Obama is saying:
Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.Obama is getting a lot of criticism. But is Alito? Alito didn't yell out his words, the way Joe Wilson did last year, and "not true" is mellower than "you lie." One expects such rigid decorum from the Justices on these occasions that it's really striking when a Justice is anything other than a statue of a Justice. I think that if they knew they were going to have to listen to that kind of in-your-face disrespect, they wouldn't have done the President the honor of sitting there, providing the scenery. But they were there, and I'm not going to criticize Alito for moving his lips and letting us see a silent defense of the judicial branch of government.
I'm reminded of all those articles, back at the time of Alito's confirmation, that said that Alito was less "polished" than John Roberts:
[H]e will never be as polished and camera-ready as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was at his own hearings a few months ago.Yeah. It was different. He came from New Jersey, he looked natural, and he was willing to talk back. Silently. But we heard it. Good.
"He is not going to be the well-manicured nominee," said one participant in the rehearsals, known as murder boards, at which Republican lawyers have played the roles of interrogating senators. "That is not to say it is going to be worse. It is just going to be different."...
But two of Judge Alito's supporters who participated in the murder boards... said they emerged convinced that his demeanor was a political asset because it gave him an Everyman appeal.
"He will have a couple hairs out of place," one participant said. "I am not sure his glasses fit his facial features. He might not wear the right color tie. He won't be tanned. He will look like he is from New Jersey, because he is. That is a very useful look, because it is a natural look....
What is more, this participant said, Judge Alito displayed a "street smart" New Jerseyan's willingness to talk back to his questioners....
Posts
205 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 205 of 205Aaron,
"Anyway, so your position, if I understand it, is that obama is a citizen due to birth, but not a natural born citizen."
Yes, IF indeed born Hi. There are many "US citizens at birth" who are not natural born citizens. Those born of US citizen parents abroad, and those born to aliens in the US (only by false stare decis of WKA). Sorry to torque your little brain.
Bullshit.
The doctrine of separate legal personality of corporations was not established in England till 1897
Dude, the first rule when you're in a hole is: stop digging.
I think the Althousians are tired of you, so let's attend to Mr. William Blackstone: "WE have hitherto considered persons in their natural capacities, and have treated of their rights and duties. But, as all personal rights die with the person; and, as the necessary forms of investing a series of individuals, one after another, with the same identical rights, would be very inconvenient, if not impracticable; it has been found necessary, when it is for the advantage of the public to have any particular rights kept on foot and continued, to constitute artificial persons, who may maintain a perpetual succession, and enjoy a kind of legal immortality. THESE artificial persons are called bodies politic, bodies corporate, (corpora corporata) or corporations: of which there is a great variety subsisting, for the advancement of religion, of learning, and of commerce; in order to preserve entire and forever those rights and immunities, which, if they were granted only to those individuals of which the body corporate is composed, would upon their death be utterly lost and extinct. . . . The debts of a corporation, either to or from it, are totally extinguished by its dissolution; so that the members thereof cannot recover, or be charged with them, in their natural capacities: agreeable to that maxim of the civil law, 'si quid universitati debetur, singulis non debetur; nec, quod debet universitas, singuli debent' [if anything be owing to a corporation, it is not owing to the individual members; nor do the individuals owe that which is owing by the corporation]."--1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 455, 472 (1765-69).
To Nomilk,
OK but this is America, and our USC says that There SHALL be NO LAW restricting SPEECH. Doen't matter whether a corporation is a person or a cat. Why do lawyers torture logic to the point it is unrecognizeable? The Constitution is about what the government can't do to it's citizens.
Mick
> No, you have to be eligible as a Natural Born Citizen, be 34 years old and be 14 years resident. There is No "right" to be eligible to be POTUS
And for naturally born citizens, etc. it is their right to be eligible for president.
> The Naturalization Act of 1795 struck the words Natural Born from the Act of 1790. repealing the Act of 1790 and making the children born abroad of US Citizen military personell "Citizens", not Natural Born Citizens.
The issue is the territory, not the parents. A military base is American territory.
> Probably because they realized that they had ammended the constitution (by changing the meaning of Natural Born Citizen)w/o the ammendment process.
Well, that is another place where you go wrong. Congress has the right to define many terms in the constitution. There is of course a certain minimum that is required, but they can go beyond that minimum if they so choose. This is one of those areas where congress can redefine what constitutes a naturally born citizen in a more expansive way. not that it means anything to the argument, but fwiw.
> He did say those words, they were put out by his campaign website.
Fact check is not his website.
> And I say that he says himself
He didn’t say that, and even if you did, you are taking him out of context.
> As far as the Germany thing, that is the silly Obama Bridgetender Strawman. As long as a child is born on US Soil to Citizen Parents, there can be no foreign claims to allegiance, that's natural law
Ah, so you have given up the whole game, then. Remember your original assertion was that:
1) a person who is the citizen of a foreign nation by the fact of his birth, cannot also a natural born American citizen by the fact of their birth; and
2) citizenship in that foreign nation can be determined by their laws.
But if that was true, then germany could declare Americans born of two citizen parents, on American soil, to be German citizens at birth, and thus, by your logic, rob them of their right to be president.
Orrrrr, natural born citizenship is determined solely in relation to our laws and nothing any foreign power can do can strip you of that birthright.
> There are many "US citizens at birth" who are not natural born citizens.
Well, is he a born citizen?
Yes or no.
FLS
Notice you still can’t answer a simple question. Was NYT v. Sullivan correctly decided?
And if so, how do you explain granting expression rights to THAT corporation?
You and I both know why you aren't answering.
Post a Comment