[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 2, 2:38*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Aug 2, 9:53*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Aug 2, 10:15*am, Bret L wrote:

RINO stampede? Senator Kyl questions Birthright Citizenship

*The Anchor Baby
loophole was created not by the 14th Amendment but by a peculiar
Federal Court reading of it over a generation later, as our Weigh
Anchor! essay lucidly demonstrated back in 2001.

The 14th Amendment is quite clear and needs no interpretation.
It is the anti-borthright folks that always feel the need to\provide
tortuous
historical explanations.

Section 1. 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.

Conservatives are supposed to be strict constructionists of the
Comstitution.

*Who made that up?

I'm glad you like legislating from the bench. LoL.

They should stick to it here,
and not use tortuous arguments to support their
"outcome based" desires, such as liberals are usuallyprone to do.

*You could use a little study of the issue before concluding that
strict constructionists don't have good point on this issue of anchor
baby citizenship.

Oh goody. We get to see 2pid's 'study'.

Do I need tell you what the below link says before you'll consider
reading it to find out for yourself?

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/rev...the_jurisdicti...

An anonymous blog doesn't cut it, 2pid.

And since you argue that the blog is correct, perhaps you'll share
your experiences as a Constitutional lawyer. LoL.

Who is "P.A. Madison"? Is he/she a contitutional lawyer?

I doubt that. Your blog is full of poor spelling and typos. (No wonder
you like it!) I've worked with a lot of lawyers. When I submitted
reports to them they would invariably have me correct typos,
misspellings, clear up vague or unclear wording, etc. And you 'think'
I'm a grammar Nazi! I highly doubt any good lawyer would allow what
appears on this blog to get published.

Second, Mr./Ms. Madison ignores exactly half of the Senate arguments
that occured. It's not hard to dig that fact up. See the Wiki entry
under the 14th amendment. There were Senators at that time arguing
that the wording indeed DID mean if you were born here you are a
citizen

Third, there is a body of case law, unfortunately for angry white guys
like you and Bratzi, that supports citizenship for children born here.

Is questioning Mr./Ms. Madison's credentials a case of attacking the
messenger? Not according to you, 2pid. Remember, I'm not an Army
officer because I didn't "prove" that fact to you. Instead I chose to
laugh at your ignorance. (As do the people on RAO who HAVE seen my
military ID. LoL.)

And did you just make a claim about being an expert? Yes. By telling
Clyde that he "needed to study the issue" you have stated that you
know the facts, how to interpret an amendment to the Constitution and
what is true and what isn't. You don't.

As usual, following a 2pidlink was an utter waste of time. But you're
too dumb to know why.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
"Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Aug 2, 2:38*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Aug 2, 9:53*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Aug 2, 10:15*am, Bret L wrote:

RINO stampede? Senator Kyl questions Birthright Citizenship

*The Anchor Baby
loophole was created not by the 14th Amendment but by a peculiar
Federal Court reading of it over a generation later, as our Weigh
Anchor! essay lucidly demonstrated back in 2001.

The 14th Amendment is quite clear and needs no interpretation.
It is the anti-borthright folks that always feel the need to\provide
tortuous
historical explanations.

Section 1. 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.

Conservatives are supposed to be strict constructionists of the
Comstitution.

*Who made that up?

I'm glad you like legislating from the bench. LoL.

They should stick to it here,
and not use tortuous arguments to support their
"outcome based" desires, such as liberals are usuallyprone to do.

*You could use a little study of the issue before concluding that
strict constructionists don't have good point on this issue of anchor
baby citizenship.

Oh goody. We get to see 2pid's 'study'.

Do I need tell you what the below link says before you'll consider
reading it to find out for yourself?

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/rev...the_jurisdicti...

An anonymous blog doesn't cut it, 2pid.

And since you argue that the blog is correct, perhaps you'll share
your experiences as a Constitutional lawyer. LoL.

Who is "P.A. Madison"? Is he/she a contitutional lawyer?

I doubt that. Your blog is full of poor spelling and typos. (No wonder
you like it!) I've worked with a lot of lawyers. When I submitted
reports to them they would invariably have me correct typos,
misspellings, clear up vague or unclear wording, etc. And you 'think'
I'm a grammar Nazi! I highly doubt any good lawyer would allow what
appears on this blog to get published.

