Well, that’s that. We’ve got to have a vote. Michelle wants a vote. The queen has spoken.
“These reforms deserve a vote in Congress,” she said, drawing loud applause from hundreds of Chicago’s business executives and civic leaders who were gathered at a luncheon to raise money for a new anti-violence initiative.
Obama spoke emotionally about attending the funeral in February of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old majorette who was shot in a city park not far from the Obamas’ Chicago house and just days after visiting Washington for President Obama’s inauguration ceremonies.
“As I visited with the Pendleton family at Hadiya’s funeral, I couldn’t get over how familiar they felt to me, because what I realized was Hadiya’s family was just like my family,” the first lady said. “Hadiya Pendleton was me, and I was her. But I got to grow up and go to Princeton and Harvard Law School and have a career and a family, and the most blessed life I could ever imagine. And Hadiya — well, we know that story.”
Hadiya Pendleton was “allegedly” killed by a guy on probation for a weapons charge and who could not legally possess a weapon. In Chicago. Home of the formerly strictest gun laws in the country. But at least these remarks came after the big taxpayer funded soul party at the White House.
Obama is politicking on the graves of dead children not really having any idea of what he speaks:
During several speeches, Obama has said 40 percent of all gun purchases were made without a background check.
But that number is nearly two decades old and comes from a poll with a relatively tiny sample size. Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, as well as The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” are calling out the president’s stat, saying his numbers on background checks need a background check of their own.
During a speech last week, Obama asked, “Why wouldn’t we want to make it more difficult for a dangerous person to get his or her hand on a gun? Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check? Why wouldn’t we do that?”
The oft-cited figure, it turns out, was pulled from a 1997 study done by the National Institute of Justice. In the study, researchers estimated about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed gun dealers. The conclusion was based on data from a 1994 survey of 2,568 households. Of those, only 251 people answered the question about where they got their guns.
PolitiFact tracked down the co-author of the study, Duke University professor Philip Cook, and asked him if he thought the 40 percent estimate is accurate.
“The answer is I have no idea,” Cook reportedly told PolitiFact. “This survey was done almost 20 years ago.”
And here’s a little known nugget:
I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.
Episodes like this have cause Jake Tapper to reflect:
“The gun debate is worth having,” Tapper noted, “but it might help the advocates of gun control if, in their advocacy for stricter measures, they seemed more familiar with what exactly they’re trying to ban.”
They don’t know what they’re talking about. What they’re proposing won’t help. It would not prevent another Newtown.
Their new laws won’t do squat but they do foment mistrust:
He conflates a failed background check with stopping a criminal from obtaining a gun. “Over the past 20 years,” Obama says, “background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.” That claim is based on two faulty assumptions: 1) that everyone who fails a background check is dangerous, which plainly is not true, given the ridiculously broad categories of people who are legally barred from buying firearms, and 2) that a criminal intent on obtaining a weapon will give up if he cannot get it over the counter at a gun store, rather than enlisting a straw buyer or turning to the gray or black market.
He falsely equates “assault weapons” with military guns. Obama inaccurately calls one of the guns used in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, massacre an “assault rifle,” which is a military weapon capable of firing automatically. He calls the guns he wants to ban “weapons of war,” again implying that they fire continuously, when in fact they fire once per trigger pull, like any other semi-automatic firearm.
He says there is no logical connection between “universal background checks” and gun registration. “We’re not proposing a gun registration system,” Obama insists. “We’re proposing background checks for criminals.” But there is no way to enforce a background-check requirement for every gun transfer unless the government knows where the guns are. Federally licensed gun dealers are readily identified and can be required to keep sale records. Individual gun owners who might dare to sell their property without clearance from the government cannot be identified unless the government compiles a list of them. Hence Obama’s assurances amount to saying, “Don’t worry. We will make a big show of passing this new background-check mandate, but we won’t really enforce it.”
