looks like they're going to pass a bill so McCain can slide by on the "natural born citizen" ordeal
Posted February 29th, 2008 by Big Naughty
output
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Congress can pass such a law, but it cannot be
enforced, ex post facto. Is there any such evidence of a bill having been introduced?
That only applies to criminal laws
See Calder v. Bull (1798).
Civil laws can be ex post facto.
Well I see that more calls to Congress are needed...
These people are relentless in their pursuit of insanity
In Christ,
Dave
www.lionandlambministry.c...
www.lionandlambtv.com
www.lionandlambtv.com/ind...
(Lion and Lamb's NEW Radio Station...listen)
www.lionandlambtv.com/ind...
(Lion and Lamb's NEW TV Station.......watch)
Nonsense
A bill passed by Congress would only be legit under Article I section 8 power to "establish an uniform rule of naturalization."
Therefore any sucjh bill would be making McCain a citizen that is NATURALIZED, rather than by FACT of his BIRTH within one of the States, which did not happen.
You can't change the facts of his birth. Therefore ANY law, short of an amendment repealing the natural born requirement cannot MAKE him a "natural born Citizen" and thus eligible to the office.
"Making" him a citizen is the very definition of "naturalization."
Its true
democrat=republican(neocon) They are all riding in the same boat.
McCain is hilarious!
...yeah the Founding Fathers couldn't envision the part about our military being stationed outside of the United States.
Good One!
In Christ,
Dave
www.lionandlambministry.c...
www.lionandlambtv.com
www.lionandlambtv.com/ind...
(Lion and Lamb's NEW Radio Station...listen)
www.lionandlambtv.com/ind...
(Lion and Lamb's NEW TV Station.......watch)
This means only one thing...
...they wouldn't bother trying to suddenly pass such a bill...
...if the information about InSane's ineligibility were not a threat.
:D
I agree with
that assessment.
A Bill or Law would not be
A Bill or Law would not be enough for McCain to be eligible. Laws which do not follow the constitution are unconstitutional. This Bill, even if passed by our representatives in Congress (many of which cannot seem to live by their oaths to uphold and defend the constitution) will eventually be invalidated due to its unconstitutionality.
Your Are Correct
All passing a bill does is beg the question. You'd still have to have a Supreme Court ruling on what the Constitution itself means by its requirement. I suppose what passing a bill does, though, is provide a vehicle by which the Court can interpret the phrase.
How would it be Unconstitutional
to pass a bill that defines the term "Natural born citizen", a term NOT defined by the constitution?
We have known the meaning of
We have known the meaning of natural born citizen for over two hundred years. Any definition of "natural born citizen" would be a redefinition. Our government cannot simply redefine words or phrases to fit their agenda whenever they feel it necessary.
If our government changes the definition it would be a terrible thing. But, we all know that they have done things like this before, such a giving a new and odd meaning to the phrase "financial institution."
If you are unsure about the intent of the "natural born citizen" wording within the Constitution you should check into John Jays and the letter he wrote to George Washington concerning this very subject. The meaning of "natural born citizen" is crystal clear.
Actually they do it all the time...
Our government cannot simply redefine words or phrases to fit their agenda whenever they feel it necessary.
Actually they do it all the time.
Doesn't mean it's right, but when was the last time whether something is right or not stopped them ?
LOL
Now why would a DEMOCRAT introduce legislation for Juan? Well could be that he is really a DEMOCRAT in Republican "garb", or could it be that the DEMS would love to go against Juan because the know they will CRUSH him, or is it because they tremble with FEAR at the thought of running against Dr. Paul?
ANSWER = ALL OF THE ABOVE!
Say YES to Dr. NO
This Has Already Been Done Once But It Was Over Turned ...
My understanding is that this was done once ready back in the early history of the country (around 1799 or 1800) but four years later was reject by the court as unconstitiutional and over turned.
If it was overturned once
If it was overturned once before doesn't that count as precedent on the issue? They are wasting their time trying to reintroduce a law which as already been ruled unconstitutional.
A Once In A Life Time Opportunity
McCain’s official birth status is clearly defined by the Constitution but this is an important point of Constitutional Law that needs to be resolved, once and for all. The key though to resolving such an important Constitutional issue by the highest court America is that such a case would first hinge on the fact that the person or persons bring the case to this Court must have strong “LEGAL STANDING” or it will just be disregarded. Doctor Ron Paul, I believe, may be the only person in the country, at the present moment in time, with such strong standing. He is both a lawfully elected senior member, in good standing of the United States Congress and he also, is in a lawfully and direct competition with John McCain for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States. The fact that he is a member of Congress gives him a special and historical right to petition the Supreme Court directly, coupled with the fact that both reasons rise to the Federal level, gives him, I believe, a very strong legal standing for the case to be hear immediately by the Court. I would think that because of Doctor Paul long recorded history as a defender of the Constitution that he would be seen as again defending this wonderful document, especially Republicans, Independents and Blue Dog Democrats. In addition, it would position this Countries and the World’s spotlight direct onto our American Constitution. People from around the World who had never even heard of this document or once read it would want to see what it is all about. We must remember that this is the only document of its kind in the World and it was written as a strong, squared and level foundation in which to build our Grand Experiment of Personal Freedom and Liberty. Think of the potential positive publicity such a law suit would bring to Dr. Paul's campaign and the Constitution, as well as help sow the seeds of peaceful change throughout the World. This rivals the efforts of our Founding Fathers in 1776, in that I believe that this too, rises to the level of a mystical opportunity in time and space for one man to step forward and help bring about what could be one of the greatest worldwide changes in human consciousness in recorded history.
wouldn't this take an
wouldn't this take an amendment to the constitution?
No it would not take an Amendment
The Constitution does not DEFINE "Natural born citizen" therefore a bill would not be making a change to the constitution, it would be defining a term not previously defined.
Yes
A bill doesn't resolve anything -- the Constitutional issue is still there.
OMG!
I know I shouldn't be surprised, but I always am. We need to bomb that congresswoman with letters about how bad that would be!
Save our Souls! This country is in so much trouble.
Need more info
Do you have a bill number? Do you know if it is in committee still, or if it's gone to the floor yet?
I want to write my congresswoman to tell her to vote it down. More info would be very helpful!
THANK YOU!
Filthy Rich!
. Maybe Angelina and Brad should take that fortune they have between them and adopt the whole damn country. I cant afford to help myself, much less pay for destruction I didnt vote for in the first place. We all know where the money will come from.
Uhhh...
That link refers to Angelina Jolie. ???
sorry about that. i was
sorry about that. i was forgot i also found an article on how well things were going in Iraq according to Angelina.