Is this a debate tactic? You don't actually say anything other than make an blind accusation and quote someone? Essentially just probe for further argument, maybe look for a contradiction? Yeah, TJ was pretty cool. Let me know when you have an original thought.

Oh, either I missed that or read it wrong the first time. Yeah I don't really know why Wookie is arguing that.

Apparently he dismisses the fact that the constitution lays out the process for change. We should just consider it changed as we see fit, according to him.

Interesting. Since you're a reasonable and thoughtful person, could you explain where you understood that in my posts? Thanks!

The joke is that this entire argument started because Wookie06 wants to interpret the constitution in new, reality-bending ways ('ignore or twist its meaning') while I clearly advocate a deliberate change to the constitution to eliminate disambiguities. So I really do appreciate your comment in this matter, BobTheMasher.

I guess having a desire to understand what the intended meaning is is clearly "ignore or twist" in your mind.



Would the "deliberate change" be the amendment process I referred to? And of course you appreciate his comment. It's the only thing posted so far that comes close to supporting you. My guess is that once our misunderstanding is clear he will disappoint you.

hahaha, says the ****ing Tea Partier. All of your opinions are shallow and insipid, a disgusting blend of what your corporate owners tell you to think and the incoherent fumblings of someone who doesn't even have the advantage of America's pathetic public education system.

Yes he was, just like most of the Founding Fathers.

Fun fact: they invented the Electoral College so people like you wouldn't be allowed to **** everything up.

Considering the fact that your preconceived notion of the "intended meaning" is:

1.) Born in the USA, unless you're black, and
2.) Born outside the USA, if you're white

I think I have enough evidence to conclude that you don't really give a **** what the constitution "means" unless it corresponds to what Rupert Murdoch tells you to think.

Are you seriously that delusional? Exactly how many people have you noticed posting in our little one-on-one ****show here?

What? Only BobTheMasher comes close to supporting me? Welp, that's pretty much everybody who has an opinion so far. Good job.

Cool. I guess that didn't last. Just like most of federalism. I'll check back in tomorrow.

Besos!

I'm too tired for this ****. Wookie, is there any chance you'll stop posting stupid things by tomorrow afternoon so I can pretend none of this ever happened?

Now, see, THIS (unlike the YESSSS thread IMO) is an entertaining argument. I'm not sure if they take breaks from making their cases to insult each other, or they take breaks from insulting each other to make their cases, but either way, I find it delightful.

My father was born in Germany & spent the first 15 years of his life there. It's absolutely ridiculous that he wouldn't be able to run for President, despite the fact that he's an even bigger tea-bagger than Wookie.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to fill in the gaps of the 14th Amendment as well as create new law regarding naturalization & ultimately citizenship & it's about ****ing time that they do so.

Okay, I'm feeling rested, so why the hell not.

In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray wrote for a 6-2 majority that the terms "citizen" and "natural-born citizen" in the Constitution were to be understood in reference to the English common law they were rooted in. Under English common law, a person was a "natural-born subject" even if born in England to two alien parents. Now, statements about the meaning of "natural-born" in this case are not precedent as such since they weren't necessary to the result of the case, but this view has been the dominant view on the meaning of "natural-born citizen" for quite some time. And frankly it doesn't even make any sense to regard "natural born citizen" as meaning anything other than "a person born a citizen of the United States." Citizens in this country are either born into citizenship or naturalized; there is no concept in American law, as far as I know, of a "citizen not natural-born but not naturalized." But that's the status birthers are now trying to assign to Obama.

Basically birthers, having lost resoundingly on their big claim (not born in the U.S.) are scrambling to invent a previously unheard-of technicality that would disqualify Obama anyway. It's preposterous.



Yep. For future reference, you can often figure out whether an accent is wrong by which syllable has the stress. In "forte" the stress is on the first syllable, so an accent on the second wouldn't make any sense. For comparison "café" is right because the accent is in the same place as the stress.

Also, forte is an Italian word, not a french one. Italian diction rules are a lot more straightforward than most other languages, so they don't have much need for accent marks. I'm somewhat certain that there are no accent marks at all in Italian, but I could be mistaken.

(It should be noted that an accent over the e would make it a lot clearer to English speakers, who would usually think the e is silent. The accent mark is a big "Hey! Pronounce me!" sign, so I see why people would think it should be there)

Good point. I should probably have clarified by adding that the mere presence of stress on a syllable doesn't mean an accent is required. It's just that an accent mark on an unstressed syllable is usually (always? at least in Romance languages, I would guess) wrong.

I can't say that I'll never insult the man again but I refrain from it it the middle of an actual discussion because I would demean myself and degrade my argument by doing so.



Refreshing. I figured your inevitable post would be much worse. I don't disagree with the facts you posted above. Of course it is totally unrelated to the current issue and you show a prejudice against any intended meaning that could differ from your interpretation. The debate on the meaning of "natural born citizen" has far preceded Obama.



I think hardcore birthers are just going to stick with the "it's a forgery" argument. Even if "natural born citizen" is ever interpreted to exclude native born individuals with a foreign national parent that certainly would not occur in time to effect an Obama second term.

Sorry, I'd post more but it's time to get back to work.

Yeah, my understanding is that the accent is present to say that the usual stress rules are being broken. ie - if you're usually supposed to stress the second to last syllable, but this word has an accent mark on the last syllable, you would know to stress the last, rather than the first. But I think I was way wrong about one thing - I'm pretty sure, upon thinking about it, that Italian does have accent marks.