He pooh-poohs the idea that there could ever be anything adversarial about the relationship between Americans and their government:
You hear some of these quotes: “I need a gun to protect myself from the government.” “We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away.”
Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. (Applause.) They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.
One of the constraints on the federal government is the doctrine of enmuerated powers, which says every act of Congress must be justified by a specific constitutional grant of authority. Where is the clause that empowers Congress to say how many rounds you can put in a magazine or whether your rifle can have a barrel shroud? Furthermore, as Obama surely has heard by now, there is this thing called the Second Amendment, and it is hardly frivolous to argue than an arbitrary and capricious piece of legislation like the “assault weapon” ban Obama supports would violate the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yet to Obama’s mind, anyone who makes such an argument is one of those “people who take absolute positions” and therefore can be safely ignored. After all, the government is us.
Sen. Mike Lee observes that background checks could lead to a national gun registry in the hands of the loathsome Eric Holder:
“Some of the proposals, like for example- universal background checks- would allow the federal government to surveil law-abiding citizens who exercise their Constitutional rights. One of the provisions we expect to see in the bill based on what we saw in the Judiciary Committee- on which I sit- would allow the Attorney General of the United States (Eric Holder) to promulgate regulations that could lead to a national registry system for guns. Something my constituents in Utah are very concerned about, and understandably so,”
So give them the damn vote. Put democrats on the line. Let them out their necks on the line. 2014 is coming
Voting for the assault weapons ban poses the bigger immediate threat to vulnerable Democrats such as Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). The NRA would rip any centrist Democrats — or Republicans — who support the assault weapons ban.
“There will be ramifications for elected officials who support gun bans. Our position is unequivocal. We do not support gun bans as a matter of policy or effective way of controlling guns,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.
Universal background checks won’t do a damn thing. They didn’t stop Jared Loughner, James Holmes or Seung Hui-Cho. They wouldn’t have stopped Adam Lanza.
Clarence Dupnik could have stopped Jared Loughner but he was friends with Loughner’s mom. The State of Virginia could have stopped Hui-Cho but it was too much of a hassle. James Holems’ shrink warned the cops to no avail.
Gang bangers are not going to register their weapons. They are not going to procure their ammunition certificates.
Crazies like Nancy Lanza won’t stop handing lethal weapons to their insane progeny.
So bring on the vote.
And every time there is another gun death, shove it up their asses. And come November 2014, remind voters how surrendering your Constitutional Rights accomplished nothing.
Fifteen people were stabbed at a Texas college the other day. No one demanded that knives be banned.
In 2010 more than 10,000 people lost their lives in alcohol-related driving accidents but no one demands that cars be banned.
It seems that guns are the only inanimate objects which are capable of being dangerous on their own.
Give them their damn vote. How sweet would it be to see Obama having to deal with an entire GOP Congress for the remainder of his regime?
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Definition of citizen and naturalized citizen quite obvious.@Richard Wheeler:
Really? then write them down, 1,2,3 define each of them.
Do you think the constitution is defined by your belief’s, do you think that just because you believe it, that it’s true. Think about it and define all three of the citizen classes and you might just answer your own question.
@Richard Wheeler:
why do you refuse to answer my question? define the three classes of citizens named in the constitution.
1. citizen
2. natural born citizen
3. naturalized citizen
@Redteam: You’ve answered nothing. You’re only good at asking questions.lol
@Richard Wheeler:
And your answers to the questions are where? Why should I answer your questions when you don’t answer mine. Define the 3 classes of citizens and we’ll go from there.
@Redteam: #94
I’m glad I invested in Glock right after obama got elected the second time. I wish I would have thought to do it the first time he won.
@Richard Wheeler: #101
Article II of the U.S. Constitution says:
Even the liberals have admitted that at the time the Constitution was written, “natural born citizen” meant that both of the individual’s parents have to be Americans. obama’s dad was never a US citizen. Why do you want to keep going over the same things?
