oleroule

liars lie, that's what liars do.

Just now, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Why authority would you be talking about? 

declare 'national emergency'.

btw, i put that i quotes because i think all of the 'national emergencies' declared so far are bullshit.

12 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Can you read and comprehend? It’s a known fact that our elected officials have been subverting out rights for years. Then I used the phrase “NOW LET’S ADD” meaning and now they are doing this. Which by the way, you crayon eating sheep, is subverting the Constitution by disregarding Congress’ ability to legislate or not. 

how so?

didn't congress create the authority to do this?

hiring son-in-laws: bad

hiring brother-in-laws: good.

at least trump doesn't shit his pants.

39 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Pick 27 shit hole things the Republican Party has done to America over the last 10 years. Compare that to moving the country ahead of on par with other countries. I think many would be surprised with the green energy bill’s support.

on par with venezuela?

no thanks

you move there instead

burn it down

14 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Courts interpret the law. Their interpretation changes/adds/removes from that law. They absolutely make law. Not in the same way as a legislative body, but they absolutely make law through interpretation. If you can’t agree to that, you have no business in this conversation. It’s fact. It’s not for debate. You can not like it, but that doesn’t change it. 

I’ll ask again... Do you know what common law is? If not, you should google it. It will explain this for you... 

you may like the use of english common law but it was something the founders were adamantly against, for good reason.

giving the judiciary that much power is one of the things they were breaking away from.

probably why it's not one of the powers in article three.

9 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Exactly...I was just going to cite that case but don't expect any agreement....he is just one of those guys.

 

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/fourteenth_amendment_citizenship.php

thanks for the compliment.

11 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

There was never anything that described what “natural born” meant in the Constitution. It was vague. US v. Wong Kim Ark. set the precedent that expanded on it and being born in the US two non-US citizens made you a natural born citizen. The court decided. That’s the point. Until a time in which the court overturns that ruling, its the law.

it's not law, the courts can't make law.

2 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Your number 2 is wrong. That’s the point. Courts can and do interpret laws that are vague such as in the Constitution. That interpretation is considered law until a higher court says otherwise. The SC cannot write law, but their interpretation does hold the weight of law. Sorry. “The end” as you said...

Do you understand what Common Law is? 

what law defined natural born citizen that they interpreted?

none, there isn't one...i believe you already stated that.

the end

1 minute ago, XC.Morrison said:

I never see anything but #2 in your posts.

ok, that was funny.

2 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

It does sound sound stupid to base an argument on  "thinking" the SC has made mistakes. 

the korematsu v. united states and  dred scott v. sandford mistakes have been overturned.

2 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

 

That precedent makes you a citizen even if your parents are not, but you were born here. You can disagree with that precedent, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is the law. Sorry. 

see #2 in the post above yours.

33 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

I asked why you thought Harris wasn’t qualified to run. You gave a birther type answer similar to Obama and that line of crap. I responded with precedent and explanation of why she could. You refuted by dancing around the subject blaming my “liberal” education. Tell me why, via precedent, the constitution, or any other factual source, she isn’t qualified to run. Should be easy....

court precedent doesn't work for two reasons:

1. courts make blatant mistakes (i noted some earlier).

2. courts can't make legislation (even though that is modus operandi in recent decades).

if the 14th amendment along with father's allegiance (citizenship) to a foreign country doesn't work for you, then i can't present anything that will convince you.

the end

6 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Thanks for that...stick to mangling the Constitution.

truth is a bitch

from birth she's been taught to hate jews.

she doesn't need to state a reason.

26 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Ok. Kind sir, would you like to debate this topic or would you rather stick with quoting right wing rhetoric based around the birther movement.

tell me how the argument applies only to obama (i assume you are referring to hillary campaign's 'birther' movement started in '08)?

33 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said:

Professor Trumpy gets a pass though.

no

4 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

So you aren’t going to defend your dumb fucking birther nonsense? Typical right wing fucktard. 

when you resort to name calling, you’ve lost the argument

1 hour ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

So what I read here is you have nothing and choose not to debate with evidence on your own viewpoint; rather, you would like to just bury your head in the asshole of the birther narrative and take it as fact becuase it fits your partisan bubble. Noted. You’re fucking stupid. 

 

40 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said:

Did you graduate Magna Dum Loudy from Trump University?  I think there was a settlement cause Trump did a bad there and you should be able to recoup some of your losses. 

i did....the graduation party was bigly yuge.

11 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Really bought into the birther  narrative hook, line, and sinker eh? Why would I debate anyone that is so obviously retarded that they can’t even interpret Supreme Court precedent when it hits them in the face?

It was Clause V that they had their error on. The Constitution has a vague description of what natural born citizen means. That is why the Supreme Court deferred to the commonly accepted definition of the term, at the time, as outlined by British law. 

You can feel free to push this further and show that you’re a 73er birther doober incapable of an evidential take on the subject, or you can do as I have done and quote mother fucking precedent set forth by the highest court in the country. Your play...

Derp derp derp, as stated earlier will most certainly apply to whatever you post next. 

aren't you the guy here that got his edumacation from uw at madison?

1. now your anger and posts make sense.

2. ask for your money back

3. derp derp derp derpity derp derp.....derp