Page 198 of 271

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:32 am
by The Alma Mater
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
Yes, and where is that enumerated?


Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States' Constitution.


That only states that one has to be a natural born citizen. It never defines what that means.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:36 am
by Western Vale Confederacy
The Alma Mater wrote:
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States' Constitution.


That only states that one has to be a natural born citizen. It never defines what that means.


The usually agreed upon definition is that you must be born in the United States.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:36 am
by Vassenor
Salandriagado wrote:
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
He meant that one of the required conditions to become President is to have been born in the United States or to have two American citizens as parents.


Or to have been an American citizen in 1789, though that one hasn't come up for a while.

And maybe also all of the other categories under §1401, who are citizens at birth, not naturalized, but none of them have yet gotten a case to the Supreme Court to establish if they're "natural-born", whatever the fuck that means. Actually, "have two American citizens has parents" is also in that condition.


As an example, Ted Cruz's father wasn't a US Citizen until 2005, rendering his eligibility sketchy under these proposed rules.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:28 am
by The Alma Mater
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
That only states that one has to be a natural born citizen. It never defines what that means.


The usually agreed upon definition is that you must be born in the United States.


Or born of US parents. Yes.
But "usually agreed upon" is not the same as "this is what it actually says". Heck, one could argue that it simply excludes robots (sorry Romney), IVF children and Jesus ;)

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:33 am
by Purpelia
The Alma Mater wrote:
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
The usually agreed upon definition is that you must be born in the United States.


Or born of US parents. Yes.
But "usually agreed upon" is not the same as "this is what it actually says". Heck, one could argue that it simply excludes robots (sorry Romney), IVF children and Jesus ;)

Well to be fair, given all the things that have been done in his name I wouldn't want Jesus as my president either.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:35 am
by The Alma Mater
Purpelia wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
Or born of US parents. Yes.
But "usually agreed upon" is not the same as "this is what it actually says". Heck, one could argue that it simply excludes robots (sorry Romney), IVF children and Jesus ;)

Well to be fair, given all the things that have been done in his name I wouldn't want Jesus as my president either.

Aside from which, he is already the King of Poland (and Mary the Queen.. do not think about that).

That implies a conflict of interest.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:36 am
by Purpelia
The Alma Mater wrote:
Purpelia wrote:Well to be fair, given all the things that have been done in his name I wouldn't want Jesus as my president either.

Aside from which, he is already the King of Poland (and Mary the Queen.. do not think about that).

That implies a conflict of interest.

Say what now? Sources or it didn't happen. :p

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:40 am
by The Alma Mater
Purpelia wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:Aside from which, he is already the King of Poland (and Mary the Queen.. do not think about that).

That implies a conflict of interest.

Say what now? Sources or it didn't happen. :p

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2016/n ... he-country
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7bmw ... poland-876

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:42 am
by Far Easter Republic
Page wrote:If everyone made to work without pay refused to show up to work, shutdowns would end in less than 5 minutes. All it takes is solidarity and everyone being willing to come together. One employee who refuses to show up gets fired, but if no one shows up they can't fire all of them.

Perfect!

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:43 am
by Thermodolia
Vassenor wrote:
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
He meant that one of the required conditions to become President is to have been born in the United States or to have two American citizens as parents.


Yes, and where is that enumerated?

Natural born citizen.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:46 am
by The Alma Mater
Thermodolia wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
Yes, and where is that enumerated?

Natural born citizen.


That means "not born using a C-section".

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:47 am
by Salandriagado
Thermodolia wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
Yes, and where is that enumerated?

Natural born citizen.


Not quite: there's a few edge cases that might or might not be natural-born citizens (and, for that matter, having two American citizens as parents might not count).

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:51 am
by Thermodolia
The Alma Mater wrote:
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
The usually agreed upon definition is that you must be born in the United States.


Or born of US parents. Yes.
But "usually agreed upon" is not the same as "this is what it actually says". Heck, one could argue that it simply excludes robots (sorry Romney), IVF children and Jesus ;)

As Sal linked above US immigration and citizenship law lays out what is and isn’t an automatic citizen of the US. I know it’s hard to understand, especially if you come from a nation where they spell out everything in the constitution

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:52 am
by The Alma Mater
Thermodolia wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
Or born of US parents. Yes.
But "usually agreed upon" is not the same as "this is what it actually says". Heck, one could argue that it simply excludes robots (sorry Romney), IVF children and Jesus ;)

As Sal linked above US immigration and citizenship law lays out what is and isn’t an automatic citizen of the US. I know it’s hard to understand, especially if you come from a nation where they spell out everything in the constitution


Oh, I know that. The question asked however "where in the constitution does it state that".
And it does not. Which also means it can change easily so that Ah-nold could run.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:55 am
by Thermodolia
Salandriagado wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:Natural born citizen.


