Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment
in [Toyota]
|
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 13 Aug 2010 07:54 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:fV49o.65956$4B7.31120(a)newsfe16.iad... > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 01:21:27 -0400, Kali wrote: > >> In article <A6Z8o.10910$EF1.7115(a)newsfe14.iad>, =?iso-2022-jp?q? >> Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= Trueno(a)e86.GTS says... >>> >>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:13:40 -0500, pandora wrote: >>> >>> > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:24:05 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Aug 11, 11:58 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:08:05 -0700, edspyhill01 wrote: >>> >>> > On Aug 11, 10:21 pm, Hachiroku ???? <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: >>> >>> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:07:35 -0500, pandora wrote: >>> >>> >> >>>> That position completely ignores the REALITY of illegal >>> >>> >> >>>> immigrants that have no citizenship in the first place do >>> >>> >> >>>> not >>> >>> >> >>>> get citizenship for no other reason than the mother manages >>> >>> >> >>>> to >>> >>> >> >>>> plop out a baby within minutes of crawling under the wire. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> With such a policy, one would be revoking the citizenship of >>> >>> >> >>> the >>> >>> >> >>> *baby*. You know what the Constitution says? Born *here* in >>> >>> >> >>> the >>> >>> >> >>> US, you're a citizen. Live with it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> No, it doesn't. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > Yes, it does. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Pardon me, your ignorance is showing yet again. The CONSTITUTION >>> >>> >> does NOT allow for "Born here, Citizen here". >>> >>> >>> >>> >> The CONSTITUTION does NOT allow for Free Speech. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> The CONSTITUTION does NOT allow for the right to bear arms. >>> >>> >>> >>> > You are frothing from the mouth again. Somebody get a paper bag >>> >>> > for >>> >>> > Roachie can breath into. >>> >>> >>> >>> Where in the Constitution does it say people who are born here are >>> >>> Citizens?- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >>> >> >>> >> Oh oh. We are going deep in rightwing world. >>> > >>> > He doesn't seem to understand that an Amendment then becomes part of >>> > the >>> > Constitution. Of course, Hachoo would like the 19th amendment to be >>> > repealed as well. >>> >>> >>> Talk about LaLa land... >>> >>> No, the 19th amendment is just fine. The next amendment should require >>> either an IQ test or a small civics test to keep 'leaders' like Obungler >>> from being elected. >> >> You never miss a chance to put down educated people. Why is that? > > No, I like educated people. > > It's educated fools I have trouble with. Once again, your jealousy is showing.
From: C. E. White on 13 Aug 2010 10:47 "Kali" <yourgoddesskali(a)gmail.inv> wrote in message news:i3vab3$fcq$1(a)blackhelicopter.databasix.com... > The Confederates had renounced all allegiance to the United States. > They made war on the United States -- the Constitution's definition > of treason -- and, in an effort to keep 4 million Americans > enslaved, killed more of our soldiers than any foreign army ever > did. A few points: Who made war on whom? If the Union forces had chosen to leave the South alone, do you think the Confederates would have invaded the North? Legal scholars at the time of the Civil War and since that time have been of the mind that the Southern States most likely had the right to secede. Lincoln repeatedly exceeded his authority in making war on the Southern States. He is remembered as a great man, but if you review his activities, you will find he did many things of questionable legality. At least in this case I am willing to accept that the ends jsutified the means, but I also believe that many of the "means" were not legal. We will never know what would have happened if the US Governement had taken a more conservative approach in 1861. For sure North Carolina and Virigina would have remained in the Union. I suspect eventually the other states, cut off from commerce with the bulk of US, would have reconsidered their secession, but we will never know. Were the Confederate leaders any more or any less guilty of treason than were Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al in 1776? Not everyone in the south renounced their US citizenship. My home state of NC only voted to secede after Lincoln forced states to choose sides, and then only after Virginia voted to sucede. Prior to that NC had voted against sucession. Probaly close to 50% of NC resisdents in 1861 did not want to secede Most people in the south at the time of the Civil War, including most soldiers, did not own slaves and had no interest in dying to keep anyone enslaved. Around 364,511 Union Soldiers died during the Civil War (only 140,414 in combat). Around 405,399 US Soldiers dies in WWII (291,557 in combat) So the Civil War did not kill more of our (if by our you mean United States Soldiers) than any foreign army ever did. I suppose you could say the Germans, Italians, and Japanese were not a single foreign army, but then they were allies during WWII and it is spliting hairs to separate them to make an invalid point. And even then, over 150,000 US soldiers died in combat fighting against the Germans and Italians in the Atlantic theater. > Yet Lincoln was determined to make it easy for Confederates to > regain their citizenship. By taking an oath to support the United > States and its Constitution, Confederates were made Americans again. So let's say you lived in western North Carolina in 1861 (a pro-Union area). You didn't own slaves, you were against secession, but you were drafted into the Confederate Army. Wouldn't it have been unfair if you didn't get your citizenship back? How about if you were just some young person that never fought and never had any part in the Civil War? > Suppose, though, that Lincoln had been filled with the spirit of > today's Republicans.... Lincolns actions were responsible for hundreds of thousand of deaths......we may agree they were necessary and for the greater good. Ed
