The Constitution is the Law of the Land, therefore it has jurisdiction over the federal government, all branches.<quoted text>
Sorry Dale, it is the federal government that has jurisdiction, the power to exercise federal authority over all persons and things within it's territories.
The United States of America has territory, not the Constitution. Duh!
And if the United States were to change its form of government to a pure internet-based democracy, it would still be the US government that exercises authority.
It is the branches of government which form the government that possesses jurisdiction.
In a case of Law of the Sea the question may arise "which country has jurisdiction"? For example the US or Canada. Only an idiot would say "da constitooshun!"
Dufus is not working with a full deck.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.
#174127 Oct 7, 2013
#174128 Oct 7, 2013
LMAO!!! Hey, thanks for flapping your lip, we finally got some rain!!
#174129 Oct 7, 2013
You've certainly spread enough fertilizer.
#174130 Oct 7, 2013
Obama, having been born in the USA, in Hawaii (as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii all show) is a Natural Born US Citizen.
#174131 Oct 7, 2013
LMAO!!! Did you get some on your lips?
#174132 Oct 7, 2013
LMAO!!! I've got some ocean front property in Arizona, also!
#174133 Oct 7, 2013
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.
Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.
Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.
And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?
Why? Why, when there isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Dale's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?
The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.
There is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in the writings of any of the framers that says that the US-born children of US citizens are any better than the US-born children of foreigners. NOTHING.
And yet slimy Dale thinks that he can convince a few gullible people that the writers of the US Constitution (who never said any such thing) really believed that the US-born children of foreigners (such as perhaps your father or grandfather) are really not as good citizens as the US-born children of US-citizens.
Well, do you think that you are any better a US citizen than your father or grandfather? Do you think that George Washington, who never said any such thing, thought that your US-born ancestors who had foreign parents should be lower-level citizens than the children of US parents at the time? If Washington did think so, he could have said so--but he never did. So why assume that he did? Why does slimy Dale want you to think that George Washington, who was not afraid of much, or Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton, or the others, was afraid of US-born children of foreigners, such as your ancestors?
IF the writers of the Constitution had been afraid of the US-born children of foreigners, they would have said so, but they never said so, so why assume that they were afraid? Why does slimy Dale want to throw out strict construction judicial interpretation AND libertarian principles, and ALSO throw out "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"? Who says that the US-born children of foreigners are not created equal with the US born children of US citizens in terms of being eligible to be president? Only slimy Dale.
#174134 Oct 7, 2013
LAMO, just because you believe birther sites that have constantly lied does not mean that sensible people have to follow your stupidity.
For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:
(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1971], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;
(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);
(3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).
If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.
What are the chances that all three happened?
And, by the way, there isn't even evidence that Obama's mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did in those days. Yet slimy Dale and birther sites would like gullible people to just assume that she was one of the few 18-year-olds to have a passport and one of the EXTREMELY few women who traveled outside of the country in the last few months of pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirth AND that the officials of Hawaii and the birth certificate and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 are all lying.
#174135 Oct 7, 2013
#174136 Oct 7, 2013
It is the willingness to believe junk like this that has made Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review all call birthers CRAZY.
Since: May 10
#174138 Oct 7, 2013
We are energy independent? We import about 40% of our crude oil!
#174139 Oct 7, 2013
With Rise of American Fascism, Shutdown Politics 'Predictable'
Can new progressive era rise from ashes of 'era of obstructionism' or is the descent of US democracy just beginning?/ October 7, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/p2e2wqj
"All of this was predictable."
In the midst of the ongoing government shutdown—with the GOP still trying their darndest to kill Obamacare and the global financial markets now truly jittery over the quite real possibility of a US default—those five words, found in Paul Krugman's Monday New York Times column, don't say it all, but they begin to tell a story long in the making.
If the current situation in Washington is a consternation to many observers, why so predictable to progressives and others like Krugman? He writes:
It has been obvious for years that the modern Republican Party is no longer capable of thinking seriously about policy. Whether the issue is climate change or inflation, party members believe what they want to believe, and any contrary evidence is dismissed as a hoax, the product of vast liberal conspiracies.
For a while the party was able to compartmentalize, to remain savvy and realistic about politics even as it rejected objectivity everywhere else. But this wasn’t sustainable. Sooner or later, the party’s attitude toward policy — we listen only to people who tell us what we want to hear, and attack the bearers of uncomfortable news — was bound to infect political strategy, too.
In short, when an individual—or a political party—commits to a world view fundamentally insulated from reality, it is only a matter of time before the wheels will come off the rails. Like a pathological liar, the truth finally catches up. For a gambling addict, the house will ultimately call the game.
Over the weekend, the takeaway news was that Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) was either "lying" or "incompetent" when he claimed on a Sunday talk show that he didn't have the votes to pass a "clean CR" (continuing resolution) that would end the shutdown by funding the government without GOP riders or demands. The problem, of course—as many reporters and observers documented—was that it just wasn't factually true./ http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/...