Not quite: there's a few edge cases that might or might not be natural-born citizens (and, for that matter, having two American citizens as parents might not count).

Under the current law having at least one parent counts. And tbh I really don’t care if it’s in the constitution or not. Immigration law pretty much states the IM isn’t a automatic citizen and therefore can’t be president.

Which was the original fucking point until Vass got pissy about the damn constitution

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:57 am
by Thermodolia
The Alma Mater wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:As Sal linked above US immigration and citizenship law lays out what is and isn’t an automatic citizen of the US. I know it’s hard to understand, especially if you come from a nation where they spell out everything in the constitution


Oh, I know that. The question asked however "where in the constitution does it state that".
And it does not. Which also means it can change easily so that Ah-nold could run.

I don’t give a flying fuck what the constitution says. The damn thing can mean whatever the hell the judges on my payroll want it to mean.

And that’s where y’all made your mistake. Arguing with someone who’d readily change massive parts of the constitution and isn’t an originalist

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:33 am
by Bahktar
Thermodolia wrote: hell the judges on my payroll want it to mean.

And that’s where y’all made your mistake. Arguing with someone who’d readily change massive parts of the constitution and isn’t an originalist


It works both ways - the constitution doesn't care if you want to massively change parts of it and aren't an originalist, it's going to work how it is working and has been interpreted. Because you disagree with the constitution doesn't mean you don't have to abide by it.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:35 am
by Salandriagado
Thermodolia wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Not quite: there's a few edge cases that might or might not be natural-born citizens (and, for that matter, having two American citizens as parents might not count).

Under the current law having at least one parent counts. And tbh I really don’t care if it’s in the constitution or not. Immigration law pretty much states the IM isn’t a automatic citizen and therefore can’t be president.

Which was the original fucking point until Vass got pissy about the damn constitution


No, I was referring to some of those annoying edge cases: having citizen parents doesn't count if accepting US citizenship would lose you access to tribal property and citizenship, or if you were born outside the US and possessions to parents who had never been residents of the US.

Entirely agreed on the actual point, though.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:39 am
by Ifreann
Hot take: Non-citizens should be able to old any political office, elected or appointed.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:59 am
by Valrifell
Ifreann wrote:Hot take: Non-citizens should be able to old any political office, elected or appointed.


We already have Russian actors in our government, why do you want to make it easier for Putin?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:06 am
by The Alma Mater
Valrifell wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Hot take: Non-citizens should be able to old any political office, elected or appointed.


We already have Russian actors in our government, why do you want to make it easier for Putin?


When you think of Putin, you think of manly walks.
When you think of Trump you think of a whiny man-child

If you want your country to be great again, whom should you serve ?
(Saru...)

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:09 am
by Ifreann
Valrifell wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Hot take: Non-citizens should be able to old any political office, elected or appointed.


We already have Russian actors in our government, why do you want to make it easier for Putin?

Do you really think it would be easier for Putin if his agents were standing for election openly, or facing the scrutiny of Senate confirmation hearings?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:48 am
by Loben
Par Chic wrote:
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:antifa also assaulted a liberal for carrying a US flag, calling it a "fascist symbol".

So, antifa can fuck off.


So you support fascists?


yes.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:58 am
by Galloism
Thermodolia wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Not quite: there's a few edge cases that might or might not be natural-born citizens (and, for that matter, having two American citizens as parents might not count).

Under the current law having at least one parent counts. And tbh I really don’t care if it’s in the constitution or not. Immigration law pretty much states the IM isn’t a automatic citizen and therefore can’t be president.

Which was the original fucking point until Vass got pissy about the damn constitution

There’s two items of note:

1) Subsequent laws can not define what the terms in the constitution mean. Otherwise the constitution would be largely meaningless.

2) There is not equality in the current “one parent counts” rule. There are additional rules and requirements if the one parent is the father.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... broad.html

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:16 am
by Xmara
Day 29. We have almost hit the one month mark. Are we gonna go for two months? Three? Forever?

Par Chic wrote:
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:antifa also assaulted a liberal for carrying a US flag, calling it a "fascist symbol".

So, antifa can fuck off.


So you support fascists?


That is a major loaded question. One can hate antifa without supporting fascists.

As for another civil war happening? Yeah, I don’t see that happening. Tensions are definitely high, but I just don’t see it happening in the near future.