Cruz is not elegilble for president

WalkingWolf said:

Then cite me where in the constitution what you are claiming?

Click to expand...

I think he means that the language has changed , which it has.

They should have wrote it in Latin IMO.

davidmcbeth said:

I think he means that the language has changed , which it has.

They should have wrote it in Latin IMO.

Click to expand...

Is it so hard for people to provide citations for their claim. IIRC the constitution was written in English, not Latin. It should not be that hard to find a citation for a claim, if indeed the claim is fact.

utbagpiper said:

Where the constitutional language is not fully defined within the document or clearly understandable from common usage at the time of adoption, some definition must be forthcoming.

It is obvious what "cruel and unusual punishment" meant when the constitution was adopted. Like you, I object to the courts attempting to redefine that to mean something far different today.

But when the constitution reserves to the States the authority to train the militia, do we suppose that means that militia training today must look exactly like it did in 1798? Learning to load and fire a musket is fun, but not really relevant to what a militia member might need to do today.

"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a fairly well understood term of art meaning something quite different than what one might surmise from the individual words within the phrase, and its application is obviously wholly political. It means whatever two-thirds of the House and Senate decide it means in any given case.

But "natural born citizen" is not defined. The rationale behind it is well discussed in period writings, but not the exact definition. Some look to British common law for understanding while others specifically reject any appeal to that source. In such a case, a definition must be provided. Frankly, on something like this, I prefer statutory definition from Congress rather than pronouncements from the courts.

Charles

Click to expand...

When a definition is needed, the sole authority to do so rests with SCOTUS. And while we won't always like the answer, we submit to their Constitutional authority to settle Constitutional definitions, and I agree they should be using British common law as a highly regarded resource when doing that job.

If current law could define Constitutional terms, why have a Constitution? We just need a law passed that says "arms" doesn't mean firearms, and overnight we are limited to a Constitutional right to airguns and bows.

"All your sources are extreme left wing propaganda sites, just like you."
I'm an extreme left wing propaganda site? Birthers hate fact base sites that debunk their fantasies. It forces them to move their goal posts.

"BTW did you ever get a gun? And actually carry that gun? Remember Obama says guns are bad."
Trying to convince you that I own and carry is as big a waste of my time as trying to convince a creationist that science trumps belief (and it "annoys the pig").
Pres. Obama has expressed his opinion that guns in the hands of criminals and crazy people are bad and I agree with him.

beebobby said:

"All your sources are extreme left wing propaganda sites, just like you."
I'm an extreme left wing propaganda site? Birthers hate fact base sites that debunk their fantasies. It forces them to move their goal posts.

"BTW did you ever get a gun? And actually carry that gun? Remember Obama says guns are bad."
Trying to convince you that I own and carry is as big a waste of my time as trying to convince a creationist that science trumps belief (and it "annoys the pig").
Pres. Obama has expressed his opinion that guns in the hands of criminals and crazy people are bad and I agree with him.

Click to expand...

No it is not a waste of time, all you have done here is post leftist propaganda. There is nothing to indicate you are a gun owner, let alone a constitutionalist. All you have to do to prove you are a gun owner is paste a picture of your EDC with a card/paper with handwritten SN on it. This is what we call verifying, it is a common practice on some sites where phonies come to troll. Considering Obama's opinion it does make sense you do not have a gun.

beebobby is a liberal with a gun, who votes for liberals who want to deny us the right to carry a gun, outside of our home. Obama believes the same thing. His SCOTUS pick is evidence of this. beebobby is fine with this as well because he supports Obama.

Vote for Cruz or do not vote for Cruz...simple. Enough folks do not vote for Cruz his eligibility then becomes moot this time around. This will in turn provide folks time to mount their case to not have Cruz on any ballot next time around...simple.

OC for ME said:

beebobby is a liberal with a gun, who votes for liberals who want to deny us the right to carry a gun, outside of our home. Obama believes the same thing. His SCOTUS pick is evidence of this. beebobby is fine with this as well because he supports Obama.

Vote for Cruz or do not vote for Cruz...simple. Enough folks do not vote for Cruz his eligibility then becomes moot this time around. This will in turn provide folks time to mount their case to not have Cruz on any ballot next time around...simple.

Click to expand...

I highly doubt Bee owns a gun, he has never participated in any gun related, or carry related thread. He has never even indicated what his EDC is, probably does not know what an EDC is. IMO he is an leftist agent provocateur who is here to troll.

WalkingWolf said:

No it is not a waste of time, all you have done here is post leftist propaganda. There is nothing to indicate you are a gun owner, let alone a constitutionalist. All you have to do to prove you are a gun owner is paste a picture of your EDC with a card/paper with handwritten SN on it. This is what we call verifying, it is a common practice on some sites where phonies come to troll. Considering Obama's opinion it does make sense you do not have a gun.

Click to expand...

If I do, can I expect an apology from you for trying to paint me as a liar?

Nightmare said:

Science is belief, no more and no less. Your quibble is on the evidence.

Click to expand...

I have never seen a definition of "science" that has the word belief in it. What dictionary are you using?

Either you believe the evidence present before you or you do not.

Liberals...too easy.

beebobby said:

If I do, can I expect an apology from you for trying to paint me as a liar?

Click to expand...

NO! You have had ample opportunity to participate on the site with normal carry conversation, and you have not. The impression you have is the one you left.

Almost everybody here has talked about guns, ammo, caliber, and so on. And you have been vacant for every one of those conversations. Your only posts are to push a progressive liberal agenda, that is contrary to the 2A, contrary to carry for SD, contrary to any normal gun site conversation.

