|
we must elect a dog as our king, and thus the world's problems will be solved
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
logger posted:If only we had Justice Scalia with us so he could give us insight into the Founding Fathers true intent when they wrote that into The Constitution. Rest in piss Nino
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:The Constitution states that it was signed "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth" thereby establishing a year as the standard 365 day solar year as defined by the Gregorian Calendar. Therefore when Article II says "neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years", those years are human years and not dog years. The oldest dog ever documented lived to just under 30 years old. Even if we accept the personhood of a dog, the age requirement de facto excludes dogs. Your move. Let's pull a Republican Congressman, does the Constitution ever specify whether those years are human or dog?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
But what defines personhood? Is a dog a person? Is a clump of cells a person? Are human slaves a person?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Tricky D posted:That may disqualify dogs, but not turtles. Also parrots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:But what defines personhood? Is a dog a person? Is a clump of cells a person? Are human slaves a person? The only person in that list is the clump of cells you liberal bastard 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yeah, but it was too obvious. It just leaves the NRA room to whine about how they'll accept 'reasonable' reform while pointing out that even liberals don't think that's reasonable. Most do, actually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Because I have some iconoclastic views and am generally very authoritarian, I got involved with an American Monarchist movement. Looking back, it was very much a precursor to the Dork Enlightenment poo poo we see today, just ~15-20 years earlier (gently caress I'm old). In all earnestness, I argued that if we were to throw our support behind an American Monarch they should be from the black side of Thomas Jefferson's legacy. Oh my gosh, can you elaborate on your reasoning if you remember it? I love that you managed to totally miss the point of monarchism in such a weird way, you poor, sweet child.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:But what defines personhood? Is a dog a person? Is a clump of cells a person? Are human slaves a person? How many slaves? I mean, if you've got at least two, they're technically 1 1/5th of a person!  3computer parts posted:Most do, actually. Then they need to get off their high horse and stop pretending that doing horrible poo poo to civil rights is okay if it's -your- pet ideal it supports and not the Tea Party's. Freedom of movement is a fundamental Constitutional right for a drat good reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Most do, actually. What do you think think though. Is it good policy, just good political theater, or both
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Actually, it specifies that the President must be a person. No Air Bud clause on Madison's watch. ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 posted:
Read that carefully. It prohibits a person who is not a citizen from running for president, it prohibits a person who is under 35 from running for president and it prohibits a person who has not been a resident of the United States for 14 years from being president. It does not explicitly require that the Office of President be held by a person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Also gently caress y'all with this dog crap, a dog would obey Russia's every command. A cat president is the way to go. Mr. Whiskers 2024. I feel bad dissing the noble dog, so let me clarify: dogs are great pals, bad presidents.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
So if someone would be 34y and 3m old on inauguration day are they technically legally allowed to be president?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Could the congress make the president eat a burrito?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
You're all barking up the wrong tree. All hail president 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
God of Evil Cows posted:Read that carefully. It prohibits a person who is not a citizen from running for president, it prohibits a person who is under 35 from running for president and it prohibits a person who has not been a resident of the United States for 14 years from being president. So the 14 years thing could go both ways. I'm sure they meant it as "you've had to live here for 14 years" and not "you could be an American citizen living abroad for the past decade and still run for President"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Trump just tried to assassinate his running mate to get the sympathy vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:Trump just tried to assassinate his running mate to get the sympathy vote. Nah Pence was trying to have the place take off on a treadmill for meme domination.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Could the congress make the president eat a burrito? No person who refuses eat a burrito is qualified to be president.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Trump will definitely go to town on Mark Kirk at some point since Kirk refused to endorse him and showed himself to be a mean spirited moron tonight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Freedom of movement is a fundamental Constitutional right for a drat good reason. This argument has never stood up in airports and it's not just the no-fly list I'm talking about. Even on public highways you still need a driver's license to exercise your freedom of movement. GalacticAcid posted:What do you think think though. Is it good policy, just good political theater, or both It's a prop. Democrats knew that gun reform was toxic when a class full of young children wasn't enough to get a basic background check to a vote. If the GOP gave in to the no-fly list ban, then great, no real loss there. If they didn't, there's a bunch of ammo towards painting them as children. It's a win-win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:Let's pull a Republican Congressman, does the Constitution ever specify whether those years are human or dog? By using the date given and the number of years since independence we can use reason to figure out... nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Could the congress make the president eat a burrito? With a supermajority, they could make eating a burrito the duty of the presidential office. Although, they probably couldn't force a president to by name as that would qualify as a bill of attainder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:we must elect a dog as our king, and thus the world's problems will be solved It's supposed to be cats Mark Twain posted:He was sure that a royal family of cats would answer every purpose. They would be as useful as any other royal family, they would know as much, they would have the same virtues and the same treacheries, the same disposition to get up shindies with other royal cats, they would be laughable vain and absurd and never know it, they would be wholly inexpensive, finally, they would have as sound a divine right as any other royal house...The worship of royalty being founded in unreason, these graceful and harmless cats would easily become as sacred as any other royalties, and indeed more so, because it would presently be noticed that they hanged nobody, beheaded nobody, imprisoned nobody, inflicted no cruelties or injustices of any sort, and so must be worthy of a deeper love and reverence than the customary human king, and would certainly get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