[EDIT: Yeah, Italians totally have accent marks, but I'm pretty sure the site I'm looking at is off base. I thought French was the only language that has both the accent grave and the accent agui. I thought Italian only had one accent, though I couldn't remember which one (grave? I think?) but this site is saying Italian e's can have both, but that's not possible, because one would indicate an open e and one would indicate a more closed e, and only open e's exist in Italian]

But Italians, unlike French, pronounce all of their syllables, so you don't need a mark on "forte" to tell you to pronounce it. As you said, putting one there wouldn't make sense anyway because the last syllable isn't stressed.

I'm sorry, I just find this tangent more interesting that the discussion going on around it

...But the emphasis in Forte is on the second syllable.

...no, it's not

Maybe not where you're from.

You wacky Brits.

Don't worry, baconfish... some of us in America choose to pronounce things the proper way.

Also, do people really pronounce forte as "fort"?

That simply sounds ridiculous to me.

No, the proper way actually is with the stress on the first syllable.

I've never heard anyone pronounce it as "fort," but I wouldn't be surprised if people did.

[EDIT: a quick google search showed I was right about the pronunciation, but wrong about the origins. Turns out it is a French word, and all of my going on about Italian was dumb and useless. Sorry about that]

Hey Baconfish, your entire country is doing Italian wrong.



Um. Your comment upthread:



This is the issue I am responding to, and my response is entirely on point. Even if Obama had had two foreign national parents, he'd still be a natural born citizen.



And why not? The interpretation I've given is grounded in history, the great weight of persuasive legal authority, and basic common sense. To support the interpretation you described, you've offered... oh, nothing. That's weird. Nothing that would even begin to suggest that there's a sensible alternative.

So how are you saying it should be pronounced? To me it's always been "for-tay" and I am really not aware of another interpretation.

That is how it should be pronounced. FOR-tay

Sugarless, as always, brings much needed perspective to a thread. You're making a habit of this. STOP. Step AWAY from the perspective. You're making the rest of us look bad.

Also, it seems to be a debate within a debate. Not only are they debating legalese, they're debating proper debate techniques (albeit mostly by insulting each other's technique).

About the comment on my comment that I don't care if the president is native born... I mean that that should be amended, not necessarily that its okay for him to violate it (if he is, in fact, violating it). Regardless, even if he is violating the native born rule, I still don't care, because I am just that apathetic and cynical.

Finally, I pretty skimmed, if not skipped entirely, posts by wookie and jon c, because I DESPISE legalese. I worked ten hour days for a week in a law office in middle school, and while I did get $400 out of it (a fortune to an eighth grader), I wound up with a hatred of legalese, State Farm insurance, and Sonic fast food.

On the other hand, my younger brother took to it like a duck to water, working a full month, and he is a lawyer today.

Surely that's exactly the same as "40".

For-TAY.

That's how I say it in the previous context. Oops.

According to that interpretation. It may be one that you and I agree with while others might not. The fact is that with regard to this issue, we can never know if the founders intended a different meaning. Being that we had recently broke from foreign tyranny I think it is reasonable for some to think their specific wording implies a more rigid manner of citizenship but since there is no record of debate on this topic we can't be absolutely certain. That is why I suggested an amendment would be the best way to constitutionally define the qualification because anything short of that is just a judgement call.

What I find more ridiculous is that it was so hard for us to get his birth certificate. The most important political office in the land with the most "arduous" of prerequisites with regards to citizenship and he didn't have to show documentation that he met the qualification? He released the certificate of live birth when the Clinton campaign started leaking he idea that he was a foreigner and only released the long form in a futile attempt to shut Trump up. Seems that any candidate placed on the ballot should have to provide evidence of meeting the qualification and I don't think that has to do with left/right/tea party or green party.



Well, as I said above, there's no record of a debate on that portion of the constitution. Isn't it odd that so much of the constitution was thoroughly debated but the one portion that applies to Obama becoming president was not? As any sane person can see, this is proof positive that not only is Obama constitutionally ineligible but that this cover up and conspiracy reaches all the way back to the founding. With further research (DNA testing?) we will undoubtedly find a connection between Jefferson and the Obamas, most likely Michelle as she has "slave blood".

Okay I made that one up on my own but, seriously, my point was more broad that you are more concerned with the most recent SCOTUS determination of constitutionality (of any issue) rather than the intent of the framers. You know that SCOTUS does render terrible decisions from time to time and they can be overturned in subsequent cases.

As a person who happens to engage in homosexual acts every so often, I've never seen two men so much in hateful love with one another as Jon and Wookie. I'm not kidding, this is seriously obsessive. Just whip 'em out and go at it, boys, turn those debating powers of yours to the topic of who gets to be the bottom.

-On the subject of Obama's birth certificate: The constant angry demands to prove that he's a citizen are obviously rooted in racism, which then expanded to take over the minds of the republican constituents, thus anyone campaigning for them would have to use that as a talking point. Although, I still wouldn't be surprised if Trump is in fact genuinely trolling the republicans and trying to hurt them by splitting their votes so badly they lose the 2012 election.

That seems more absurd than the simple case of Trump being a business man, and the Republicans being more corporatist.

Yeah, but Trump has been a vocal supporter of democrats for years.

Plus, he seems like the sort of troll to pull that off.

-I had a similar idea a while back, that I should run for the republican ticket, get it, and then give the speech from "Plan 9" as my acceptance speech before kicking the podium into the audience and fleeing the RNC.

No, 40 is FOR-tee

So there!

There's a T in 40?

Yayah, 'rownd thaze ports way pernownts thayt "fordee".

I never believed any of this Obama not being a U.S. Citizen crap. I may not like what he has done so far, but that does not make me go off on a tangent making crap up about him. Personally he seems like a very nice fellow, but who knows, that could only be P.R.

It's SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law