From: Aratzio on 13 Aug 2010 10:50 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:47:57 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Kali <yourgoddesskali(a)gmail.inv> got double secret probation for writing: >In article <sdv8669t3gqltgrer5dqiqfndhk0td0gk6(a)4ax.com>, Aratzio >a6ahlyv02(a)sneakemail.com says... >> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:58:02 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Kali >> <yourgoddesskali(a)gmail.inv> got double secret probation for writing: >> >> >In article <9pd66615bj3h3mqjv6qt514mgnrchc6loc(a)4ax.com>, Aratzio >> >a6ahlyv02(a)sneakemail.com says... >> >> >> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:11:02 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Kali >> >> <yourgoddesskali(a)gmail.inv> got double secret probation for writing: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Must read Op-Ed by Harold Meyerson. >> >> >Excellent arguments; well researched. >> >> > >> >> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- >> >> >dyn/content/article/2010/08/10/AR2010081004586.html >> >> > >> >> >Excerpts >> >> >------------------------------- >> >> >By pushing for repeal of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, >> >> >the GOP appears to have concluded: If you can't win them [Latinos] >> >> >over -- indeed, if you're doing everything in your power to make >> >> >their lives miserable -- revoke their citizenship. >> >> >------------------------------- >> >> >The Confederates had renounced all allegiance to the United States. >> >> >They made war on the United States -- the Constitution's definition >> >> >of treason -- and, in an effort to keep 4 million Americans >> >> >enslaved, killed more of our soldiers than any foreign army ever >> >> >did. >> >> > >> >> >Yet Lincoln was determined to make it easy for Confederates to >> >> >regain their citizenship. By taking an oath to support the United >> >> >States and its Constitution, Confederates were made Americans again. >> >> > >> >> >Suppose, though, that Lincoln had been filled with the spirit of >> >> >today's Republicans.... >> >> >-------------------------------- >> >> > >> >> >He points to another well done piece by EJ Dionne at WaPo, very much >> >> >worth a read. >> >> >> >> More importantly, any politician that is running on altering the >> >> constitution is lying. >> >> >> >> It takes years and quite often decades to change the constitution. >> >> >> >> 2/3 of both houses and 38 states (legislature or conventions) >> >> >> >> Constitutional convention ropoed by 2/3 ratified by 3/4 >> >> >> >> Then the one where states request congress call a convention and then >> >> is ratified by 3/4. >> >> >> >> So, how long will it take to get 2/3 of both houses to agree on either >> >> a new amendment or a repeal? >> >> >> >> If that were to occur then they have 7 years to get 38 states to pass >> >> the proposed amendment. >> >> >> >> So, for wingnut policy to be enacted would essentially require 2/3 of >> >> congress and 3/4 of states to become wingnut. >> >> . >> > >> >But... but... the wingnuts want the Constitution left alooooone! >> >Well, only conservative activist judges are allowed to legislate >> >from the bench. Wait. Oh, dear. It's all so confusing. >> >> Well, they probably would be pleased with the 3/5th rule... > >Oh lordy I'm too tired for this thread. Who started it, anyway? Well, according to the kooks, posting drunk helps kick their asses.
From: Aratzio on 13 Aug 2010 10:55 On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:08:46 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Kali <yourgoddesskali(a)gmail.inv> got double secret probation for writing: >In article <8JK8o.48935$F%7.1456(a)newsfe10.iad>, =?iso-2022-jp?q? >Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= Trueno(a)e86.GTS says... >> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:34:06 -0400, Kali wrote: >> > >> > I'll accept facts from a Rhodes scholar with a Ph.D. >> >> <YAWN> She's an ultra liberal k00k in the same vein as Rush Limbaugh. >> >> Any Ph.D. aside. Anyone can pass a class and be an Educated Fool. > >Anyone can get a Ph.D.? > >Reagan anti-intellectualism at its finest. > >> > Why all the b.s. about her being a housewife? Do you have a Ph.D.? >> >> Ge, no I don't. That is just another strawman. You're pretty good at those. > >Please explain how my comparison of her qualifications to yours is a >strawman. > Get used to that, everytime you teach him a new term or phrase to describe his *style* he will begin using it, incorrectly, within days in his own posts. He was having his red herrings called out, now he tries to use it as a defense.
From: Aratzio on 13 Aug 2010 11:04
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:13:17 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, Kali <yourgoddesskali(a)gmail.inv> got double secret probation for writing: >In article <f8Z8o.10911$EF1.2900(a)newsfe14.iad>, =?iso-2022-jp?q? >Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= Trueno(a)e86.GTS says... >> >> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:06:17 -0500, pandora wrote: >> >> >> When you don't look up facts, you make stuff up. And when you don't know >> >> what the facts are, or the various arguments are, you are depending on >> >> others to tell you what to think. This is one of the great laws of the >> >> universe, genius. >> > >> > And don't forget, after that he insults and then runs away. >> >> Do you ever add anything substanative? >> >> A female JoeSpareBedroom. > >Yes. But it's subtle and a bit dry, so you wouldn't pick up on it. Okay, now you have done it, you used the "s" word... |