I believe "Lizard People" is also invalid as well, take that Minnesota! Unless someone was named Lizard People.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:Let's pull a Republican Congressman, does the Constitution ever specify whether those years are human or dog?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:
No, you don't. You have to have a license to drive, not travel. Passenger, on foot, whatever. That's the flaw in those weird SovCit arguments about not needing a license because they're "travelling." Travel away, good sir, but you cannot drive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Lote posted:I believe "Lizard People" is also invalid as well, take that Minnesota! I think you'll find several lizard people have already been president, depending on who you ask.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
I think the most mind blowing fact that I've learned during this whole de-rail is that there are 14 Air Bud movies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Holy gently caress the jury ruled the Malheur guys not guilty? How in the gently caress? God loving drat we are so loving stupid sometimes. ...I'm hoping no one is emboldened by this poo poo. And also, how? Just how? I usually get these things, but how do you not convict in a case like this? How do people take over a facility for a month, with guns, on loving video, and not at least get stuck on the charge related to the weapons? What did the jury see? Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Tiny Deer posted:Oh my gosh, can you elaborate on your reasoning if you remember it? I love that you managed to totally miss the point of monarchism in such a weird way, you poor, sweet child. There was a big split as to whether it should just go to the British Monarchy (unpopular because of the Revolution) or to a German branch of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (unpopular because random foreigners nobody gives a gently caress about are something that nobody gives a gently caress about) and a TRUE AMERICAN MONARCH (the vast majority of the people involved -- again, this is like a proto-Dork Englightenment). Lots of gnashing of teeth about how Washington didn't have kids (despite the largest group arguing that either Washington's issue or Reagan's should have the title). My argument was (basically and as much as I remember it) was that if we are going to arbitrarily choose a constitutional monarch to serve as a symbolic head of state, they should have revolutionary credentials and be representative of the American people. Multiracial, recognizing the original American sin of slavery and a Founding Father. To me, it still hits all the right notes. It was a dumb idea on a lot of levels but I really like where younger me was going with that dumb line of reasoning. My alternate was a Habsburg. I figured they were available and also they are used to a complicated multiethnic empire so they'd be a good fit for the American melting pot. That line of argument was also . . . not well received.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
alpha_destroy posted:How in the gently caress? God loving drat we are so loving stupid sometimes. Jury Nullification is currently the likely culprit
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
The Natural Born Citizen clause was a gently caress you to Alexander Hamilton, and also there to save the fragile nation from the evils of French and English sleeper agents. Oh, and here's the people to have their citizenship questioned while running for President: Presidents:
Nominees:
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This argument has never stood up in airports and it's not just the no-fly list I'm talking about. I don't think I, or any other sane person, is arguing against drivers' licenses. Just a list that bans people from travel which they have no ability to determine they are on, nor legal recourse to be removed from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:No, you don't. You have to have a license to drive, not travel. Passenger, on foot, whatever. That's the flaw in those weird SovCit arguments about not needing a license because they're "travelling." Travel away, good sir, but you cannot drive. Pedestrians are not allowed on the interstates in many states. Liquid Communism posted:I don't think I, or any other sane person, is arguing against drivers' licenses. So your objection isn't actually the list itself, just the fact that people can't contest it? Freedom of movement isn't actually that important?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Nah, I'm a dual citizen, and I served in the military and had a top secret clearance. Right, I'm saying that's pretty much the only time they'll acknowledge it is a thing, not that it prevents you from getting clearance. Another time, as stated, is when trying to renounce your citizenship, since we don't want to leave someone stateless. Shbobdb posted:On a military base. The Venn diagram of "people who care about that poo poo" and "republicans" is a perfect circle. Except it wasn't considered US soil until the year after he was born, which is where the trick is. It doesn't matter since his parents were citizens, it's just something to slam back at the racists who are trying to rules lawyer Obama's birth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
I have a friend from undergrad casting his ballot for "the write in candidate Bernie Sanders." For gently caress's sake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
What are the odds that Trump calls Pence's hard landing an assassination attempt within a day or two? I'm thinking 50/50.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
duz posted:
Throwing back weird racist rules lawyering at racist rules lawyers feels ineffective to me since all it does it create a larger tradition of racist rules lawyering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
computer parts posted:So your objection isn't actually the list itself, just the fact that people can't contest it? If it was a list they were put on by act of a court, which could thusly be challenged in court, then yes, I'd have no problem. That's one of the powers the courts have. To restrict people's rights via due process of law. Jesus, do I have to teach your dumb rear end Civics 101?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:23
|
|