victimless crime

pancho · #**141** 01/02/12, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yvonne's hubby

I didnt forget... just didnt see the need in foolin with it. I do think we could use some restrictions though. A person really should be familiar with American history, the difference between the various forms of government, and the basics of how our government works before being allowed to vote for incompetent and downright treasonous candidates. Tieing a couple years military service to voting might not hurt anything either... some skin in the game and like that.

That should get rid of the majority of voters which sounds like a very good idea.
We could start by limiting voting rights to those who can spell vote.

7thswan · #**142** 01/03/12, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bunton

You might want to reread my post. I did not say there was not a requirement to be a natural born citizen to be president. I said There is no requirement in the United States for either parent to be a citizen to be a natural born citizen if you are born on U S soil. What this means is if Obama was born in Hawaii then the place of birth of his parents does not enter into his birth status. He is a natural born citizen of the United States. This was always assumed to be true under U S law, but the XIV amendment made it very clear.

Jim

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizens” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875). The Court in Happersett did go on to state that other sub-categories of people may or may not be within the broader term “citizen.” However, it did so only after specifically identifying the narrower category “natural-born citizens.” Id. The Happersett Court clearly understood and established that “citizen” is a much broader term than “natural-born citizens.” Its discussion of “citizen” does not negate or alter its earlier definition of the term “natural-born citizens.” See Id. at 167-168. This precedent has never been questioned by any subsequent Supreme Court. This precedent is binding.

Steve L. · #**143** 01/03/12, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7thswan

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizens” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875). The Court in Happersett did go on to state that other sub-categories of people may or may not be within the broader term “citizen.” However, it did so only after specifically identifying the narrower category “natural-born citizens.” Id. The Happersett Court clearly understood and established that “citizen” is a much broader term than “natural-born citizens.” Its discussion of “citizen” does not negate or alter its earlier definition of the term “natural-born citizens.” See Id. at 167-168. This precedent has never been questioned by any subsequent Supreme Court. This precedent is binding.

For people with moderate or above reading comprehension - From http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...8_0162_ZO.html

Quote:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Yvonne's hubby · #**144** 01/03/12, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve L.

For people with moderate or above reading comprehension - From http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...8_0162_ZO.html

Thank you Steve... I was just about to start going through that rather lengthy diatribe one more time and find the section you brought forward. The entire opinion is a good read, and quite informative about resolving the right to vote issue, but it does not really apply to the point in question here. It actually creates the need to pursue other avenues to determine the accepted definition of who is a natural born citizen. While it does assure us of one group of natural born citizens... it clearly points out that there are other possibilities, but does not define them. Its a bit like saying chevies are GM products.... but there are others.... without naming them.

beowoulf90 · #**145** 01/03/12, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yvonne's hubby

This was my point when I first included DUI in the OP. Having a few drinks does not have a victim.... in and of itself. While it may lead to accident that could have victims, simply driving an automobile while under the influence has no victim. I think whoever actually caused the accident is at fault, and should be held responsible.

DUI for riding a horse? Thats almost as good as a feller near here a couple years back getting arrested for DUI while in a wheel chair!

Yeppers, personal responsibility for ones actions and decisions has become a thing of the past. Isnt it wonderful to be so "progressive"!

Let me add to the list and say back in the 70's my father got busted for DUI while riding a 10 speed bicycle. Yes he had a drinking problem then, but that changed sometime before 1984 when I returned home from the military and he no longer drank and hasn't since...

Jim Bunton · #**146** 01/03/12, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7thswan

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “natural-born citizens” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875). The Court in Happersett did go on to state that other sub-categories of people may or may not be within the broader term “citizen.” However, it did so only after specifically identifying the narrower category “natural-born citizens.” Id. The Happersett Court clearly understood and established that “citizen” is a much broader term than “natural-born citizens.” Its discussion of “citizen” does not negate or alter its earlier definition of the term “natural-born citizens.” See Id. at 167-168. This precedent has never been questioned by any subsequent Supreme Court. This precedent is binding.

It said all children born in a country of parents who are citizens are natural born citizens. That is not the same as saying
all natural born citizens must be born in a country of parents that are citizens.

The court acknowledges that there were doubts about the status of children not born to citizen parents, but states "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." The court based this decision with out the need for consideration of the fourteenth amendment.

Jim

Jim Bunton · #**147** 01/03/12, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yvonne's hubby

Thank you Steve... I was just about to start going through that rather lengthy diatribe one more time and find the section you brought forward. The entire opinion is a good read, and quite informative about resolving the right to vote issue, but it does not really apply to the point in question here. It actually creates the need to pursue other avenues to determine the accepted definition of who is a natural born citizen. While it does assure us of one group of natural born citizens... it clearly points out that there are other possibilities, but does not define them. Its a bit like saying chevies are GM products.... but there are others.... without naming them.