@Richard Wheeler: #103
Are you saying that each of us can interpret any part of the Constitution the way we want, and not worry about what it meant when it was written? A contract means what the wording meant at the time of the contract. If you sign a contract with someone TODAY, and 10 years later, one of the terms used in the contract means the exact opposite of what it meant at the time the contract was written, does the contract now have to be interpreted by the new meaning?
@Redteam: #104
The liberals have two philosophies:
(1) We don’t have to fool all of the people all of the time. We just have to fool enough of them to get elected.
(2) If we say it is true, it is true.
@Smorgasbord: Smorg, love your interpretations. I agree.
Using the most liberal interpretation of the meaning of the words ‘natural born citizen’ neither Obammy or Rubio qualify. Do you suppose that’s why RW won’t answer the question of what a ‘natural born’ citizen is?
RW, if a Mexican woman walks up to the border, and falls down and she is still on the Mexican side of the border, but she has a baby and it lands on the US side of the border when it falls out of the pregnant woman is the baby: a US citizen or a Natural born citizen of the US? I’ll be waiting for your answer and I suspect I’ll be waiting a long time for an understandable answer.
@Redteam: #112
I think he is just trying to see how long he can keep the thing going. I’m retired, and have all the time in the world to respond, but usually after a few of the same things over and over again, I don’t comment unless someone replies to me. When I see the same two people going back and forth, I usually delete the email without reading them.
Obama:
Bookworm:
Was he born here?
Were his parents?
Irrelevant diversion as he’s been elected twice with no successful challenge to his citizenship.
However…..Are We Being Compromised by Barack Obama’s Murky Past?
@Redteam: Redtean and Smorg FA’s late night birther tag team jokesters–you guys are hilarious. ”A Mexican woman walks up to the border—-”
Semper Fi
VP Joe Biden’s son is the Delaware Attorney General.
As such he can weigh in on the gun control debate in a very interesting way.
And he has.
He wants to expand how guns can be kept from more people by changing the definition of unfit by mental health.
“Only 1300 people in 2010, for instance, were prohibited from possessing firearms because they were adjudicated mentally ill,” Biden pointed out.
Not enough, I guess.
They were prevented from owning guns because they had been adjudicated mentally ill.
Biden wants to expand that definition into one where your ObamaCare doctor decides you have a mental health issue that he believes should prohibit from having a gun.
In this your doctor MUST violate doctor/patient confidentiality.
And you will learn you doctor did so only when they come to take your guns.
THEN you have ”due process,” to try to figure out what the doctor was thinking and fight it.
You against your own doctor and against the government.
Sounds like fun.
SEE:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/04/15/beau-biden-expand-definition-of-whos-mentally-unfit-to-own-a-gun/
Still, conservatives are continuing their same old talk about protecting gun rights—but nary a word about how to prevent unnecessary gun violence. SOS.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity):
Well, lessee….
– Gabby Giffords was shot and 6 more are dead because Sheriff Clarence Dumbass didn’t want to arrest Jared Loughner for making death threats
– 32 people are dead because the authorities in Virginia didn’t bother reporting Seung Hui-Cho’s insanity to the Feds
– James Holmes’ shrink warned the cops about him but they did nothing
For starters, how about paying attention and enforcing current laws? Seems to me liberals are more worried about the rights of the insane than the rights of their potential victims
@Richard Wheeler:
And yet, you still can’t or won’t define:
1. Citizen
2. Natural born citizen
3. Naturalized citizen.
Once you define those, you will have your answer.
@drjohn: Of course more laws relating to owning guns will not stop people from using them to shoot people. It is against the law today, to shoot a person. If a person will ignore that law, they will ignore a law that says they can’t possess a gun. When you get right down to it, I’d rather someone break a law about gun ownership than to break a law about shooting someone.
Next it will be laws against buying or selling pressure cookers unless you take a course on how to properly use one……and having a legitimate need to have one.
After all, most of those recipes can also be done in a safer slow cooker!
