Boca
Governor
Moderating or censoring?
Well okay...let's give it a shot and see if I can get banned before I quit.
For Days....
Wikipedia?
Wow...so we've come to the point where anonymous Internet volunteers write and make changes to Wikipedia and that's the final word. Somehow that's superior? That's all folks! Check your brains at the door you won't need 'em in here...which begs the question, Why the hell do we need a Supreme Court when we've got bloggers? Is that what you're saying Days?
So some blogger writes in Wikipedia that, "The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion..."
Not satisfied with canonizing the Congressional Research Office, then he/she proceeds to slough off the Supreme Court and clog minds with, "The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen."
In passing?
Minor vs Happersett, USSC
How's that for in passing?
Let's do some word pairs Days. Sterile-sterilized, crystal-crystalized, sanitary-sanitized, homogenous-homogenized, victim-victimized, immune-immunized, deputy-deputized, organization-organized and on and on. In each pair there is state of being and a process for getting to it.
In the Constitution there's natural and naturalized. Article 2, Section 1 specifies "natural born", all others are naturalized. Laws and statutes provide the process by which one is naturalized.
The judge in Georgia judge seems to understand that. The Supreme Court understood it too and made it very clear in Minor vs Happersett.
Well okay...let's give it a shot and see if I can get banned before I quit.
For Days....
Wikipedia?
Wow...so we've come to the point where anonymous Internet volunteers write and make changes to Wikipedia and that's the final word. Somehow that's superior? That's all folks! Check your brains at the door you won't need 'em in here...which begs the question, Why the hell do we need a Supreme Court when we've got bloggers? Is that what you're saying Days?
So some blogger writes in Wikipedia that, "The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion..."
Not satisfied with canonizing the Congressional Research Office, then he/she proceeds to slough off the Supreme Court and clog minds with, "The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court and lower courts dealing with the question of eligibility for citizenship by birth, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen."
In passing?
Minor vs Happersett, USSC
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 [AND] 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.
How's that for in passing?
Let's do some word pairs Days. Sterile-sterilized, crystal-crystalized, sanitary-sanitized, homogenous-homogenized, victim-victimized, immune-immunized, deputy-deputized, organization-organized and on and on. In each pair there is state of being and a process for getting to it.
In the Constitution there's natural and naturalized. Article 2, Section 1 specifies "natural born", all others are naturalized. Laws and statutes provide the process by which one is naturalized.
The judge in Georgia judge seems to understand that. The Supreme Court understood it too and made it very clear in Minor vs Happersett.