (and I'm assuming many other people) misunderstood the "natural born" part of the presidential requirements that to exclude people born outside the country, but still citizens at birth. But if George Romney and Ted Cruz qualify there's no set of hypotheticals I've ever seen that would exclude Obama.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:According to the US constitution you're a citizen at birth if either a) you're born in the US or b) at least one biological parent is a citizen. That's what I said, but then this person brought up that law that says otherwise. That law's definitely unconstitutional, then, but just hasn't ever had the chance to be challenged, like someone mentioned earlier? Okay, I can bring that up next time I talk to the guy. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Idran posted:That's what I said, but then this person brought up that law that says otherwise. That law's definitely unconstitutional, then, but just hasn't ever had the chance to be challenged, like someone mentioned earlier? Okay, I can bring that up next time I talk to the guy. Thanks. No the issue is that the laws can define whatever they want and it doesn't change the constitution. The laws aren't unconstitutional they just are talking about separate contexts, just because you're a citizen under the law doesn't mean you can be president. The issue of who exactly can be president has never been determined in court. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf quote:b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Idran posted:That's what I said, but then this person brought up that law that says otherwise. That law's definitely unconstitutional, then, but just hasn't ever had the chance to be challenged, like someone mentioned earlier? Okay, I can bring that up next time I talk to the guy. Thanks. If a law and the constitution contradict each other, the constitution takes precedence. Hell, there have been a ton of challenges to Obama's citizenship and they've all been thrown out, they weren't even told they were wrong, they were told the whole thing is nonsense. It'd be one thing if a challenge to his citizenship was brought to court and the case was found lacking, but they haven't even got that far. Air Skwirl fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:If a law and the constitution contradict each other, the constitution takes precedence. Hell, there have been a ton of challenges to Obama's citizenship and they've all been thrown out, they weren't even told they were wrong, they were told the whole thing is nonsense. It'd be one thing if a challenge to his citizenship was brought to court and the case was found lacking, but they haven't even got that far. I understand that, yeah, but he wasn't even making a birther argument, was the annoying thing. He was saying that yes, Obama was born in the US and was qualified to be president, but if he hadn't been then according to section G of that law, he wouldn't be a citizen by birth because his mother had only lived in the US for a year after her 14th birthday at the time of Obama's birth and his father wasn't a citizen. This is probably getting to be a derail, though; I should probably just drop it and ignore the guy, since it's a pointless hypothetical anyway. Idran fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:According to the US constitution you're a citizen at birth if either a) you're born in the US or b) at least one biological parent is a citizen. I (and I'm assuming many other people) misunderstood the "natural born" part of the presidential requirements that to exclude people born outside the country, but still citizens at birth. But if George Romney and Ted Cruz qualify there's no set of hypotheticals I've ever seen that would exclude Obama. No. Part b is not actually part of the US constitution. Part a is in the 14th amendment, but part B is purely statutory; the U.S. Could deny citizenship to children of citizens not born in the US without having a constitutional concern.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Idran posted:I understand that, yeah, but he wasn't even making a birther argument, was the annoying thing. He was saying that yes, Obama was born in the US and was qualified to be president, but if he hadn't been then according to section G of that law, he wouldn't be a citizen by birth because his mother had only lived in the US for a year after her 14th birthday at the time of Obama's birth and his father wasn't a citizen. His mother was born here, I thought. It's incredibly hard to lose US citizenship, people have tried and failed. Ted Cruz's father wasn't a US citizen when he was born either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:His mother was born here, I thought. It's incredibly hard to lose US citizenship, people have tried and failed. Ted Cruz's father wasn't a US citizen when he was born either. Purely hypothetical question, what if you believe in the validity of anti-miscegenation laws? Would that, constitutionally, make Obama's citizenship or eligibility for presisency invalid, as he would then be an illegal baby? I completely agree Obama has the right to be President; I'm wondering if the anti-race mixing logic is at root for birthers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Purely hypothetical question, what if you believe in the validity of anti-miscegenation laws? Would that, constitutionally, make Obama's citizenship or eligibility for presisency invalid, as he would then be an illegal baby? Anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional, and though that ruling was after his birth, I think poo poo like that is retroactive, like if you're convicted of breaking a law, then later that law is ruled unconstitutional you get released immediately and often get to sue the government. So at this point you're asking is "what if the constitution was different than what the constitution has been interpreted up until now." You're basically asking "is segregation legal if you don't agree with 'Brown vs. Board of Education.'" Also, I think Anti-miscegenation laws were about marrying not child birth, and if they'd been pressed in the Obama families case (for instance if he'd been born in the South instead of Hawaii) the only difference would be his Dad would have