/off
@Redteam: citizen–native or naturalized person owing allegiance to a govt.2 naturalized– born an alien and legally becomes a citizen 3 natural born citizen—one that is born in a location that is considered part of that country. Rubio and Obama both eligible.
As Nan points out courts have so held—-so far. Don’t worry OrlyTaitz a glutton for punishment.You and other birthers can keep banging your heads if you like.
I’m good with the courts decisions to date.
BTW Smorg “Parents must be citizens” not recognized as valid argument in any court to date.
.
@Richard Wheeler:
whoops, so they are all the same thing?
If they are all the same, why are they listed separately in the constitution? Why didn’t they just use the word ‘citizen’ to mean everyone in the USA?
1. Citizen: a person that is a citizen without having to use any law to interpret them as a citizen.
2. naturalized citizen: a person that becomes a citizen as a benefit of a law.
3. natural born citizen: a person born of two citizen parents. no law required to make them a citizen.
Obama born of a British subject (assuming BHO Sr is his father, not an established fact) not eligible
Rubio, born of two Cuban citizens, he is a natural born Cuban citizen.
@Redteam: Unfortunately you made up your own definition of number 3. Nowhere does The Constitution define natural born citizen.Courts do not agree with your definition.
I’ll follow The Constitution and side with the courts on this. If The Supreme Court ever agrees with your definition I’ll reconsider.
Rubio should get the nom. in 2016. I’ll have fun watching guys like you f–ing with him.
Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler:
Guess you get an F on that RW, nowhere does the constitution define any of the three.
Cite one opinion by any court that disagrees with my definition, just one. The truth is that no court has ruled on it either way.
The meaning of the various items in the constitution are generally defined through the papers of the meetings when putting it together. Those papers support the meaning as being those born with no allegiance to any country other than the US. Anyone born with a Kenyan father or Cuban parents would have an allegiance to those countrys. If the issue is ever decided in court, that’s what the opinion will be.
Obama has many other issues also that disqualify him, which you already know so I’m not going to bring them up.
I will not have a problem not supporting a ‘not natural born citizen’ for president. Who ever it may be.
I believe in the Constitution, not your un-informed opinion.
@Redteam: You,my friend, get the F in interpretation. I said Constitution didn’t define 3. You Agreed.Then you made up a definition.
” I will not have a problem not supporting a “not natural born citizen for president” There’s an “F” if I’ve ever seen one.
You and Taitz carry on.When do you think the Courts might rule in your favor—after Rubio serves eight years? You are hurting the Conservative cause. Rubio has best chance of beating HRC.
@Richard Wheeler:
Not very original are you.
you said:
I had said:
I didn’t ‘make up’ a definiton. You asked me how I would define the three, I told you. I didn’t state that they came from any authority.
When will the courts rule my way? when it gets to a court. So far no opinion has been given by any court supporting your opinion either. I notice you didn’t bother to cite a judgment that supports what you said.
You don’t seem to want to give an opinion as to why the 3 are all mentioned in the constitution. If each of them meant the same as the others, then only one would appear.
That’s kinda like, if it said 1. man 2. woman 3. child you would consider them to all be interchangable. You’re gonna have to come up with something new. You’ve clearly been blown out of the water.
@Redteam: Like most birthers you just can’t accept your IRRELEVANCE .You must enjoy being continually laughed at and ridiculed by those on both sides of the aisle. It’s OK You’ll always have late night Smorg in your corner. And the lovely Orly Taitz.
How bout 1.man 2.women 3.child All citizens
You and Smorg got any more good jokes. I really do enjoy them and with the horror in Boston I could use a good laugh. Thanks Semper Fi
@Richard Wheeler:
I don’t care much for the childish practice of ‘name calling’ . Are you an adult?
Nope, none of them are citizens. one is a man, one is a woman, one is a child. Are you lusting for ‘ Orly Taitz’? Or is it just a hang up you have?
