Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#321
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Calling all birthers
wrote in message ... On May 4, 5:13 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: wrote in message ... On May 4, 4:02 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote: It would depend on whether he was convicted under Section 1 (which applies to individuals, not just to conspiracies) or Section 2. Surely he would be guilty under Section 2. If I were the prosecutor, I'd go for Section 1, as an act of "counseling," in which case he could get five years, and a five of up to $5,000 (in 1798!), "and further, at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct." and the act itself limited the amount of time the act was in force to three years. So Rich would not have spent many years in prison. Up to five. And since the act was passed in 1798 when George Washington was no longer president, I am not sure the Sedition Act qualifies as being passed by the Founding Fathers. Dan John Adams signed it. What was he, chopped liver? g -- Ed Huntress It never crossed my mind that Rich was counseling. See? You made a wise decision not to be a prosecutor.... You might get a conviction on Section !, but it would not be as easy as Section 2. True. I don't know how nasty juries were in those days. That's what it would depend upon. And yes John Adams is a founding father, but does not qualify as " The Founding Fathers ". Uh....I'm not going to ask what size pencil you're using to draw that line...no, I promise I won't... (he's usually counted among the Founding Fathers by historians, but each to his own.) -- Ed Huntress I agree he is one of the Founding Fathers. He is not " the Founding Fathers" plural. There was more than one Founding Father. Dan Well, I go along with Richard B. Morris's list: Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundin..._United_States But there are different opinions about it. -- Ed Huntress |
#323
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Calling all birthers
|
#324
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Calling all birthers
On Tue, 03 May 2011 20:35:58 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote: In article , wrote: On Tue, 03 May 2011 01:14:20 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: So you are now saying that proof is indeed needed? What on earth did you imagine you read that led to you conclude that? So you are then claiming that no proof of natural born ciitzenship is needed? Stop changing the subject. No..you are refusing to engage in dialog. No, actually, that would be you -- refusing to respond to a simple request: prove your claim that candidates are required to produce birth certificates. You can't do that, and you know it, so you keep changing the subject, trying to distract attention, anything to avoid admitting that you were wrong. Ive stated consistantly that some proof has to be made to show their eligibility to be President. So far...you have refused to answer what that proof might be. Still waiting Doughy..still waiting Gunner -- "If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight, it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified) |
#325
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Calling all birthers
On Wed, 04 May 2011 14:00:11 +0700, J. D. Slocomb
wrote: What on earth did you imagine you read that led to you conclude that? So you are then claiming that no proof of natural born ciitzenship is needed? Stop changing the subject. No..you are refusing to engage in dialog. Sorry Doughy..but Ive already stated my case. You didnt like it. That's because you didn't answer the question. And that's because you found out that you were full of crap, and immediately went into your little dance. So Ive asked you a number of questions that you have refused to answer. He asked first. Then we can get to your butthead misunderstanding of "natural born," as it's been decided by the courts. I've already provided links and quotes from the relevent Supreme Court cases. AND he's neglected to post Pres. Washington's birth certificate and school records that he said had been published. As Ive stated repeatedly....Washington DIDNT NEED to prove he was a Natural Born citizen. As he was indeed a “citizen at the time of the adoption of this constitution” Also ..his birth records were recorded in the family bible as was common in those days. And his school records ..such as they were..are on file in the National Library. Then we have the 14th Amendment If you're going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath. Natural-born citizen Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday? The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship. Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:" * Anyone born inside the United States * * Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe * Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S. * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national * Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year * Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21 * Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time) * A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S. * There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision. Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example. Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive. The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section. In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship. U.S. Nationals A "national" is a person who is considered under the legal protection of a country, while not necessarily a citizen. National status is generally conferred on persons who lived in places acquired by the U.S. before the date of acquisition. A person can be a national-at-birth under a similar set of rules for a natural-born citizen. U.S. nationals must go through the same processes as an immigrant to become a full citizen. U.S. nationals who become citizens are not considered natural-born. Becoming a citizen A non-citizen may apply to become a citizen of the United States. At no time will such a person ever be considered natural-born (unless the U.S. Code is changed in some way). The process to become a citizen involves several steps, including applying to become and becoming a permanent resident (previously known as a resident alien), applying to become and becoming naturalized, and finally taking the Oath of Allegiance to the United States. Children of naturalized U.S. citizens generally become citizens automatically, though they will also not be considered natural-born. There is a time constraint before a permanent resident can apply for naturalization, generally either 3 or 5 years. The other requirements are that there be a minimum length of time in a specific state or district, successful completion of a citizenship exam, ability to read, write, and speak English, and good moral character. -- "If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight, it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified) |
