Very nice research, Jennifer. That was not the interview in question I was referring to but you have spurred me on to find it. Thank you.
Moonbeam, no, I thought the connection was obvious. You asked Denise if a Supreme Court decision clearing Obama would be proof enough for her, finishing it off with "It's good to know you believe in someone" as if not even believing the Supreme Court would be outlandish...whereas I showed you where people like Daschle would not. Same song...
[This message has been edited by Balladeer (12-11-2008 05:58 PM).]
quote: Moonbeam, no, I thought the connection was obvious. You asked Denise if a Supreme Court decision clearing Obama would be proof enough for her, finishing it off with "It's good to know you believe in someone" as if not even believing the Supreme Court would be outlandish...whereas I showed you where people like Daschle would not.
I am still not sure I get you? It seems incredible but are you saying that it would not be outlandish for Denise to deny the Supreme Court? You're equating her possible legitimate attitude in repudiating the court with Daschle's attitude? The piece of garbage? The idiot? Denise?
There must be some mistake?
quote:whereas I showed you where people like Daschle would not.
But you also maintain that he’s garbage and an idiot Mike, two attributes that tend to suggest outlandish behaviour and kind of support the point you thought Moon was making.
Then again the transcript posted by Jen seems to suggest that Daschle accepted the Supreme Courts decision. If he’s an idiot he’s a bad example of someone who wouldn’t accept a Supreme Court decision, unless you’re suggesting that only an idiot wouldn't. If he did accept the decision, as the transcript suggests, he’s no example at all.
Moon, I guess I should have hit refresh before posting.
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
Yes, grinch. I see your point. It would have been better to keep my opinions of Daschle out of it and just made the comparison of two people being asked if they would change their minds based on Supreme Court decisions.
Hope that clears it up, moonbeam.
grinch, I'm still trying to track down the interview. As senate majority leader at that time no doubt there were several. This one could have been a result of him being taken aside and spoken to. Interesting that his call was for bi-partisanship and then, shortly after when a Republican senator switched parties and Democrats regained control of the Senate, bi-partisanship was not discussed further by them. Well, no surprise there......
October 27, 2001 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Praising the spirit of bipartisanship in Congress since the September 11 terror attacks, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle stressed the importance for Democrats and Republicans to work together to combat the threat of bioterrorism and the economic downturn. -
WASHINGTON - A bipartisan Senate report released today says that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials are directly responsible for abuses of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and charges that decisions by those officials led to serious offenses against prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere.
The Senate Armed Services Committee report accuses Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the principal architects of the plan to use harsh interrogation techniques on captured fighters and terrorism suspects, rejecting the Bush administration's contention that the policies originated lower down the command chain.
"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," the panel concludes. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."
The report, released by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., and based on a nearly two-year investigation, said that both the policies and resulting controversies tarnished the reputation of the United States and undermined national security. "Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority," it said.
I found a chart that defines natural born citizen, citizen of the U.S., and native born citizen, "elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in Caselaw by the Supreme Court."
Actually Denise, thanks for this. It made interesting reading, and seemed quite balanced until I got to the 2 + 2 = 4 bit which was a little worrying (not as worrying as lawyer + accountant mind you ). Then I read:
quote:Either way, three of the candidates, Obama (aka Soetoro), McCain, and Calero are not eligible ... That is a fact that is not in dispute.
Is a fact?
Is not in dispute?
Not in dispute!?
What am I missing now Denise? Surely the fact (a real fact) that it appears probable that Obama will shortly be crowned (or whatever you do over there) President, means it IS in dispute?
I only posted that link to show the definitions of the different terms as previously used and understood by the Supreme Court in the cases cited, Moonbeam. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with any opinions otherwise stated, just as I don't necessarily agree or disagree with all of the opinions stated on this site!
Yes I understand why you posted it Denise, and like I say, as a complete ignoramus where US politics are concerned, I found it helpful. The problem was that the same writer made that puzzling statement at the end and, in my eyes, devalued, and made me mentally query, everything else he'd written.
And Yes! Last time I looked 2 + 2 equalled 4, perhaps it's just me, or perhaps it was my usual morning mopes, but I thought it was just a mite patronising.