I missed the ‘good jokes’ would you cut and paste them for me?
Grow up and lay off the name calling.
@Redteam I must say I do enjoy birther Orly’s continued beat downs in court. As a self proclaimed constitutionalist (is that better) I gotta assume you somehow enjoy the ridicule you engender from the large majority of American citizenry.
Guess you don’t see the humor in your comments.No surprise there.
BTW Are you working to get Hillary elected in 2016? You got faith that Rand or anyone other than Rubio can beat her?
.@Richard Wheeler:
Sorry to disappoint you RW, but so far, you are the first person I’ve encountered that is not familiar with the US Constitution. No one else has had anything to say about your point of view, everyone I know that has had a perspective on it, agree with me.
@Nan G: #115
My worries about the direction the USA is heading seem more and more justified the more we learn about obama. I ask again: Why hasn’t ONE republican questioned obama’s fake birth certificate, his using someone else’s Social Security number, or his fake Selective Service registration card? Why do you want politicians in office who let this guy get elected in the first place, then let it happen again? Haven’t you republicans figured out yet that your party has been infiltrated, just like the democratic party has been, so that not matter which one is in power, the same agenda will continue?
@Richard Wheeler: ####”A Mexican woman walks up to the border—-”####
…and finds nobody there to stop her, so she walks into the United States with no problem at all. She finds a job that doesn’t pay as much as other American jobs, but she doesn’t have to pay any federal, state, county, or city taxes, so she gets to keep ALL of her money.
If she gets sick, she goes to any hospital and gets taken care of for free. If she has children, she can send them to school for free, and the kids get a free interpreter so they don’t have to learn English. After high school, her kids get a discounted rate for college that is lower than people who legally live in the state.
The woman might even get some of my Social Security money, and receive a higher Social Security check than I do, even though I paid into it all of my working life, and she might not have paid anything into it, because she works for cash. Her and Richard Wheeler live happily ever after.
THE MORAL OF THE STORY
If you are having financial problems, move to Mexico, become a Mexican citizen, walk across the border into the USA (you don’t even have to sneak in any more), and the Americn government will take care of you.
@Nan G: #117
If the doctor is proven wrong, can the patient sue the doctor? What if the wrong accusation costs the patient their job? Will the government force the employer to give the employer their job back. I don’t see very many doctors obeying this law if it is passed.
In case anyone is interested in some reading on whether “natural born citizen” is actually definable, and how, by any court, this Michigan Law Review paper might get the brain cells moving. It was actually written, addressing McCain’s qualifications.
Oddly enough, the phrase was derived from the old English phrase, “natural born subject”. But then there is a distinct and wide difference between “subject” and “citizen”. The US does not have, and never had, “subjects”. Nor was there extensive usage of the term in that era.
If one wants to take the Constitution’s language on POTUS eligibility literally, and consider the punctuation, i.e. – No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; .. snip… – then you can also say that no one alive today is eligible. This states that the POTUS must have been a natural born citizen (whether only of the father, as was common with “natural born subject”), OR must have been a citizen at the time of the Constitution’s adoption.
Kinda tough today since none of today’s potential candidates were either a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption since no one alive today was walking the planet then.
But if I read @Redteam’s observation above correctly…. (“I will not have a problem not supporting a ‘not natural born citizen’ for president. Who ever it may be.”) – it doesn’t much seem to be an issue. And again would have to go back to some proof, beyond weak or circumstantial, that the current POTUS was not born in Hawaii.
BTW, Redteam is correct. There is no SCOTUS decision that has ever addressed the definition of natural born citizen. There have been references made by the majority opinion writers, but they were not germane to the case, nor the decision, before them. aka… orbiter dictum. They are passing and irrelevant phrases that carry no precedent, and may not even be agreed to by the other Justices. However none of them write dissenting opinions on orbiter dictum remarks in opinions.
