davidmcbeth
Banned
Then cite me where in the constitution what you are claiming?
I think he means that the language has changed , which it has.
They should have wrote it in Latin IMO.
Then cite me where in the constitution what you are claiming?
I think he means that the language has changed , which it has.
They should have wrote it in Latin IMO.
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
"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 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.
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.
Science is belief, no more and no less. Your quibble is on the evidence.
If I do, can I expect an apology from you for trying to paint me as a liar?
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.
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.
When a definition is needed, the sole authority to do so rests with SCOTUS.
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.
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
Or allot of evil....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
Maybe he could get another Dr. Seuss book read into the Supreme Court records.