- This topic has 121 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by JanS.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 2, 2016 at 4:28 pm #829719
SmittyParticipant“what is the conservative/libertarian position on rising gun violence? “
January 2, 2016 at 5:59 pm #829720
HappyOnAlkiParticipantThat NPR article is from two and a half years ago. I doubt that the number of mass shootings has gone down since then; it’s hard to even remember them all . . . .
January 2, 2016 at 6:37 pm #829721
JKBParticipantMy apologies to the OP and others for the hijacking. I took the liberty of commenting on Rubio, and on the Constitution which a President is to defend, here in the Cruz thread.
I did not open a gun control debate and would suggest that somebody start a new thread. In which I will not participate.
Redblack, understand that I do wonder about those things. Examples are common. Your rant isn’t that important, just the most recent.
January 3, 2016 at 1:28 am #829723
JoBParticipantJKB
The constitution is a living document subject to constant reinterpretation by the Supreme Court.
it’s disingenuous to lean on a recent Robert’s court interpretation that went against the body of previous interpretations when it comes to one subject but to ignore the entire body of precedent and law when it comes to others.
just saying
January 3, 2016 at 1:33 am #829725
redblackParticipantJKB: no apologies for threadjacking – or condescension – are necessary.
this is WSB forums. our political conversations meander all over the countryside, and, in my opinion, all views are welcome. if it gets a little off-topic, so be it.
i can bring it back around by politely asking for debate on ted cruz’s stance on rampant gun violence.
more importantly, though, we’re all neighbors, right? my rule of thumb is to not post anything i wouldn’t say to a stranger on the street, within the context of the conversation.
you say my “rant” isn’t important, and you’re entitled to your opinion. (we all are, at WSB’s grace) but i still don’t know your opinion on anything more topical than my writing style. what is important enough to engage your interest and encourage you to express your thoughts?
because as i see it, all you’ve brought to this thread is snark. and a merry christmas. as a matter of fact,you said that obama has “pet gun control” policies. and none of your posts mentioned ted cruz.
and you won’t debate gun control policy in this thread or any other?
do you have anything to discuss beyond the people who are discussing stuff?
January 3, 2016 at 2:19 am #829728
JKBParticipantJob, you’re contradicting yourself. And irrelevant: I said nothing about any SC decision, Roberts (no apos, that’s his name) court or otherwise. Criticize what I actually say; don’t make stuff up.
The contradiction is where in one breath you talk about living documents subject to reinterpretation, and in the next you’re about ignoring precedent. Which is it? And hey, do we ever have precedent. Dred Scott, Plessy….!
Finally, there’s your closing “just saying”. What does that mean? That you’re saying it for dramatic effect but don’t mean it? Or won’t defend it? Or just that you want to extend insult but won’t be responsible for your own conduct ?
January 3, 2016 at 3:57 am #829732
JKBParticipantThoughts about the topic. Yes, redblack, I do. One is that the rules about gun ownership and use were never the topic. Basic citizenship on the part of elected officials was the topic.
January 3, 2016 at 4:43 am #829734
redblackParticipantJKB: with all due respect, at about post 90, you mentioned obama’s “pet gun control measures” or somesuch.
what did you mean by that?
look: if you don’t want me to react, don’t pop off with silly comments. if you post it, i’m gonna call it out.
January 3, 2016 at 5:08 am #829735
JKBParticipantThought problem: how to handle someone who insists on missing the point, and engages in personal attack along the way. It’s a common enough behavior (see my I Wonder post) online, and I’ve observed it in exchanges to which I was not a party.
Specifics so there’s no confusion: Redblack, just shut up.
January 3, 2016 at 5:46 am #829736
HappyOnAlkiParticipantwow.
January 3, 2016 at 8:59 am #829740
JanSParticipantJKB…talk about getting personal. We all can post on here. He did not attack you in any way that I can see, except maybe with sarcasm. If you can indeed dish it, you need to be able to receive it back, IMHO…we all need to be able to do that. But telling a long time, and somewhat sarcastic, poster to just shut up? That’s way past being OK here. Think about it. We’re all adults, and we all have opinions…our opinions and about 5 bucks may get you a great big ol’ latte at the local baristas…and we all need to respect the other posters opinions on here. As the rule says….discuss the topic, not the poster. And, , as HappyOnAlki said…wow…they may not have meant that at what you said, but I do…totally uncalled for.
January 3, 2016 at 9:02 am #829741
JanSParticipantand as the OP here…can we please get back on topic, sorta? Good grief…I still can’t stand Ted Cruz, and his stand in, his good ol’ pappy ! Now there’s one scary dude !