The whole thing is moot. Even if a credible argument could be mounted – and many have certainly tried – not only will SCOTUS and the lower courts not touch it, but by the time it could conceivably make it’s way to the High Court if they did, Obama’s 2nd term would long be over. And you can bet that, after the fact, they aren’t going to be taking on a case who’s decision could result in possibly reversing/discarding every bill passed by Congress over eight years time.
If you’re picking battles, this ain’t the one to pick.
By this statement, can one assume you are just fine with the current proposed legislation that requires “mental illness” to be incorporated as NICS data… ergo can be uncovered when someone undergoes a background check for purchase?
@MataHarley: Mata, I don’t disagree with what you said. I do think there will be a ruling, but it will only apply to any Repub, such as Rubio, that may be involved after BHO. As long as no media will touch it (while BHO is occupying the office), it will never get an airing that will drive it to a decision in a court. It does make it very clear that Rubio is not a natural born citizen.
@MataHarley: Thanks for the link to that article. It seems clear from it that BHO is indeed a Natural Born Citizen………ta da……. of Great Britain. Therefore, he certainly can’t be a natural born citizen of the US. He appears to be a citizen as the result of a law, which makes him a naturalized citizen. Thanks for the info that clears up the whole question. You got that RW? correct?
A naturalized citizen is an alien (not born in US) who became a citizen, Redteam. A naturalized citizen has all the same rights as a “natural born” citizen, save for eligibility for POTUS or Veep.
Therefore, in order for you to come to your conclusion, you have to be convinced that Obama was not born in Hawaii. To prove that, it will take far more concrete evidence for the courts than has been presented thus far.
The more feasible (such as it is) debate is not that Obama was ever an alien. That’s the contention by those of the birther movement. Therefore the less zany argument is that he was ineligible because his father was not a US citizen. This entails evoking the English common law perception of “natural born subject”, which also has some conflicts (as the paper noted).
However, as I pointed out, the Constitution allows for either a natural born, or citizen, to be POTUS… as long as they were of that status at the adoption of the Constitution. Again, taking that literally, there isn’t a person alive today that fits the bill. Were I to wager a guess on a High Court’s modern interpretation, they would just drop the “at the time of adoption” language as being time appropriate for the first leaders, and go with either a natural born or citizen of the US (regardless of parentage)… leaving only former aliens/naturalized citizens ineligible.
But it is an interesting paper on the originalism and philosophies of “natural born citizen”. Since the issue has never been a subject of any prior SCOTUS review/opinion, none of the Justices have ever delved back into the era’s somewhat conflicting views of the quirky phrase, “natural born citizen”. There is no definition, and even sussing a definition out could be dicey. What we do know is that Jefferson and others of the era felt strongly about “citizen” vs “subject in a nation where all men were to be created equal, and not subject to a superior monarchy.
@Redteam: You gotta get out more. Mata made it clear in her elegant way that you’re wasting your time on this. She said the question is moot. I agree with her. Your argument is dead in the water.Taitz’s arguments have been thrown out of lower courts.
You wanna try going to the old standard birther argument “He wasn’t born in Hawaii?”
Suggest you find another way to waste yours and our time.
Redteam, the courts and lawsuits have nothing to do with media involvement. Either a lawsuit is filed, or charges laid, or not. If either of the afore mentioned happened, the courts must address the issue and render a decision.
i.e. you can’t muscle your way into court with 24/7 blanket media or blog world coverage. Nor can media coverage dictate the judicial interpretation of the arguments.
In fact, there have been multiple suits challenging Obama’s eligibility, and all have been shot down for various reasons. The one I would question the most would be Alan Keyes, as I would think he had standing… But regardless of whether you agree with the lower court decisions or not, the issue was before the bench. And Orly’s almost made it to the Supremes. It was reviewed just back in February, and kicked out by the robed ones.
These same precedents will protect a GOP candidate, just the way they did Obama. It will get nowhere just as quickly.
