Say Anything Blog

This bill simply makes an ass without the jack in front of it out of everyone involved in it. I guess this is what you get when you put the clowns in charge, a circus broke out and must continue.

Was this entire story, which seemed too stupid for even the Times to run, a “set” to Obama and McCaskill’s “spike?”

Wow… That is a question that is worthy of Rush spending an hour discussing… The Times article seemed so.... STUPID! Until now....

Great insight, Rob!

I think Rob hates me… I mean, just look at the pic he took of me!

The Times article seemed so.... STUPID! Until now....

Great insight, Rob!

Ha!  (snort)

Beautifully said.

Of course any decent person knew it was a stupid question to push.

I agree . . . well bethought.
However, I think “natural born” is meant.  I imagine people can be naturally born just about anywhere.

Hopefully I won’t hear anymore originalist constitutional arguments , now that your Great Ox
John is in danger of being gored.

“Originalism" is a legal philosophy that says the Constitution means the same thing today as it did when it was drafted in the summer of 1787, making no allowances for societal changes. It also says the Constitution’s meaning can only be changed by amendment, a difficult process that requires two-thirds approval by each house of Congress and three-fourths of the states

Weave straw into gold?
Rumplestiltskin.

Hopefully I won’t hear anymore originalist constitutional arguments…

Don’t bet on it!  By the way, where’s that list?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Orders from the Bat in the Belfry?

By the way, where’s that list?

Poodle, can you demonstrate for us that the founders original intent in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution was for “naturally born” citizen to mean something other than someone who was a citizen from the time of birth onward?

That being a distinction from someone who became a citizen at some point later in life?

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Simple, Rob:  Article I gives congress sole power to define natural-ization for anyone desiring to become a citizen, as opposed to those who are natural born: i.e., born of an American citizen-parent, no matter where they are at the time of birth.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT TWO THINGS: WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM AND SAVING THE SUPREME COURT.

one side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a “natural born citizen,” a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen “by law” and is therefore “naturalized.”[5] Current State Department policy reads: “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[6]

Da Wiki

SCOTUS counts the angels dancing on the head of the pin by its’ own
axioms.

You can go with this
or you can go with that

What’s silly about this issue? I’d like to know for sure that my candidate of choice was constitutionally eligible before voting for him.

Then again, I still support the Constitution, so my opinion doesn’t count for much on a conservative blog.