Now go see if you can borrow a gun, paint the tip on the end of a toy gun, or try to photoshop a card with your SN on it. Like most progressive politicians I don't trust anything now you do. You made your bed, lay in it.

The only thing I would accept now is a long standing respected member verifying you are a gun owner, and carry.

WalkingWolf said:

NO! You have had ample opportunity to participate on the site with normal carry conversation, and you have not. The impression you have is the one you left.

Almost everybody here has talked about guns, ammo, caliber, and so on. And you have been vacant for every one of those conversations. Your only posts are to push a progressive liberal agenda, that is contrary to the 2A, contrary to carry for SD, contrary to any normal gun site conversation.

Now go see if you can borrow a gun, paint the tip on the end of a toy gun, or try to photoshop a card with your SN on it. Like most progressive politicians I don't trust anything now you do. You made your bed, lay in it.

The only thing I would accept now is a long standing respected member verifying you are a gun owner, and carry.

Click to expand...

As I expected. Your ideology requires evidence I cannot reasonably present on an anonymous board. I have a picture of MY CCW with a note as you required before, but, true to your ideology, you have moved the goalpost to an unattainable location.

beebobby said:

As I expected. Your ideology requires evidence I cannot reasonably present on an anonymous board. I have a picture of MY CCW with a note as you required before, but, true to your ideology, you have moved the goalpost to an unattainable location.

Click to expand...

Well of course you did, you just never bothered to post it, as well as never talking about it, as well as never discussing anything gun related. LMFAO!

While I am sure the political process is of great interest to most (all?) here.

It is imperative that the personal insults, digs, and cutting remarks cease. Stick to facts, not personal issues.

Were this not about a national election, that will potentially affect our RKBA I would have locked or deleted this thread as a trainwreck already.

We have enough to do dealing with the antis w/o eating our own. Yes, there some who act the provocateur, but others can and do contribute by going on the attack. Use the ignore button, report the post, but do not get into mud slinging.

Warning: I may like you and what you do for our community, but that will not benefit you when I must by necessity slice and dice: give infractions or ban.

More I should not have to say.

Gentlemen and ladies, you have the floor.

I would like to apologize to the members. All of them.
Anywho....The Cruz win in WI means that Trump has to win 56% of the rest of the delegates to clinch the nomination. Should make for interesting times up to the election.

MAC702 said:

When a definition is needed, the sole authority to do so rests with SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

Can you provide any cite from the Constitution to back that up? I don't believe there is any such cite.

Even the concept of judicial review is not included in the constitution itself, but is a power the SCOTUS took for itself and the judicial branch in the Marbury v Madsen case. An equally rational case can be made that SCOTUS has no power to declare laws unconstitutional, only to prevent imposition of punishment on a case-by-case basis.

Congress bears as much responsibility to apply the constitution as does the judicial branch. Congress makes laws within the power of the constitution.

MAC702 said:

If current law could define Constitutional terms, why have a Constitution? We just need a law passed that says "arms" doesn't mean firearms, and overnight we are limited to a Constitutional right to airguns and bows.

Click to expand...

Please re-read my previous post.

Nobody including the courts should be able or allowed to redefine the language of the constitution when the original intent meaning is clear.

But when it comes to the exact meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", that is decided by congress every time an impeachment is contemplated or conducted.

And congress bears responsibility and power to define exactly what "Natural Born" means, including the meaning of the 14th amendment requirement to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA in addition to being born on our soil in order to be guaranteed citizenship via jus soli. Remember, the constitution is not poetry. Every word has meaning. And so being subject to the jurisdiction of the USA must be something in addition to simply being born within our territory. And I believe, that phrase was included to cover more than just the very rare baby born to a diplomat. Food for thought on a related, but different topic than this thread.

Best

Charles

Make Cruz a supreme court justice - eliminates the problem/question on citizenship and puts him a position where he can do a lot of good for a long time.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/judicialbranch/f/sc_requirements.htm

Grapeshot said:

Make Cruz a supreme court justice - eliminates the problem/question on citizenship and puts him a position where he can do a lot of good for a long time.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/judicialbranch/f/sc_requirements.htm

Click to expand...

Maybe he could get another Dr. Seuss book read into the Supreme Court records.

Grapeshot said:

Make Cruz a supreme court justice - eliminates the problem/question on citizenship and puts him a position where he can do a lot of good for a long time.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/judicialbranch/f/sc_requirements.htm

Click to expand...

Or allot of evil....

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

beebobby said:

Maybe he could get another Dr. Seuss book read into the Supreme Court records.

Click to expand...

I suppose some folks find Dr. Seuss to be more offensive than pink sneakers and reading emotional sob stories that represent fewer than 5% of all elective abortions? Texas rules require that a speaker cannot go off topic at all. And using the 5% case to justify standing in the way of rules to protect women from 3rd world conditions seems to pass muster there. But really, I thought the whole purpose of legalized elective abortions of convenience was to avoid the horrors of dirty, dangerous, "back-alley" procedures. Yet it seems some folks want to bring the back alley into the surgical center.

The rules in the federal Senate do not require the speaker to stay on topic. Democrats and Republicans alike have read phone books, children's books, Shakespeare, books of poetry, recopies, the federal registry, or anything else. In the 1930s, Democrat Huey Long spoke for 15 1/2 hours in an attempt to prevent his political enemies from getting jobs under the New Deal. It was Democrat Robert Bryd who personally spoke over 14 hours in attempt to prevent the Civil Rights act of 1964 from passing.

Drive-by snippets like yours do nothing to advance anything positive here.

You really should stop trolling.