@Richard Wheeler: #123
I’m going by what the laws and sayings were at the time the Constitution (contract) was written. As I have mentioned different times (but as usual, you don’t care), even liberals have admitted that at the time the Constitution (contract) was written, the term, “natural born citizen” meant both parents were American citizens.
As I have asked you before (but you only like to ASK questions, not ANSWER them), if you sign a contract with someone, and 10 years later one of the terms of the contract means the exact opposite of what it meant when you signed the contract, do you and the other person who signed the contract have to abide by the new meaning of the term, or are both of you held to the ORIGINAL meaning of the term. I know I can put this on my list of, “Questions that liberals will never answer” list.
@Smorgasbord: Smorg Mata answered your concerns pretty clearly and a lot better than I could. Don’t know any libs and very few Repubs . that agree with your 2 parents must be citizens argument.
@MataHarley: Mata, you seem to be overlooking the fact that BHO by his own admission is a ‘natural born citizen’ of UK(being the son of BHO Sr). I would find it hard for anyone to argue that he is a natural born citizen of two countries. My comment about the media: As long as the media refuses to touch it, it gives impetus for the courts to steer clear also. If every major media were calling every day for the courts to decide the issue once and for all, it would get to court. Even Fox News is afraid to touch it.
That would only have the potential of making him a natural born subject via their old common laws. England doesn’t have natural born citizens. And that is irrelevant. Again, punctuation is important and serves a purpose.
i.e. This sentence…
…. does not have the same meaning as the below sentence.
My logical conclusion, paying attention to deliberate place of punctuation, is that the reference to “natural born citizen” was not related to a person born on US soil (a citizen) to one or two foreign parents (again, any reference to the English common law usually only dealt with the father’s parentage… women were unimportant). Instead it would be related to a person born to an American father (mother?) outside of the US… evoking that common law practice of the “subject” assuming the allegiance of his father. ala McCain.
BTW, the media has always given coverage to the birther movement. Usually to add levity and to ridicule. Fox isn’t afraid to touch it. Hannity… major mouthpiece… has been all over it at various times. Instead, most I know see it as fruitless, counterproductive, and far from viable as a legal argument.
@MataHarley:
I don’t think you can legitimately make the argument that Roberts decision on Obamacare wasn’t fueled by the press.
I don’t think you can legitimately make the argument that Roberts decision *was* fueled by the press. I read his opinion. I didn’t have to like it, but I can see where he came to the opinion it was a tax… simultaneously saying it was not within their power via Commerce Clause. In fact, that is what so many of us were arguing… that it was unConstitutional as a action under the Commerce Clause. And in that, we were redeemed and shown correct.
Ironically that very act of labeling it a “tax” may leave the opening for striking the law because the bill originated in the Senate, and not the House, via the gut and replace methodology. I believe that lawsuit may be still winding it’s way thru the judicial food chain.
I do not see the courts as influenced by the media at all. I do see them as potentially swayed by executive branch threats – ala Roosevelt and court packing. The media holds no detectable power over the courts. They respond to lawsuits filed, and charges laid, via their interpretation of the arguments.
@MataHarley: you can’t simultaneously make the argument that he is a ‘natural born citizen of the US and a born citizen of the UK. The intent in the constitution was clearly that a person not have split allegiance but ‘only’ allegiance to the US. Dual citizenship does not provide that.
@Redteam, only you are making subjects under British law, and citizens under US law, the same thing. You’re arguing with yourself. What the British deem of Obama’s status has nothing to do with his status as a citizen here in the US.
