Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Here are the relevant statutes.

Certainly not "relevant" to construing Article II.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Even if both parents are US citizens, I don't think if you are born outside of the US you are native born. You can get citizenship, but you are not native born.

I am not going to research it right now, but I am fairly certain that you are wrong, as I am fairly certain that under U.S. law you ARE a citizen, not "you can get citizenship."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
two answers to your original question, Ty:

(a) U.S. military bases arer considered U.S. soil -- federal jurisdiction; and

what I think is the real answer . . .

(b) if your parents are both American citizens, so are you when you are born, wherever you are born.

Otherwise, no pregnant women should travel overseas, lest their children be condemed to life as a Frenchman.

S_A_M

I think (a) is dubious from an originalist perspective, but you've got me on (b).

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Clinton lied to a Federal judge.

He did? There was a judge in the deposition room? That is extraordinary.

Was he under oath when he lied to the FBI? Why is that a crime. And why didn't he take the 5th in front of the grand jury? Why did he talk to anyone without getting immunity?

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.

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Um, I hate pointing out how ridiculous the parallel is, given how many people were actually indicted and jailed because of the Whitewater investigation.

But none of them for conduct relating to the Whitewater investment. And none of them who would otherwise have needed a special prosecutor.

And Bill's impeachment had nothing to do with Whitewater. It resulted from his lies in the paula jones sexual harassment case.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The crime of "Agreeing with the prior POTUS and his administration, an informed Congress, the UN and practically all other Western Nations"?

Your sarcasm is misplaced. You are the one who implied that Sullivan's assertion that the administration misled the public was refuted by the fact the Fitzgerald found no underlying crime.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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

I think the DJ was actually was present in the room to rule immediately on objections.

He was a sitting president, you know.

S_A_M

P.S. But no, he lied to the questioner, not the judge.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm sure Bill got blown by a lot of his interns, but I do think that proving he lied about a what as obvious as that is a bit easier to prove then lying about when you said something to somebody.

A jury disagrees with you, and a removal from office after impeachment is not a simple as a conviction.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
:td:

Right, 'cause y'all wouldn't have lambasted him a new asshole had he taken his case to the press instead of a jury.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think the DJ was actually was present in the room to rule immediately on objections.

He was a sitting president, you know.

S_A_M

P.S. But no, he lied to the questioner, not the judge.

Huh. I did not remember that.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Certainly not "relevant" to construing Article II.

Why not?

Under your interpretation, it seems that no one born in the District of Columbia is a natural born citizen, because it's not one of the United States.

Why can a statute not provide definition to what "natural born" means, in distinction to naturalized. If one is a citizen at birth by operation of law, why would the constitution erect some separate standard? This is hardly Congress passing a law that says anyone born anywhere shall be deemed a citizen at birth so long as they pay to the United States $10m before their 21st birthday.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think the DJ was actually was present in the room to rule immediately on objections.
.

I don't think that's right. She was at best available by phone, but she was in Ark. and the dep. in the white house.

She issued a long list of definitions that he danced around.

She issued sanctions subsequently for wasting the parties and the court's time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Under your interpretation, it seems that no one born in the District of Columbia is a natural born citizen, because it's not one of the United States.

It used to be Maryland, so that's different. It's within one of the thirteen original states.

Why can a statute not provide definition to what "natural born" means, in distinction to naturalized. If one is a citizen at birth by operation of law, why would the constitution erect some separate standard? This is hardly Congress passing a law that says anyone born anywhere shall be deemed a citizen at birth so long as they pay to the United States $10m before their 21st birthday.

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

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But none of them for conduct relating to the Whitewater investment. And none of them who would otherwise have needed a special prosecutor.

And Bill's impeachment had nothing to do with Whitewater. It resulted from his lies in the paula jones sexual harassment case.

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

P.S. But no, he lied to the questioner, not the judge.

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.