NationStates Jolt Archive

Spread-eagleism.
Lindsay Lohan crabwalk-ism?

Lindsay Lohan crabwalk-ism?

I think I just threw up a bit...

From The United States Constitution:
Article II, Section 1: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President"

This means that only a person born a United States Citizen at birth may be president.

Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401 States:
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ...
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person."

Simply put: John McCain is a Natural Born citizen of the United States, and is therefore eligible for the office of President. Is it really that hard to Google this stuff? I mean... I just did.

Start with a logical fallacy. Ad hominem doesn't make a strong argument, my friend.

But, you're not the first person to try to use this kind of bullyboy insult technique to try to batten down responses. The irony here, of course, is your earlier play of the Chewbacca Defence card.


Asserting that I disagree with your statement is automatically a logical fallacy. Got it. How could I forget that you are clearly the messiah and to disagree with you is to disagree with Truth. I have every right to believe that a connection you made was stupid, and to say as such. Calling me a “bullyboy” over it honestly just makes you look a little childish to me. Feel free to disagree (I’m sure you will). Either way, I think that your so-called “connection” between two specific topics within this debate was stupid at best and a ploy at worst. Get over it.


Why? If it's debatable, but they thought they could get away with it, I have no doubts one of the two main parties would push a trick like that. Based on the last few elections, actually sticking to the facts has often been shown to be anathema, anyway.


John McCain’s father was posted in an American-controlled part of the Panama on orders from the United States government. To suggest that it somehow makes McCain ineligible is a ludicrous smear on the candidate, and is more guilty of drawing attention “away from the issues” than my comments on their speaking skills. It honestly leaves a bad taste in my mouth that the media would resort to this. There is no credible case for denying his candidacy, thus I can only reason that your assertion was, in fact, bullshit, thus making it an even more pointless insert given the current focus of the debate.


Mainly as a speaker, I think - unless teleprompters are now the mark of a bad leader. And - honestly - what would you be able to base the assertion of 'a good leader' on?


The ability to think on your feet in a high-pressure verbal exchange is vital for a leader in these times, as I’d pointed out in previous posts. It’s not the only quality of a good leader, obviously, but I do put some stock in it.


The topic (if you'd care to look at the title, and the OP) is not as tight as you think it is. You decide to run a rather narrow discussion about your assessment of Obama's spoken words... well, okay. But, this thread is broader than that. And not everyone will indulge your desire to finesse the discussion to minute details, when there could be bigger - arguably more important - issues.


The overall topic was broader, yes, but you quoted a post of mine, which discussed the candidate’s speaking skills, in order to insert your comparatively unrelated comment on Senator McCain’s birthplace. It fit within the parameters of the thread on the whole, but at 34 pages and counting, we’re entitled to debate more specific aspects by this point. Your statement had nothing to do with the specific points of the post you quoted. That’s not a particularely classy way of moving on to a new subject.

"I can do no wrong"? I don't know if there's a name for the kind of -ism. Nationalism? Patriotism (to the militant degree?) All-foreigners-are-worthless-mongrels-ism?

It's "America is best" to it's (il)logical conclusion. Jingo-ism? Is that it?
That is the original sense of "Chauvinism" (Chauvin believed that France can do no wrong)

Is there any argument here by Myrmi that doesn't boil down to "let's go around killing random people on the off-chance that it makes me safer even though it doesn't"?

On a side note, isn't that the kind of behavior that results in more terrorism?

Fat lot of good you're doing your country, Myrmi. Good thing your vote will count for little in Georgia, a state that's pretty red anyways.

On a side note, isn't that the kind of behavior that results in more terrorism?

Have there been more al-Q attacks killing thousands of people in the US?

No...

There was never any question over Barry Goldwater's eligibility. (At least none that I have heard). And he was born in a federal territory. I assume things would be the same for Puerto Ricans.

There was some fuss over it, from what I've read. But much like with McCain, nobody really paid it much attention.

Have there been more al-Q attacks killing thousands of people in the US?

No...

Have there been any alien invasion fleets bombarding Earth from orbit?

No!

Therefore, Bush has saved us all from interstellar warfare. Pardon me while I join you in licking his nuts.

Have there been any alien invasion fleets bombarding Earth from orbit?

No!

Therefore, Bush has saved us all from interstellar warfare. Pardon me while I join you in licking his nuts.

You can have them all, you seem to love the taste.

You can have them all, you seem to love the taste.

OOH! BURN!

Concession accepted.

But McCain wasn't born as a citizen. Right? His status was amended later?