I think the XIV amendment lays to rest any doubt as to who is a natural born citizen of he United States. Being a citizen just from the circumstances of your birth would seem to be the only definition for natural born citizen. I think for many years this simple term has been complicated beyond all reason. The constitution was written in pretty straight forward language so I would tend to think the term just means what it says.

Jim

PS To Steve L. I didn't read your post before saying basically the same thing in my last post.

Yvonne's hubby · #**148** 01/03/12, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bunton

I think the XIV amendment lays to rest any doubt as to who is a natural born citizen of he United States. Being a citizen just from the circumstances of your birth would seem to be the only definition for natural born citizen. I think for many years this simple term has been complicated beyond all reason. The constitution was written in pretty straight forward language so I would tend to think the term just means what it says.

Jim

PS To Steve L. I didn't read your post before saying basically the same thing in my last post.

Hmmm thats possible.. but it doesnt really work that simply. The fourteenth makes a distinction between natural born or naturalized citizen... and then it lumps both groups together as citizens. does it mean just being born on American soil... or soil under its jurisdiction that would eliminate several presidents. Things get iffy sometimes when dealing with our nation... we have a lot of "transplants" in this country, and a good many of our multigeneration citizens travel abroad.. and some of them have babies... on foreign soil. Some mothers even marry foriegners and some men marry foriegn women... its a bit more complex than just being a citizen... a natural born citizen is in a different league, undefined in the constitution.

Home Harvest · #**149** 01/03/12, 05:19 PM

Funny, I just had a similar discussion on another forum, but it was about Ron Paul running for president. The following quote was presented as a against electing him. I see nothing negative about it. You can all judge for yourselves.

"A medical doctor by training and a grandfather, Paul leaves no doubt as to whether drugs — and cigarettes and trans fat, for that matter — should be legal. “Why shouldn’t you have free decisions on what you eat, drink, smoke and put into your own body?” he told an audience of 1,000 University of Iowa students in October. Yet the devout Christian is no libertine, telling the same crowd, “You also have to assume responsibility for any bad choices you make, and you can’t go to your neighbor or to your government to bail yourselves out.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions

I'd say he pretty well sums up my feeling on this issue of victimless crimes. Adults should be able to make adult choices, and they should be mature enough to live with the results of those decisions. Really says it all!

7thswan · #**150** 01/03/12, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yvonne's hubby

Hmm that's possible.. but it doesn't really work that simply. The fourteenth makes a distinction between natural born or naturalized citizen... and then it lumps both groups together as citizens. does it mean just being born on American soil... or soil under its jurisdiction that would eliminate several presidents. Things get iffy sometimes when dealing with our nation... we have a lot of "transplants" in this country, and a good many of our multigenerational citizens travel abroad.. and some of them have babies... on foreign soil. Some mothers even marry foreigners and some men marry foreign women... its a bit more complex than just being a citizen... a natural born citizen is in a different league, undefined in the constitution.

I read a good one(analogy) about a Horse breeding a Mule,the result is a Jackass, Offspring will be sterile.... But when a Horse breeds a Horse-the result is always a Horse.
The intent of the founders is what matters, we have to have a President ,who's loyalityas are Only to the US. We do not have that,such is why the NBC requirement is so important.

pancho · #**151** 01/03/12, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7thswan

I read a good one(analogy) about a Horse breeding a Mule,the result is a Jackass, Offspring will be sterile.... But when a Horse breeds a Horse-the result is always a Horse.
The intent of the founders is what matters, we have to have a President ,who's loyalityas are Only to the US. We do not have that,such is why the NBC requirement is so important.

You must not know much about horses, mules, or jackasses.
A horse may breed a mule but the chance of having any offsprings is less than .5% and the offspring would not be a jackass.
You have it backassward. A mule is the cross of a jackass and a horse.

Yvonne's hubby · #**152** 01/03/12, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pancho

You must not know much about horses, mules, or jackasses.
A horse may breed a mule but the chance of having any offsprings is less than .5% and the offspring would not be a jackass.
You have it backassward. A mule is the cross of a jackass and a horse.

I also know a little bit about jackasses, horse, mules and the like. If you breed a mare horse to a jackass... you get a mule. (which is pretty much going to be sterile) If you breed a stud horse to a jenny (female jackass) you get a henny.. (which is a total pain to deal with and is also usually sterile. If you get enough fools to vote for Obama... you end up with a jackass in the white house!!!