(Tea Party) Constitutional fundamentalists are wackos

that's not the reality then is it.

 

you guys will be the cause of Americans losing their liberty and freedom. Your children will suffer under socialism and slavery and then their children may attempt to throw off that yoke. You'll be dead. But i'd love to be there when your children and grandchildren ask you why you didn't stop it.

 

Again, "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

If the Constitution is silent you have to look at history to formulate your interpretation.

interpret   /ɪnˈtɜrprɪt/ Show Spelled
[in-tur-prit] Show IPA

–verb (used with object)
1. to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate: to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable.
2. to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable.
3. to bring out the meaning of (a dramatic work, music, etc.) by performance or execution.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpret?o=100084&qsrc=2871&l=dir​

Supreme Court Justices do not get to change the meaning, just "provide the meaning." The "meaning" of natural born citizen at the time of the Constitution meant a person born in the United States of two citizens of the United States. Again you are wrong. You are historically and factually wrong!

 

I can surmise Because it restricts his freedom from taking things that don't belong to him.

 

Not even GOD does that...

 

Oxford's definition is more broad. The 'archaic' definition has been used since the 16th century.

 

"Having a position by birth?" ROTFLMAO!!! Again, try as you might you provide no evidence. Your "archaic" definition says nothing about what makes someone a "natural born citizen of the United States." Again, simply being born, which is what your "archaic" definition states does not make someone a "Natural born citizen" of the United States fulfilling the requirements to become President. Your arguments are getting more, and more flimsy. Why is that?

 

After a lengthy discussion of Supreme Court precedent, you say that precedent is irrelevant; when presented with the 18th century definition of 'natural born', you dismiss that as well, without providing clear reasoning. Since you don't value the original definition, the 14th Amendment clarification, or Supreme Court opinion, your own interpretation is nothing less than arbitrary. As such, this isn't going anywhere.

 

The premise as stated within the OP is wrong, because it assumes we cannot know what the intention of the founders was.

As if it's a secret, which was never written down anywhere, least of all, within the Constitution.

Despite the FACT that what the founders intentions were, are written down in plain English within both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, in what is about a fifth grade reading comprehension level.

Of course, liberals like to ignore that FACT, because it's not politically expedient for the liberal ideologues.

As modern progressive liberalism states that documents like the Constitution are "living and breathing" documents, ever changing as their emotional whims dictate, or in other words, as the wind blows.

But on the flip side of the coin, these liberals also know full well, that this assertion that the Constitution is a "living and breathing" document, and assertions such as that made in the OP, that we cannot know what the founders intent was cannot be said.

And is actually dis-proven as the fallacious argument it is, the instant it is acknowledged that the founders intent is made plain in the Constitution which is written in plain English, on such a basic reading comprehension level.

There is another reason the liberal left likes to claim the Constitution is a living and breathing document, and that the founders intent cannot be known as well.

The leftist statist, modern progressive liberals, like to make claims such as that the Constitution is a "living and breathing document" and that "the founders intent cannot be known", in order to justify their own intentional misinterpretations and distortions of our founding documents like the Constitution.

Which as anyone not drinking the liberalista's koolaid can plainly see, these liberals often times intentionally distort, and misinterpret in order to attempt to justify their own anti-American ideology, as well as tyranny and oppression, of their fellow citizens.

 

That's because liberalism is founded upon unreason, death, and belief in a Kantian, vague existence.

 

I'm doing all I can to stop it. I'm sitting here giving principled arguments for the morality of capitalism along with the practicality of it. I'm showing people that to become a capitalist, they don't have to separate ethics and politics. Their life does not have to become a balance between what is morally right and what reality identifies.

People hate doing that, which is why you're losing everyone to socialism. Meanwhile, you have Miss Sarah Palin saying that the rich should have tax cuts because it helps others. That's true, but that's not the reason they should have tax cuts.

 

If you jump through enough hoops it's technically compatible. But it's nothing you'd want to take the stand with in attempts of fighting the looters. Yet that's what everyone's doing, and it's why we're losing.

I've explained why it's a sorry base for capitalism in an earlier post. Even if it wholeheartedly supported capitalism, it has to be taken on faith. This allows the Communists to say their idiot ideology is based on reason.

 

Who cares what you think when you use such juvenile language like **********, makes me believe that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Since when are principled arguments founded on such lies as you have posted here?