been arrested on rape charges, and probably lynched before reaching trial. Wouldn't change the fact his mother was a US citizen and thus he's a natural born US Citizen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Purely hypothetical question, what if you believe in the validity of anti-miscegenation laws? Would that, constitutionally, make Obama's citizenship or eligibility for presisency invalid, as he would then be an illegal baby? Anti-miscegenation laws made it a crime to intermarry; however, since Hawaii never passed such a law and since Dunham resided in Hawaii at his birth, they're irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Wouldn't change the fact his mother was a US citizen and thus he's a natural born US Citizen. Again, this is insufficient - the Constitution does NOT provide for jus sanguinus citizenship, that's statutory and requires slightly more than you're putting forth. It's also irrelevant because he was born in the US and thus is a citizen under jus soli principles (and the 14th amendment citizenship clause.) Strictly speaking, it would be constitutional to deem all children of US nationals born abroad not to be citizens at birth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Doing a little extra research, I thought one thing, was told different, thought another and was told different again, went back and looked at the actual constitution and realized I was more right the first time but probably still don't have a good handle on it and don't care enough to look up all the federal statutes. It is entirely academic at this point and anti-miscegenation laws wouldn't have any influence on it anyways. I do think any interpretation of the law where Ted Cruz or George Romney were eligible for President wouldn't exclude Obama in even the most hysteric Birther hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I do think any interpretation of the law where Ted Cruz or George Romney were eligible for President wouldn't exclude Obama in even the most hysteric Birther hypothetical. What about "founder's intent" as an interpretation? That would surely render Obama ineligible but allow Cruz and Romney.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What about "founder's intent" as an interpretation? That would surely render Obama ineligible but allow Cruz and Romney. If we go by founders' intent, who takes up the other 2/5ths of Obama's presidency? Diamond Joe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What about "founder's intent" as an interpretation? That would surely render Obama ineligible but allow Cruz and Romney. Cruz is as Mexican as Obama is Black, and Romney's a Mormon, I don't think the founding fathers were huge fans of them either (I know Mormonism post dates the founding of the country, but I still think the founders would have a huge problem with the concept.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I find it impossible to use pronouns in reference to Bob Dole. I also have an urge to pronounce Clinton as Clin Ton. TV rots your brains, kids. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Wars waged aagainst The United States of America: Mormons 1 Kenyans 0 This doesn't matter but is amusing to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What about "founder's intent" as an interpretation? That would surely render Obama ineligible but allow Cruz and Romney. Founder's intent with that was just as likely "Hamilton can't be president"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Cruz is as Mexican as Obama is Black, and Romney's a Mormon, I don't think the founding fathers were huge fans of them either (I know Mormonism post dates the founding of the country, but I still think the founders would have a huge problem with the concept.) Maybe you should go double check where Ted's father was from...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Founder's intent with that was just as likely "Hamilton can't be president" Arron Burr was just following the will of the founders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Founder's intent with that was just as likely "Hamilton can't be president" Another reminder that the founding fathers were flawed, politically ambitious people who knew less about the world than the average highschooler does today, and missed out on over two centuries of social and scientific development. Respecting them for what they did is one thing, looking to their long-dead opinions for guidance is insane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
I guess Kasich's not runningquote:Ohio Gov. John Kasich doesn't think the Affordable Care Act will be repealed, even if Republicans win a Senate majority and consolidate their hold on the House in next month's election. "That's not gonna happen," Kasich told The Associated Press during a recent re-election campaign swing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Who do the democrats want running on the GOP side? I'd imagine the best (aka worst) runner would be Rand or Cruz, but Romneys gotta be high up on the list too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Rocks posted:Who do the democrats want running on the GOP side? I'd imagine the best (aka worst) runner would be Rand or Cruz, but Romneys gotta be high up on the list too. Best case: any of the currently-rumored names besides maybe Jeb. Cruz and Rand being too crazy to win the General election, Perry being too stupid and possibly prison-bound, Cristie being too scandal-plagued, etc. It is a terrible field. Worst case: any bland, safe-choice candidate that would allow the GoP to run their campaign purely as a referendum on the outbound president, taking advantage of the electorate's dissatisfaction. You see Mike Pence come up in this discussion. The Dems might still think of Huntsman as a very challeninging opponent (as Obama's camp said last time around), but Huntsman has a roughly .00001% chance of winning a Republican primary and iirc has already said he won't run again. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
Rocks posted:Who do the democrats want running on the GOP side? [...] Romneys gotta be high up on the list too. I'm sure 1966 Democrats were thrilled at the prospect of a 1968 Nixon candidacy, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2014 23:07
|
|