You really think that? A lot of them were born outside of what would be US. Even still what they considered does not matter, what they stated in the constitution does for that argument.
Difference is that Obama was corrupted by office in this regard. I would rather have someone who is an open critic, running as a critic, that gets into office and then some how understands something differently, than someone who is openly bad from the beginning. With the first we have have a shot at fixing it, with the latter there is no shot.
Except that the definition I provided would still be considered an originalist, because there is nothing in the original Constitution that contradicts it, as I mentioned. I consider myself a consitutionalist, but progressive. They are not against each other by itself.
Where I will complain about him would be more about his stance on guns and blocking inmates and the crazies from having them. That is not an originalist.
Well, even as a liberal, the natural born citizen part was left up to congress, and not specifically defined in the Constitution. the current belief is that if you are eligible to be a US citizen at birth, to the criteria that defines someone as a US citizen, then you are a natural born citizen. Depending on Cruz's mothers resident status at the time, when was the last time she lived in the US prior to giving birth, he could be a natural born citizen based on that definition.
How do you add more surveillance to the US without weakening privacy protections? You can add laws making it harder to get a gun without taking away peoples guns.
I am pretty sure he is being insulted because of his desire to destroy privacy even more than it has been. It is implied from the article to the comments.
One thing I *haven't* seen is a rational explanation of why a temporary ban on Muslim immigration isn't a common-sense response to an immediate problem. It's not unconstitutional, it's no less against "American Principles" than going to war on false premises, ordering the death of a citizen, or secret lists and laws. It's also fairly easy to implement - think it through a few minutes and you'll see that detection is relatively straightforward(**).
Because it is A) impossible to implement B) Alienates good Muslims C) drives moderate to borderline Muslims to the other side. D) And most importantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
YES it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It violates both the 1st and the 14th amendment, you know discriminating against someone based on their religion and making laws favoring one religion over the other...
But you are not really looking for a rational aurgiment against it so much as just trying to attack perople.
You can disagree with it all you want, but you get more what about me out of the GOP then you get out of the dems, we are generally about helping others.
Trump did not suggest banning Muslims from entering the country.
BS he exactly stated that he would ban all Muslims in the middle east from entering the country. His campaign manager then verified it. After being attacked he then slid on it, a lot but not completely.
What he did say is that there is a tendency for criminals from outside the country to come from Islamic theocracies, therefore we need to bar people from immigrating from these nations until we can be sure these immigrants won't just kill us once they get here.
reinvisionist nonsense. That is not in any way what he stated, but even that is a very problematic statement. Criminals from outside the country cannot get a visa to enter the country, so that statement is idiotic
He did not suggest that any Muslim that wished to immigrate here should be prevented from doing so. How would that even be done?
Yes he did not say any muslim, he said any muslim in the middle east. That qualifier does not make it better
It's not like such people cannot lie, in fact Muslims are encouraged to lie and cheat nonbelievers to reach their ends.
The fact is ANYONE can lie. The bible encourages killing of adulterers, and others, should we stop Christians and Jews from entering as well?
The test would be on which nation these people come from. Is the nation controlled by Muslim leaders? Does this nation treat Sharia as law? If so then we should not be allowing anyone to immigrate from these nations, no matter what faith they claim to follow.
So you hate the constitution? Or do you just not understand what it means when it talks about not making laws on religion and no religious tests? Because you have just encouraged violating it....
really I am done after that. Your argument is so full of holes Swiss cheese would be envious.
When healthcare requires insurance they are one in the same...
How can you not afford to pay for healthcare, with insurance... There are caps on out of pocket expenses.
If you lose your job and cannot get assistance than you are not required to have health insurance.... If you work part time then you would be required but you would get it free.
The constitution covers all people. It is a grant of power to the government. It tells the government what it can do, not what it cannot do. Saying that the constitution does not protect non-citizens is being intentionally ignorant to the founding fathers and the creation of the constitution.
The polls prove you wrong. There is approximately a 50/50 split among the population when it comes to amnesty.
Also can you please cite a local political or policeman who thwart the laws, with the understanding that they are not obligated to enforce federal laws, as they are not federal authorities, unless the states have the same laws on the books?
The "peoples" are so dumb and complaisant that I have came the believe they not worst helping any more.
Reread your sentence and then come to me with who is the stupid ones in the conversation.
Bring 100% selfish and fuck'em seem to be the only correct attitude. It's sad. Also remember to check your privilege when you enter Colored spaces or speak to a women.
Only if you are the GOP Christians, is being 100% selfish and.... the correct attitude, and that is the problem with the GOP.
It does not matter if it is low because it can always be higher...That it may be high in some areas is not really an issue either. You should only be hiring someone for that position if you cannot find local talent for it, by law, therefore the pay should be hiring than normal.
...I expect Slashdot to thoroughly Savage Diane for her attempts to undermine internet freedom and privacy just as they savaged Trump for merely suggesting what Hillary Suggested.
What was Trump savaged for again? You may have the savaging mixed up. They should be savaged for this, but Trump takes it 100000000 times further
Slashdot Mirror
Just because it is fiat does not mean you want it worthless. Money still has value, under your plan it would not.
You do realize, if I am not mistaken, that bald eagles are raptors, so "too" is a bit redundant. Maybe "including"?
you do realize that probably does not say what you think it does right?
Really other than ag we have new papers (bike routes), actors, self employed (mom and pop stores)
Those few exceptions does not cancel out the general rule.
Even if that "seller"'s only buisness is that single buyer, or a small group of buyers?
You really think that? A lot of them were born outside of what would be US. Even still what they considered does not matter, what they stated in the constitution does for that argument.
Difference is that Obama was corrupted by office in this regard. I would rather have someone who is an open critic, running as a critic, that gets into office and then some how understands something differently, than someone who is openly bad from the beginning. With the first we have have a shot at fixing it, with the latter there is no shot.
Except that the definition I provided would still be considered an originalist, because there is nothing in the original Constitution that contradicts it, as I mentioned. I consider myself a consitutionalist, but progressive. They are not against each other by itself.
Where I will complain about him would be more about his stance on guns and blocking inmates and the crazies from having them. That is not an originalist.
Well, even as a liberal, the natural born citizen part was left up to congress, and not specifically defined in the Constitution. the current belief is that if you are eligible to be a US citizen at birth, to the criteria that defines someone as a US citizen, then you are a natural born citizen. Depending on Cruz's mothers resident status at the time, when was the last time she lived in the US prior to giving birth, he could be a natural born citizen based on that definition.
They can be supported with aircraft now.
How do you add more surveillance to the US without weakening privacy protections? You can add laws making it harder to get a gun without taking away peoples guns.
I am pretty sure he is being insulted because of his desire to destroy privacy even more than it has been. It is implied from the article to the comments.
hile Trump would randomize everything
Trump is Pandora's box, please leave it closed, please.
One thing I *haven't* seen is a rational explanation of why a temporary ban on Muslim immigration isn't a common-sense response to an immediate problem. It's not unconstitutional, it's no less against "American Principles" than going to war on false premises, ordering the death of a citizen, or secret lists and laws. It's also fairly easy to implement - think it through a few minutes and you'll see that detection is relatively straightforward(**).
Because it is
A) impossible to implement
B) Alienates good Muslims
C) drives moderate to borderline Muslims to the other side.
D) And most importantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
YES it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It violates both the 1st and the 14th amendment, you know discriminating against someone based on their religion and making laws favoring one religion over the other...
But you are not really looking for a rational aurgiment against it so much as just trying to attack perople.
So ad hominem attacks is the best you have?
Being consirned with ones own self intrest, and not that of the others is the common thread that I see with the GOP, it started with Ayn Rand:
https://www.aynrand.org/novels...
You can disagree with it all you want, but you get more what about me out of the GOP then you get out of the dems, we are generally about helping others.
Trump did not suggest banning Muslims from entering the country.
BS he exactly stated that he would ban all Muslims in the middle east from entering the country. His campaign manager then verified it. After being attacked he then slid on it, a lot but not completely.
What he did say is that there is a tendency for criminals from outside the country to come from Islamic theocracies, therefore we need to bar people from immigrating from these nations until we can be sure these immigrants won't just kill us once they get here.
reinvisionist nonsense. That is not in any way what he stated, but even that is a very problematic statement. Criminals from outside the country cannot get a visa to enter the country, so that statement is idiotic
He did not suggest that any Muslim that wished to immigrate here should be prevented from doing so. How would that even be done?
Yes he did not say any muslim, he said any muslim in the middle east. That qualifier does not make it better
It's not like such people cannot lie, in fact Muslims are encouraged to lie and cheat nonbelievers to reach their ends.
The fact is ANYONE can lie. The bible encourages killing of adulterers, and others, should we stop Christians and Jews from entering as well?
The test would be on which nation these people come from. Is the nation controlled by Muslim leaders? Does this nation treat Sharia as law? If so then we should not be allowing anyone to immigrate from these nations, no matter what faith they claim to follow.
So you hate the constitution? Or do you just not understand what it means when it talks about not making laws on religion and no religious tests? Because you have just encouraged violating it....
really I am done after that. Your argument is so full of holes Swiss cheese would be envious.
When healthcare requires insurance they are one in the same...
How can you not afford to pay for healthcare, with insurance... There are caps on out of pocket expenses.
If you lose your job and cannot get assistance than you are not required to have health insurance.... If you work part time then you would be required but you would get it free.
The constitution covers all people. It is a grant of power to the government. It tells the government what it can do, not what it cannot do. Saying that the constitution does not protect non-citizens is being intentionally ignorant to the founding fathers and the creation of the constitution.
The polls prove you wrong. There is approximately a 50/50 split among the population when it comes to amnesty.
Also can you please cite a local political or policeman who thwart the laws, with the understanding that they are not obligated to enforce federal laws, as they are not federal authorities, unless the states have the same laws on the books?
The "peoples" are so dumb and complaisant that I have came the believe they not worst helping any more.
Reread your sentence and then come to me with who is the stupid ones in the conversation.
Bring 100% selfish and fuck'em seem to be the only correct attitude. It's sad. Also remember to check your privilege when you enter Colored spaces or speak to a women.
Only if you are the GOP Christians, is being 100% selfish and .... the correct attitude, and that is the problem with the GOP.
And solar panels will suck all the energy from the sun and stop plants from photosynthesizing.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/1...
they were so skilled they were snaped up because they were so talented:
http://www.dallasnews.com/busi...
Umm you do realize that if H1-Bs are paid more than American workers it would be cheaper to employ Americans, right?
It does not matter if it is low because it can always be higher...That it may be high in some areas is not really an issue either. You should only be hiring someone for that position if you cannot find local talent for it, by law, therefore the pay should be hiring than normal.
yea, I mean look at how bad it was when they tried to work together to replace the awful no child left behind bill, oh wait, that worked well.
Just because you are a conspiracy nut does not mean the rest of us are.
...I expect Slashdot to thoroughly Savage Diane for her attempts to undermine internet freedom and privacy just as they savaged Trump for merely suggesting what Hillary Suggested.
What was Trump savaged for again? You may have the savaging mixed up. They should be savaged for this, but Trump takes it 100000000 times further