January 3, 2016 at 2:56 pm #829742
redblackParticipantJKB: i’m still not clear on the point that you say i insist on missing. please to enlighten.
you stated that obama is using executive order to rewrite the second amendment, and used that as an analogy; the topic being the extra-constitutional power of the unitary executive: “it’s ‘protect and defend’ not ‘rewrite to suit oneself.'”
i pointed out that your analogy is false. i guess i expected you to defend your statement with charts and graphs or something. instead you claimed that i’m missing the point.
for the fifth time, what point are you trying to make that i’m missing? or do you want to retract that analogy?
January 3, 2016 at 3:18 pm #829743
JoBParticipantJKB
i did not contradict myself
and you do not get to decide if i am irrelevant.
perhaps you should look to your own behavior before accusing others of making personal remarks.
January 3, 2016 at 7:06 pm #829747
waynsterParticipanthmmm Cruz he does kind of look like this 1950’s Senator from Wisconsin and Cruz was born in Canada hmmm lmao….
January 4, 2016 at 1:08 am #829749
metrognomeParticipant‘United States presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging 72-hour length strikes on enemies, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
‘So what is a “natural born” citizen? The Constitution doesn’t specifically say.
‘In 2008, we reviewed research and polled several legal experts. The consensus was that someone is a “natural born” citizen if they have citizenship at birth and don’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.
‘If that’s the definition, then Cruz is a natural born citizen by being born to an American mother and having her citizenship at birth.’
January 4, 2016 at 1:24 am #829750
JanSParticipantwaynster…I’ve always felt that he was Joe McCarthy’s second coming….not very complementary, is it?
January 4, 2016 at 1:28 am #829751
JanSParticipantand, Metrognome…we all remember that no one even raised the question much about John McCain, who was born in Panama of American parents. The question only came up when Barack Obama became president.. Now, if Cruz’s mother denounced her US citizenship before he was born, that would be another story.
January 4, 2016 at 3:19 am #829756
JKBParticipantMcCain was a really special case. Born before the immigration act I cited (he’s that old) and in a place (not Panama itself, but the Canal Zone) governed by specific treaties. Pretty unlikely that his case would ever be repeated.
The Cruz case is borderline. Nobody’s raising a fuss, and that’s our answer. The law doesn’t say and there’s never been a test case. One of my old textbooks comments that if such a person were actually elected, you have case law right there. By the electorate, not by a judge, and that should be fine.
Jan, I recall the birther stuff as claims that his supposed Hawaii birth was fake. If true, that would have at least been fraud, which might be impeachable.
There are some residency rules governing birth abroad, and they’re stricter if only one parent is American. I don’t have the details offhand. Roughly, they’re to prevent American descent from claiming citizenship from afar without ever living here.
Metrognome, yes, the Wiki page. Also the cnbc page dobro posted, which is similar. Shouldn’t there have been a Schoolhouse Rock piece or something?
January 16, 2016 at 12:18 pm #830315
JanSParticipantJoB’s last post was a month ago. Lots of interesting things have happened in that month. There was another GOP debate the other night. There is a widespread opinion that Christie is a jerk. Also, now we’re arguing whether Cruz is eligible to run becaus eof his birth. Notice how things change while remaining the same?
Are any of you scared yet, with the spectre of a Prez Cruz, or a Prez Trump? Have you all seen this video? Shades of “The Producers”
http://theslot.jezebel.com/this-donald-trump-theme-song-is-the-most-upsetting-thin-1753009207?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflowJanuary 18, 2016 at 8:56 am #830498
JTBParticipantAnother wrinkle in the citizenship angle is that Cruz’s mother was listed as an eligible (Canadian) voter while the family lived there. Breitbart briefly reported the voter list which shows her name but quickly dismissed it but Talking Points Memo dug a bit and found it was legit although there’s no way of knowing if it was a mistake, or what. So now we can ask what her citizenship status was.
In any case, the thing I’ve thought is interesting is the dual citizenship issue. It seems to me that might cloud the debate beyond simply what Natural Born Citizen means. At least it will provide some fodder for anyone wanting to raise a legal challenge (one has already been filed but it seems a bit whacky).January 18, 2016 at 1:02 pm #830532
JanSParticipantyes…now his citizenship is being questioned by a few more importants than you and me. I think it will be an interesting discussion…maybe he’s not even a senator…wouldn’t that be something.. I do believe, in the end, that he will be considered a citizen. He will also be offensive as ever , afterwards :(
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.