#326
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Calling all birthers
On Wed, 04 May 2011 14:00:22 +0700, J. D. Slocomb
wrote: On Tue, 3 May 2011 15:23:50 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A. Falk) wrote: In article , Gunner Asch wrote: Still waiting for the question about how to prove Natural Born to be answered by you. How did Lincoln prove it? Well, Gunner says that every president other then Obama has published his birth certificate and school records..... You lie so poorly and so pitifuly. Im curious..you evidently have had much practice at this. Do you have a particular corner you practice your trade at? Cheers, John D. Slocomb (jdslocombatgmail) -- "If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight, it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is six. " Jonah Goldberg (modified) |
#327
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Calling all birthers
On May 7, 2:24*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 00:42:47 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: Doug Miller wrote: In article ?, "Michael A. Terrell" ? wrote: ? ?Doug Miller wrote: ?? ?? In article ?, "Michael A. ? Terrell" ? wrote: ?? ? ?? ? * I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs ?? ?to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge. ?? ? ?? ?? While that standard would have disqualified Obama and Clinton, it would not ?? have prevented the election of Carter, Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson. ? ? ? * So what? So what's the point of creating additional qualifications for the office, if they don't serve to weed out the incompetent or the dishonest? * You make that claim, so prove that it won't. I already did. Since you apparently weren't paying attention, I'll spell it out for you: Suppose that criterion had been in place from the beginning. It would not have prevented the election of Nixon (dishonest), Carter (incompetent), and LBJ (both incompetent and dishonest). Nor would it have prevented the candidacies of John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, or Walter Mondale. All seven of these men are veterans, with (AFAIK) honorable discharges. So they can indeed prove that they are Natural Born citizens? Still waiting for your proof about the Obamassiah Gunner -- "If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight, it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is six. " *Jonah Goldberg (modified)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Still waiting for proof that you own that junk you are trying to sell on Usenet. TMT |
#328
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Calling all birthers
On May 7, 2:25*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 20:35:58 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , wrote: On Tue, 03 May 2011 01:14:20 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: So *you are now saying that proof is indeed needed? What on earth did you imagine you read that led to you conclude that? So you are then claiming that no proof of natural born ciitzenship is needed? Stop changing the subject. No..you are refusing to engage in dialog. No, actually, that would be you -- refusing to respond to a simple request: prove your claim that candidates are required to produce birth certificates. You can't do that, and you know it, so you keep changing the subject, trying to distract attention, anything to avoid admitting that you were wrong. Ive stated consistantly that some proof has to be made to show their eligibility to be President. *So far...you have refused to answer what that proof might be. Still waiting Doughy..still waiting Gunner -- "If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight, it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is six. " *Jonah Goldberg (modified)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Only you and Trump are waiting Gummer...the rest of the world has moved on. Have you applied to McDonalds yet? I heard they need a clown. TMT |
#329
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Calling all birthers
On May 7, 2:37*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 14:00:11 +0700, J. D. Slocomb wrote: What on earth did you imagine you read that led to you conclude that? So you are then claiming that no proof of natural born ciitzenship is needed? Stop changing the subject. No..you are refusing to engage in dialog. Sorry Doughy..but Ive already stated my case. You didnt like it. That's because you didn't answer the question. And that's because you found out that you were full of crap, and immediately went into your little dance. So Ive asked you a number of questions that you have refused to answer. |
#330
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Calling all birthers
On May 7, 2:38*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2011 14:00:22 +0700, J. D. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 3 May 2011 15:23:50 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A. Falk) wrote: In article , Gunner Asch wrote: Still waiting for the question about how to prove Natural Born to be answered by you. How did Lincoln prove it? Well, Gunner says that every president other then Obama has published his birth certificate and school records..... You lie so poorly and so pitifuly. *Im curious..you evidently have had much practice at this. Do you have a particular corner *you practice your trade at? Cheers, John D. Slocomb (jdslocombatgmail) -- "If I say two plus two is four and a Democrat says two plus two is eight, it's not a partial victory for me when we agree that two plus two is six. " *Jonah Goldberg (modified)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That would make him a Republican. TMT |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Calling all People | UK diy | |||
Calling All Machinists | Metalworking | |||
Calling all you chemists... | Metalworking | |||
Calling all plasterers! | UK diy | |||
calling a plumber | Home Repair |