#174140 Oct 7, 2013
Suddenly, a cow jumps out into the road, the car hits it full on, and the car comes to a stop.
Nancy, in her usual charming manner, says to the chauffeur, "You get out and check--you were driving."
So the chauffeur gets out, checks, and reports that the animal is dead but it was old..
"You were driving, so you go and tell the farmer," says Nancy .
Two hours later the chauffeur returns totally plastered, hair ruffled with a big grin on his face.
"My God, what happened to you?" asks Nancy .
The chauffeur replies, "When I got there, the farmer opened his best bottle of malt whiskey, the wife gave me a wonderful meal, and the daughter made love to me."
"What on earth did you say?" asks Nancy .
"I just knocked on the door and when it opened I said to them, "I'm Nancy Pelosi's chauffeur, and I've just killed the old cow."
#174141 Oct 7, 2013
Interesting? That you are this stupid?
#174142 Oct 7, 2013
What's stupid is your gullibility. Fooled twice and continuing! Sic 'em Twink. LMAO!
#174143 Oct 7, 2013
OReaLY? The poor Birfoon has been the fool every day of his life and thinks others gullible? Someday you'll get tired of always being wrong.
#174144 Oct 7, 2013
Barack 'BUSH' Obama destroyed Liberalism because he continued over 90% of all Bush/Cheney failed policy.
FDA Policy: Big Pharma Firms Pay to Play
'Instead of protecting the public health, the FDA has been allowing the drug companies to pay for a seat at a small table where all the rules were written.'
October 7, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/nyayytn
Major pharmaceutical companies are engaging in "pay to play" arrangements that allow them to shape public policy on painkiller testing rules and regulations, according to e-mails obtained by a public records request.
The Washington Post reports:
A scientific panel that shaped the federal government’s policy for testing the safety and effectiveness of painkillers was funded by major pharmaceutical companies that paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to affect the thinking of the Food and Drug Administration, according to hundreds of e-mails obtained by a public records request.
The e-mails show that the companies paid as much as $25,000 to attend any given meeting of the panel, which had been set up by two academics to provide advice to the FDA on how to weigh the evidence from clinical trials. A leading FDA official later called the group “an essential collaborative effort.”
#174146 Oct 7, 2013
Bill Moyers Essay: On the Sabotage of Democracy
October 7, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/l3k456t
This week’s government shutdown has consequences for all of us, costing an estimated $300 million each day that the government is closed for business. Many Americans have voiced their frustrations with the fallout from the shutdown on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter using the hash tag #DearCongress. Here, Bill Moyers shares his own thoughts on the shutdown, and the resulting sabotage of democracy.
#174147 Oct 7, 2013
All good points Ellen1 and for the sake of argument, I am going to agree with you on all of them. What is beyond dispute though is that Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, moved to Indonesia, and was a citizen in that country enrolled in an Islamic school, with his religion stated as being muslim. He did not return to the USA until he was ten to live with his communist grandparents, and began his relationship with "Uncle Frank". What we have not seen, besides the official copy of his birth certificate, is the evidence that he was re-patriated as an American citizen, and his college transcripts that verify exactly how all that very expensive college education that he received was payed for, by as you stated, those relatively poor grandparents, or whoever. Please point me to the links that show that information, since he is so "transparent" with his personal history. We know for a fact from his own books, in his own words that he has tremendous contempt for this country and its system of constitutionally LIMITED government. He is also not a fan of white, christian, western european values and ideals. I also don't have a problem with him harboring that lack of respect for why we are a great country, but never in my wildest dreams believed we were stupid enough as a people to elect such an unqualified person to the presidency not once, but twice. Shame on us! We are getting exactly what we deserve.
Since: May 10
#174150 Oct 7, 2013
OMG, Obama found a nutcase. The guy is a STATE Rep, not a U.S. Rep. Now, how many Democrat U.S. Reps. and Senators have claimed that Republicans are arsonists, terrorist, etc.? We are talking about Democrat leaders in Congress! And then Obama himself claims the Republicans are holding a gun to his head!
What hypocrites Libtards are.
“You had a state representative say...it’s as destructive to personal and individual liberty as the Fugitive Slave Act.”—President Barack Obama referring to New Hampshire representative Bill O'Brien's comments on the Affordable Care Act (ACA).1
Add your comments below
|Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08)||5 min||shinningelectr0n||1,314,095|
|Burn baby burn||5 min||Black pride||1|
|black people get a grip!||10 min||gxm24263||13|
|Dashcam Video of Laquan McDonald||26 min||Reb||8|
|Should prostitution be less illegal-or more?||29 min||Jaimie||259|
|sixteen||35 min||Chicago Guy||7|
|Things to know on Chicago's new $13 minimum wage (Dec '14)||44 min||Denny CranesPlace||14|
|Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09)||1 hr||observation||101,126|
Find what you want!
Search Chicago Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC