On 6/26/14 19:07 , m II wrote:
On 14-06-26 07:39 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

If you look at the Nixon-Kennedy election, the vote hinged on Daley
being able to deliver Chicago. Record numbers of decedents voted in that
election.


That is grossly unfair. The yet to be born have as much right to vote as
the deceased. So, if decedent implies post death, we could use the term
'precedent' for those too early for the ballot box.

"Record numbers of precedents voted in that election.".....make you feel
all warm and fuzzy inside...like a balmy Holland Michigan evening.




mike





LOL!

On 6/27/14 13:03 , D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 6/26/14 16:45 , Bill Davis wrote:
On 6/26/2014 7:36 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 6/16/14 06:04 , dxAce wrote:


Bill Davis wrote:

On 6/15/2014 4:40 AM, dxAce wrote:


Bill Davis wrote:

On 6/14/2014 7:26 AM, dxAce wrote:


dave wrote:

On 06/13/2014 09:17 AM, wrote:
On Friday, June 13, 2014 6:29:12 AM UTC-7, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Yes, the US Constitution. And the Federalist Papers.
What do the Federalist Papers opine about the qualifications to
be President? Was there unanimous agreement, or was this
another controversial issue?

AFAIK, the US Constitution says "natural born citizne", and the
US Supreme Court has not yet spoken ex cathedra on clarifying
the definition.


The Supreme Court has 2 blatantly corrupt Associate Justices and
is an
invalid body. In a perfect world Scalia and Thomas would be in
prison
licking their wounds.

In a perfect world Barack and Michelle would have already packed
the U-Haul and been gone...


I don't think you can drive a U-Haul all the way back to Kenya....

I have to wonder if Barack even knows HOW to drive...


He seems competent on the golf course ;-)

Sure hope he leaves the White House soon and joins the PGA Tour...




What's not widely known, is that he can't play golf at most of the
better courses in the Chicago area. All but two of the North Shore
courses are restricted.


I did not know that.

Can Rahm play them?

No.



Had a GM, who, at the time was married to a Jewish girl. Now, both
were wildly successful in their careers, both solid citizens. Could not
play North Shore courses because they were restricted. So, they played
public courses. She cut him loose, took chunks of his cash, so now he
can play the North Shore courses. But may not be able to afford them.

Some of the restrictions are being lifted. I was stunned to find
there were still restricted courses in this area.

On 6/26/2014 6:07 PM, m II wrote:
On 14-06-26 07:39 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

If you look at the Nixon-Kennedy election, the vote hinged on Daley
being able to deliver Chicago. Record numbers of decedents voted in that
election.


That is grossly unfair. The yet to be born have as much right to vote as
the deceased. So, if decedent implies post death, we could use the term
'precedent' for those too early for the ballot box.

"Record numbers of precedents voted in that election.".....make you feel
all warm and fuzzy inside...like a balmy Holland Michigan evening.




mike

In Mexico they celebrate the dead by eating candy skulls.

LBJ would have liked that.

On 6/27/2014 8:41 AM, dave wrote:
On 06/26/2014 02:49 PM, Bill Davis wrote:
On 6/26/2014 9:45 AM, wrote:


I still think the Rock Rat was wrong when he asserted that the
definition could be found in the Constitution, and he was just
bloviating when he claimed that it was in the Federalist Papers.


You find bits and pieces in the Federalist Papers, not a pure definition.

The Constitution is intentionally vague.

To promote checks and balances, yes.

This forces people to use their
own brains rather than pretending to know what words meant 220 years ago.

The core meaning is critical - read any SCOTUS ruling and stop being cute.

On 6/27/2014 8:43 AM, dave wrote:
On 06/26/2014 05:07 PM, m II wrote:
On 14-06-26 07:39 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

If you look at the Nixon-Kennedy election, the vote hinged on Daley
being able to deliver Chicago. Record numbers of decedents voted in that
election.


That is grossly unfair. The yet to be born have as much right to vote as
the deceased. So, if decedent implies post death, we could use the term
'precedent' for those too early for the ballot box.

