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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #321   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default Calling all birthers

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)
  #325   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,399
Default 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)


  #327   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,380
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,380
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,380
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,380
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Calling all People Mr Mousetown UK diy 0 August 26th 09 04:23 PM
Calling All Machinists pyotr filipivich Metalworking 0 July 1st 09 01:24 AM
Calling all you chemists... Steve Lusardi Metalworking 14 May 16th 08 03:00 AM
Calling all plasterers! Simon UK diy 13 April 10th 07 02:30 PM
calling a plumber SeaKan Home Repair 10 March 20th 06 05:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"