In fact, if the British conferred subject or citizen status on Obama, it’s still irrelevant because there is no prohibition of dual citizenship status in the Constitution, or Amendments, for eligibility. Likely not mentioned since they didn’t have dual citizenship in those days. So what “intent” would Founders and Framers have about citizenship status that didn’t exist? That would be tough to dig up…
@MataHarley:
There are 9 supreme court justices, why is he the only one that saw it as a tax? Was it his brilliance, or the lack of brilliance of the other 8. Why did they decide it on other ‘supposed’ merits, rather than the ‘tax’ issue. It’s really a sad situation when only one brilliant guy out of nine can see the ‘true’ issue, isn’t it? I find it especially interesting that there is no provisions for enforcing the law. Don’t have to buy insurance and don’t have to pay a penalty. Even tho a penalty is stipulated, there are no provisions that allow them to ‘enforce’ the penalty.
Redteam, in the opinion, Roberts… writing for the majority… rejected the Commerce Clause (starting pg 49). Ginsberg wrote the only supplemental to the majority and Court opinion. Sotomayer agreed with all of Ginsberg’s differences… which included Roberts rejection of the Commerce Clause, but not necessarily that it wasn’t Constitutional as a tax. Breyer and Kagen had some dissenting parts with Ginsberg’s supplemental, but since they didn’t write their own opinions, it’s not clear they rejected the tax opinion of Roberts at all. Quite simply, it was viewed by some as Constitional both as a tax, and under Commerce Clause.
So Roberts wasn’t the lone ranger on the tax issue, as Ginsberg didn’t necessarily disagree with his tax opinion, but focused on his rejection of the Commerce Clause. That was important to the liberal members since they’ve always been supporting of expanding that power. The others in the majority? No definitive answer or rejection of the tax opinion as unfounded. Only that they were in agreement with the opinion of the Court, written by Roberts, as well as with some of Ginsberg’s.
Gotta hit the sack, Redteam. Been nice chit chatting, guy.
@MataHarley:Well, hopefully the fact that it is an unconstitutional law, having originated in the wrong chamber of congress will be enough to get it tossed. I did read much more about the opinion and I basically agree with your assessment. Thanks for that link to the opinion on Natural born citizenship.
You’re welcome, Redteam. Thank you for a civil debate on philosophical and factual details, and for an open mind.
The Senate has voted to block expanded background checks—a measure that an overwhelming majority of Americans favor.
Apparently they want to see if they can drive their 13.5 percent Congressional approval level even lower.
Greg, the background checks were not the only thing on the bill to pass judgement on the vote. The more important, and less publicized/debated implication was the sharing of medical records INRE “mental health” with the NICS database. You have to remember that the press doesn’t report the entire repercussions of the bill for agenda sake (both sides of the political aisle).
The background checks may have fared better, were they not tied to a national database of medical record – i.e. who is “mentally ill”, who makes that call, and is the “mentally ill” individual informed? – and who/how that data is supplied and challenged by the individual involved. You have to remember that the NICS database and background checks are actually a supported… in fact, a creation… of the dreaded NRA. But when you push what is supposed to be in that NICS database as part of the background check to the outer Constitutional limits, you start conflicting with privacy concerns. It is this reason that I believe the “background checks *plus one* failed.
Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban? Never had a prayer. That’s already been dissed by Heller, where no “class” of “commonly” owned weapons can be be banned under our Constitutional rights.
But, from past posts statements, and ignored direct questions, the very author of this post – a “conservative” – supports sharing those medical records. So the liberals will find kinship with some “conservatives”. You should rejoice in that.
@Greg: All they care about is getting 50%+ in their next election.Fear of the power of the NRA caused some to cave—sad day for sanity.
@Richard Wheeler: That’s a good one since your side has decided to pick and choose which immigration laws should be enforced and when in order to get Hispanic votes. I also like the idea of passing out free cell phones to get people to the polls. Or how about those who are after some of “Obama’s stash”. I wonder who they voted for. Moral of the story- don’t throw stones in glass houses!
@another vet: “free cell phones, Obama stash” silly right wing meme that gets tiresome.
How does it relate to defeat of a watered down bill that 80% of Americans supported—even DrJ supported at least half of it.
Did Rand Paul really say Newtown parents were being used as props? If that in fact is on tape, his Pres. hopes are over.