"Record numbers of precedents voted in that election.".....make you feel
all warm and fuzzy inside...like a balmy Holland Michigan evening.


These shenanigans pale in comparison to e-voting.

Yeah?

Proof?

Democracy is in chains.

Freedom is Biden it's time.

On 6/27/2014 9:19 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:49:33 PM UTC-7, Bill Davis wrote:
You find bits and pieces in the Federalist Papers, not a pure
definition.
Show me. I did not see it at all in the quote you provided.

Read it again, I did show you.

On 6/27/2014 12:03 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 6/26/14 16:45 , Bill Davis wrote:
On 6/26/2014 7:36 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 6/16/14 06:04 , dxAce wrote:


Bill Davis wrote:

On 6/15/2014 4:40 AM, dxAce wrote:


Bill Davis wrote:

On 6/14/2014 7:26 AM, dxAce wrote:


dave wrote:

On 06/13/2014 09:17 AM, wrote:
On Friday, June 13, 2014 6:29:12 AM UTC-7, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Yes, the US Constitution. And the Federalist Papers.
What do the Federalist Papers opine about the qualifications to
be President? Was there unanimous agreement, or was this
another controversial issue?

AFAIK, the US Constitution says "natural born citizne", and the
US Supreme Court has not yet spoken ex cathedra on clarifying
the definition.


The Supreme Court has 2 blatantly corrupt Associate Justices and
is an
invalid body. In a perfect world Scalia and Thomas would be in
prison
licking their wounds.

In a perfect world Barack and Michelle would have already packed
the U-Haul and been gone...


I don't think you can drive a U-Haul all the way back to Kenya....

I have to wonder if Barack even knows HOW to drive...


He seems competent on the golf course ;-)

Sure hope he leaves the White House soon and joins the PGA Tour...




What's not widely known, is that he can't play golf at most of the
better courses in the Chicago area. All but two of the North Shore
courses are restricted.


I did not know that.

Can Rahm play them?

No.


Amazing.

On Saturday, June 28, 2014 12:50:35 PM UTC-7, Bill Davis wrote:
On 6/27/2014 9:19 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:49:33 PM UTC-7, Bill Davis wrote:
You find bits and pieces in the Federalist Papers, not a pure
definition.
Show me. I did not see it at all in the quote you provided.

Read it again, I did show you.
I did re-read it. I only see a angument for preventing influence by foreign powers, and there is nothing here saying that this goal would be guaranteed by requiring natural-born citizenship, much less deifining what that would be.

The question posed by Joe from Kokomo was "Does anyone have a *definitive* answer? " and the answer from Rocky the Rat was "Yes, the US Constitution. And the Federalist Papers." You may have different expectations, but I think a definitive anwer should be direct, precise and concise, not scattered and inferential.

Gaelic and Algonquin Similarities....... www.libertypost.org One of those posters said Redneck Riviera. HUMPH! He. Doesn't know sheet. I have been all along the Gulf Coast before, from Texas all the way to Florida's East Coast. There is no such place as the Redneck Riviera.

On 6/28/2014 4:22 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 28, 2014 12:50:35 PM UTC-7, Bill Davis wrote:
On 6/27/2014 9:19 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:49:33 PM UTC-7, Bill Davis wrote:
You find bits and pieces in the Federalist Papers, not a pure
definition.
Show me. I did not see it at all in the quote you provided.

Read it again, I did show you.
I did re-read it. I only see a angument for preventing influence by foreign powers, and there is nothing here saying that this goal would be guaranteed by requiring natural-born citizenship, much less deifining what that would be.

The question posed by Joe from Kokomo was "Does anyone have a *definitive* answer? " and the answer from Rocky the Rat was "Yes, the US Constitution. And the Federalist Papers." You may have different expectations, but I think a definitive anwer should be direct, precise and concise, not scattered and inferential.

But that is the nature of the Papers and also the Constitution.

It makes checks and balances the keeper of the truth.