Second, Mr./Ms. Madison ignores exactly half of the Senate arguments
that occured. It's not hard to dig that fact up. See the Wiki entry
under the 14th amendment. There were Senators at that time arguing
that the wording indeed DID mean if you were born here you are a
citizen

Third, there is a body of case law, unfortunately for angry white guys
like you and Bratzi, that supports citizenship for children born here.

Is questioning Mr./Ms. Madison's credentials a case of attacking the
messenger? Not according to you, 2pid. Remember, I'm not an Army
officer because I didn't "prove" that fact to you. Instead I chose to
laugh at your ignorance. (As do the people on RAO who HAVE seen my
military ID. LoL.)

And did you just make a claim about being an expert? Yes. By telling
Clyde that he "needed to study the issue" you have stated that you
know the facts, how to interpret an amendment to the Constitution and
what is true and what isn't. You don't.

As usual, following a 2pidlink was an utter waste of time. But you're
too dumb to know why.

Speaking of blogs, I see that Malkin is furthering the lie about the
Mexican "invasion" of Laredo, TX.

[MiNe 109]

In article

et.fi,
Jenn wrote:

Speaking of blogs, I see that Malkin is furthering the lie about the
Mexican "invasion" of Laredo, TX.

She's confusing a "Zeta invasion" of Laredo with spring break at Padre.

Stephen

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 2, 8:20*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:





On Aug 2, 2:38*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Aug 2, 9:53*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Aug 2, 10:15*am, Bret L wrote:

RINO stampede? Senator Kyl questions Birthright Citizenship

*The Anchor Baby
loophole was created not by the 14th Amendment but by a peculiar
Federal Court reading of it over a generation later, as our Weigh
Anchor! essay lucidly demonstrated back in 2001.

The 14th Amendment is quite clear and needs no interpretation.
It is the anti-borthright folks that always feel the need to\provide
tortuous
historical explanations.

Section 1. 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.

Conservatives are supposed to be strict constructionists of the
Comstitution.

*Who made that up?

I'm glad you like legislating from the bench. LoL.

They should stick to it here,
and not use tortuous arguments to support their
"outcome based" desires, such as liberals are usuallyprone to do.

*You could use a little study of the issue before concluding that
strict constructionists don't have good point on this issue of anchor
baby citizenship.

Oh goody. We get to see 2pid's 'study'.

Do I need tell you what the below link says before you'll consider
reading it to find out for yourself?

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/rev...the_jurisdicti....

An anonymous blog doesn't cut it, 2pid.

And since you argue that the blog is correct, perhaps you'll share
your experiences as a Constitutional lawyer. LoL.

Who is "P.A. Madison"? Is he/she a contitutional lawyer?

I doubt that. Your blog is full of poor spelling and typos. (No wonder
you like it!) I've worked with a lot of lawyers. When I submitted
reports to them they would invariably have me correct typos,
misspellings, clear up vague or unclear wording, etc. And you 'think'
I'm a grammar Nazi! I highly doubt any good lawyer would allow what
appears on this blog to get published.

Second, Mr./Ms. Madison ignores exactly half of the Senate arguments
that occured. It's not hard to dig that fact up. See the Wiki entry
under the 14th amendment. There were Senators at that time arguing
that the wording indeed DID mean if you were born here you are a
citizen

Third, there is a body of case law, unfortunately for angry white guys
like you and Bratzi, that supports citizenship for children born here.

Is questioning Mr./Ms. Madison's credentials a case of attacking the
messenger? Not according to you, 2pid. Remember, I'm not an Army
officer because I didn't "prove" that fact to you. Instead I chose to
laugh at your ignorance. (As do the people on RAO who HAVE seen my
military ID. LoL.)

And did you just make a claim about being an expert? Yes. By telling
Clyde that he "needed to study the issue" you have stated that you
know the facts, how to interpret an amendment to the Constitution and
what is true and what isn't. You don't.

As usual, following a 2pidlink was an utter waste of time. But you're
too dumb to know why.

Speaking of blogs, I see that Malkin is furthering the lie about the
Mexican "invasion" of Laredo, TX.

The lunatic fringe will believe anything.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Aug 2, 8:35*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article

et.fi,

*Jenn wrote:
Speaking of blogs, I see that Malkin is furthering the lie about the
Mexican "invasion" of Laredo, TX.

She's confusing a "Zeta invasion" of Laredo with spring break at Padre.

LoL!