You have yet to substantiate this claim.

 

Man, you've got me in a corner now. Care to point out which link of the chain you refuse to acknowledge?

I have like 5 times. She said they should get tax cuts because they spur economic growth and supply the jobs. She did not say that the rich should get tax cuts because they have the right to exist for themselves. The fact that they supply jobs and spur economic growth are reasons to believe in capitalism, but it isn't the reason they should get tax cuts.

Besides, once you establish that each man only exists to serve others, all of your arguments are invalid. The liberals are champions at that- you will not win.

 

Absolutely. All of that as well.

 

At this point I can consider you either a liar or a loon. Which do you prefer?

 

But its fine when you people use "*******" right? Owned.

 

Now hold on. The Fourteenth Amendment did not define the term “Natural Born Citizen.” Someone “naturalized” is not a "Natural Born Citizen.” I gave you a chance to cite a court ruling that proved me wrong. You reject Minor v. Happersett saying it was superseded or overturned by United States v. Wong Kim Ark which is nonsense. I asked you to post evidence that I was wrong from United States v. Wong Kim Ark and you posted the following:

As I have factually pointed out, as you have rejected, you can be a citizen of the United States and not be a "natural born" citizen of the United States. Your citation from United States v. Wong Kim Ark in no way addresses my point, as it only addresses if someone is a "citizen" or not, not if that person is a "natural born" citizen, and therefore eligible to be President. Then you cite "someone who was born a citizen" as the definition of a "natural born citizen." That is a straw man argument. Ah yea, if your are born a citizen you are a natural born citizen, but simply being born does not make you a citizen. Not even being born within the boundaries of the Unites States made you a citizen when the Constitution was crafted. Many, many Indians were "born in the United States" but were not recognized as "citizens" (natural or otherwise) until 1924, long after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Gee, how can this be if they were naturally born in the United States? Now federal law has changed to allow citizenship to be GIVING to the children of illegal immigrants who happen to be born in the United States, ("anchor babies") but those children are the children of foreign nationals who are subject to the jurisdiction of foreign countries, just as the Indians were subject to the jurisdiction of their Indian nations (Indian reservations). Come on, cite precedent that would negate my argument!

Any "evidence' you have provided only argues "citizenship" not "natural born" citizenship. The nearest the Supreme Court has ruled on that question was in Minor v. Happersett just like I said when they ruled the following:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”​

I know you reject Minor v. Happersett because you believe citizenship is the same as Natural Born citizenship, but you have provided no evidence to support your opinion. The Supreme Court (in Minor v. Happersett) stated “there have been doubts" about your opinion, but had no need to further rule as it was not relevant to the case at hand. United States v. Wong Kim Ark in no way further investigated or ruled on the definition of “Natural Born Citizen.” A proper “interpretation” of anything is to provide its meaning, not to make up a meaning. By definition the meaning is defined by those who came before as the meaning must be ALREADY defined. The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, the ruling you reject so ruled the following:

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”​

At the time, when the Constitution was written Natural Born meant born in the US to two US citizens. The Constitution is silent but history is not. The Constitution does not define what a “militia” is, or what “letters of marque and reprisal” are either, but history well defines both. The notion that anyone born within the bounders of the United States to less than two US citizens is a “Natural Born Citizen” is “doubt(ful)” according to the Supreme Court ruling in Minor v. Happersett, and not responded to or refuted in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Do you have any evidence that proves or at least strengthens your really weak premise, or are your arguments a fit of fancy?

 

Actually, if you've ever read the 10th amendment, you would know that the assertion that the federal government only has the power that is given to them by the Constitution is correct.

 

Supremacy clause says otherwise. Federal law overrides state law in all instances.

 

Who are you calling "you people" ??
And when have you seen ME use that word? You haven't.

I call the hard left what they are:

Progressives
socialists
Marxists

 

Unconstitutional Federal laws should be so ruled, and do not supersede State and Local laws. Are you arguing the federal government can usurp powers reserved to the States and People, and so regulate as if the powers were actually delegated to the federal government? If so you are arguing for a lawless unconstitutional government that advances Tyranny (A Democrat Goal! )

 

Progressives=Good
socialists? Not one bit.
Marixist? Not even close.

Sorry to say but people don't buy what you're shoveling.

 

I am arguing for the federal governments right to step into certain state issues when the constitution is challenged.

States rights do not and should not extent that far.