I just checked out your link to TheObamaFile. The man makes no sense to me. I include my response to him below.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Dear Missouri Lawyer,
This is an interesting legal strategy! Apparently by limiting precedents to those that do not include a time when either Alaska or Hawaii were actual States, we can pretend that citizens of those states do not have the legal right to run for President.
With that logic, you could probably still sell slavery if you limited the precedents to those prior to, say, 1850. And what's to stop you? Roll back the income tax? Have the President and the Vice President from different parties? Get those pesky women out of politics? You could no doubt show us some truly illuminating charts to illustrate your point on those as well.
What does the nature of arithmetic have to do with stacking the deck in a discussion and hoping nobody will notice? You haven't been robbed of your rights; you simply haven't been able to make the clock stop in 1939, where your precedents do. There are now actually 50 states, and not 48; though you are reading the law — predictably, in a legalistic and literal fashion — as though there are still only 48 states, and we must disregard equal protections for those pretenders who have somehow gotten the impression they had achieved legal statehood, and actually had representatives in Congress and were paying taxes like everybody else. The more fools they!
You could just mentally replace "mainland" (which was synonymous with all the States at that time) with "within the United States", Bob. I'm sure if the cases had been decided after the inclusion of Hawaii and Alaska, the wording would have reflected that. I think the chart is still valid even if you modify it from "mainland" to "within the United States".
I don't think so, Denise. In fact, I believe that one of the point in Case II pivots on that very point, birth in the Mainland United States, and not simply for Obama, but for McCain as well. I believe this is why the case law quoted stopped at 1939. An actual thorough case law review of these things would have had to cover this point, and not left it open to speculation — I believe — unless this were some of the initial law being adjudicated on the subject. Failure to cover that material would probably gain the lawyer a minimum of a glare from a judge reviewing a brief on the subject.
Not that I'm a lawyer, or even play one on TV. If there is one in the house, perhaps they could offer a thought or two on the subject?
Sincerely, Bob Kaven
I just found this link that sheds more light on the meaning of natural born citizen. ALL of the Founding Fathers were born in this country. That really surprised me! I thought at least a couple of them would have been born in England.
So what was the purpose of the grandfathering clause then? Why did they draw a distinction between themselves (as citizens of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the Constitution) and a natural born citizen?
Apparently it seems they defined a natural born citizen as a citizen whose parents were U.S. citizens, either born or naturalized, at the time of the child's birth in the U.S., someone born without dual citizenship, and possibly divided national loyalties.
The Founders had dual citizenship at the time of their births via one or both of their parents, so according to their definition they weren't natural born, even though they were all born here, which necessitated the grandfather clause.
There was one, Chester Arthur, who wasn't natural born since his father didn't become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after Chester's birth, and "Chester Arthur lied numerous times about his past to obfuscate his ineligibility to hold Vice-Presidential and Presidential office. Burned all personal records upon his death."
quote: The Founders had dual citizenship at the time of their births ...
I don't think so, Denise. They were all British subjects at the time of their births. Later, they became traitors to the Crown. And only after that did they become American citizens. That had to be legislated, I imagine, because being born in a British colony apparently didn't carry a lot of weight.
I'll have to track down some references, but I'm pretty sure there were several former Presidents and Vice-Presidents who could potentially have been interpreted as something other than natural born citizen. It's iffy, of course, because natural born citizen is a phrase without any official meaning.
My last child, for example, wasn't a natural born citizen. He had to be delivered by C-section.
Did you know that we were seven or eight American presidents into our history before we got one that wore long pants? Somehow, I just can't stop myself from imagining Bush in knickers.
You're right Ron. Of course they were British subjects at birth. I shouldn't try to think that late at night!
And I'd be interested in reading whatever you come up with on the issue. I am absolutely fascinated by history.
I think we can ascertain what they meant by the term by discovering their reasoning behind the stipulation through their other writings. I read somewhere that they were very concerned about the divided national loyalties issue. And I think the previous opinions of the Supreme Court can shed light on the issue as well. But whatever they actually meant by it, I think we can safely rule out C-Sections as being a concern to them!