Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If the framers meant one thing by "natural born," you can't change it by passing a statute.

Whatever, Scalia.

But there must have been a statue defining citizenship at the time.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
And the sexual harassment case was dismissed (or was it summary judgment), meaning there was no underlying crime there either.

And yes, I know the case was reinstated as part of the sanctions against him, but I had understood that to have no bearing on the merits.

His lie may have helped get it dismissed, but there is a more fundamental problem with your razor sharp analogy. Hint: even before dismissal there was no underlying crime.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
Whatever, Scalia.

Ouch.

It's such a specific provision that you kinda have to stick to the original meaning, I think.

This is the stupidest argument ever on the board. I'm arguing about what "natural born" could mean if it didn't mean what it actually means.

But there must have been a statue defining citizenship at the time.

I knew a little about this a few years ago, and it's interesting stuff from a legal history perspective. That area of the law was very, very different in a lot of ways until -- as I recall -- after the Civil War.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
His lie may have helped get it dismissed, but there is a more fundamental problem with your razor sharp analogy. Hint: even before dismissal there was no underlying crime.

Ooooh.. you are SO smart. No wonder you meet Fringey's standards.

But my recollection is that the lie did was not really material to getting it dismissed (as Jones didn't actually work for him), but I will concede that it was not completely beyond dispute.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Ouch.

It's such a specific provision that you kinda have to stick to the original meaning, I think.

This is the stupidest argument ever on the board. I'm arguing about what "natural born" could mean if it didn't mean what it actually means.



I knew a little about this a few years ago, and it's interesting stuff from a legal history perspective. That area of the law was very, very different in a lot of ways until -- as I recall -- after the Civil War.

I do wonder whether this has ever been litigated, but it strikes me that the most logical meaning for "natural born" is "not naturalized," which would then seem to turn the question over to the statute that defines citizenship.

Of course, you are right, it could have meant something different to the framers at the time. I just don't know whether it did or not.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It used to be Maryland, so that's different. It's within one of the thirteen original states.

So that's why we get to vote for a Senator? D.C. is not now a United State, nor part of one. So the fact that it once was does not make it so. If you're going to stick to your construction, it makes sense only if the place where one was born was a state at the time of your birth.

But I still don't see how the term is susceptible only of your interpretation. I'll grant you that it's much harder to see a person who is born outside the united states (or its territories), but is a citizen at birth by force of law qualifying. But it seems quite a stretch to say that U.S. territories (whether D.C., Panama Canal, the Arizona territories, a military base, or an embassy) cannot come within a reasonable construction of "natural born".

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is the stupidest argument ever on the board. I'm arguing about what "natural born" could mean if it didn't mean what it actually means.

Whoa, Scalia, indeed.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
I do wonder whether this has ever been litigated, but it strikes me that the most logical meaning for "natural born" is "not naturalized," which would then seem to turn the question over to the statute that defines citizenship.

That's my take on it. Don't see how it could be litigated, however. Political question--if the congress accepts the electoral votes, isn't it over?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's my take on it. Don't see how it could be litigated, however. Political question--if the congress accepts the electoral votes, isn't it over?

Hm... not sure. It doesn't seem like an obvious political question to me -- I don't think the determination who is a natural born citizen is necessarily constitutionally given to congress -- but perhaps. And certainly the court would not be terribly eager to overturn an election on any close question like this, so political question might be a good bet.

But I wonder if someone could seek a declaratory judgment that they are a natural born citizen who is eligible to hold office? It would have to be the stupidest candidate ever though, to give the court the chance to say no before there was anything at stake.

So I guess I am saying you are right. It is extraordinarily unlikely to be litigated. Unless, of course, a Dem were to win the election and the republicans thought they liked their odd in the house. You know, like 2000. (kidding, people)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Adder
Ooooh.. you are SO smart. No wonder you meet Fringey's standards.

Hank, this is why I don't like your sig lines.

Adder, I don't really have a much of a "smart" standard for certain purposes. For LTR, I do, but Hank's married. I can't fuck him for political reasons.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
He did? There was a judge in the deposition room? That is extraordinary.

If memory serves a Fedreal judge was brought in via video conference or something to answer objections on the spot.

Originally posted by Adder
It is a crime because we have statutes that make it a crime. You don't to obstruct justice by lying to the criminal investigators. You can remain silent, but you can't lie.

So if you lie to a cop during a criminal investigation that is considered a crime? That is obstruction of justice?

Originally posted by Adder Supposedly he didn't invoke the his fifth amendment rights in front of the grand jury because he wasn't lying to protect himself. And, of course, if he had invoked his fifth amendment right (he might have for all I know) he would simply have been granted immunity for his testimony, as is common practice.

I just don't know why if the guy was going to lie why he didn't just shut up.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Adder
But I wonder if someone could seek a declaratory judgment that they are a natural born citizen who is eligible to hold office? It would have to be the stupidest candidate ever though, to give the court the chance to say no before there was anything at stake.

I would think that it would be more likely that a person (not the candidate, obviously) would seek a declaratory judgment that the candidate is *not* qualified to be a candidate for POTUS. But I am tired and not good at what is and isn't litigible. Litigatable. You know what I mean.

Sebby, I hate to break it to you, but I think that you (like the litigators you refer to as if they are not like you) also say totally irrational things in support of your argument. It's an ugly, ugly habit. I do it too.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Adder
Whatever, Scalia.

But there must have been a statue defining citizenship at the time.

The Constitution gave Congress the power to do this, by establishing uniform laws of naturalization.

Citizenship wasn't an easy thing in the states: was any British citizen resident in the states, even those not loyal to the new Government, a citizen? Were slaves citizens? How about Native Americans? Did the nationality of the father or mother determine citizenship? If a Frenchman fathered a child here in 1774 but went back to France with the child, would the child be a natural born American? Did the father's citizenship carry over to the child to the exclusion of US citizenship? Did the birth have to happen after independence? Did it matter whether the Frenchman thought he was in Canada at the time, but the line was later drawn to make it the US?

By the time of the constitution, it was a significant unresolved issue, and the Continental Congress had failed to address it prior to the Constitution. So the founders told Congress to make up some rules and not let the states do it.

This was a very Scaliaesque day for Ty.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
whether it was about Bill or my most infringing deadbeat client, this statement makes me hope you have nothing to do with litigation- AND your firm has clever loss counsel.

(a) But you know that I do, so its a good thing we do.

You might want to think hard before we start holding every post on this Board to strict standards of legal competency, or whether we'd want to say it to a judge or jury.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
So if you lie to a cop during a criminal investigation that is considered a crime? That is obstruction of justice?

Yes, it can be. Mostly not prosecuted, but sometimes it is even in non-political cases.

S_A_M