It depends. I would say that the law passed regarding the Panama Canal zone was closing a loophole in the law, rather than making any new law. It was clarifying the intent of the government.

There are many valid reasons to oppose McCain. His parents being stationed in Panama could (should?) turn out to be a reason why it should be irrelevent.

As to whether or not we treat our military well enough, that's a matter for debate - but it's a different debate to this one.

It isn't, though. A decision declaring McCain non-natural born would have to applied evenly to others in his position. And such a decision would disproportionally affect military families. Serving in the military would become a good way to disqualify your children for the presidency. Does that really seem like a good idea?

Actually, he was. There is precedent. First, Goldwater was also born overseas.

Not overseas. He was born in Arizona before it became a state.

Moreover, whether or not YOU think it's valid, no court in the land is going to deny that the children of those serving the government of the US are not citizens upon birth.

^This. One would have to wonder what they would be otherwise. They don't go through a naturalization process. So would there be some sort of third category of citizens?

Well, we do agree on one thing. I guess you'll never be voting in Georgia elections. And the thought of that pleases me to no end.

It doesn't please me to know that you are, though. =(

I will be, though.

I bet that thought makes you all happy in your bathing suit region.

It doesn't please me to know that you are, though. =(
Maybe not, but you did pick up another liberal voter to be lost in the noise. Then again, y'all are probably in the demographic that doesn't vote much. So, except for visible, national elections, we're probably safe to assume the status quo won't change much.

Maybe not, but you did pick up another liberal voter to be lost in the noise.

"Liberal" as in, "doesn't agree with Myrm"?

Then again, y'all are probably in the demographic that doesn't vote much.

I'm not sure what you base this assertion on, but I can assure you that I vote regularly - right down to absentee voting if I'm out of town.

"Liberal" as in, "doesn't agree with Myrm"?


That seems to be about it. I'm pretty sure I have as good a claim to being non-partisan as almost anyone - and better than most, for reasons established long ago.

But, if opposing random invasion is the 'liberal' thing to do, yay liberals!

It depends. I would say that the law passed regarding the Panama Canal zone was closing a loophole in the law, rather than making any new law. It was clarifying the intent of the government.

It isn't, though. A decision declaring McCain non-natural born would have to applied evenly to others in his position. And such a decision would disproportionally affect military families. Serving in the military would become a good way to disqualify your children for the presidency. Does that really seem like a good idea?


The logic of it is an aside. I wish I could agree with you, but the source that Myrmi was kind enough to track for me says that we still treat citizens of that area (before it's change of status again, in 99) differently.

"some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&oref=slogin

So - there are citizens and citizens. Which we already knew. The question is, based not on 'fairness', but on actual established law - should this matter?

Maybe not, but you did pick up another liberal voter to be lost in the noise. Then again, y'all are probably in the demographic that doesn't vote much. So, except for visible, national elections, we're probably safe to assume the status quo won't change much.

On the contrary. I vote at every opportunity I get. But, probably more scary for you, I'd imagine, I'm incredibly active, also. Hell, I even got legal right to perform marriages, just so that I'll be able to perform gay marriages in Georgia, if a loophole ever opens up.

I'm your worst nightmare.

The logic of it is an aside. I wish I could agree with you, but the source that Myrmi was kind enough to track for me says that we still treat citizens of that area (before it's change of status again, in 99) differently.

The quote you use doesn't refer to people whose parents were US citizens, however.

The Panama Canal Zone is not and was not a US territory so simply being born there does not confer citizenship and never has. It was the fact that McCain was born there to US citizens that makes the difference.

The argument made in the article is that there was a crazy loophole in the law. People born to US citizens in places completely outside the control of the US were considered citizens. People born in US territory were considered citizens.

The Panama Canal Zone was not official US territory but was under US control. As such, it represented a loophole - a third option that should have been covered but wasn't. So a law was passed that was meant to cover the loophole.

The quote you use doesn't refer to people whose parents were US citizens, however.


Doesn't it? Where does it say that?

There is a double standard applied, even as an 'unicorporated territory'.

Doesn't it? Where does it say that?

It says that people who were born in the territory have been deported due to being in the country illegally. It was in reference to the Insular Cases, which were cases regarding whether or not the Constitution applied to areas which were under US control, finding that it did not. In modern terms, this would mean that people born in Iraq during US occupation are not US citizens simply because we had control there.

It also makes it quite clear both that the law (the one passed when McCain was 1) makes anyone born there to US citizens also a citizen and that anyone at the time born to US parents in areas of the world not under US control were also citizens.

Within context, the only logical conclusion is that the people who have been deported were not born to US citizens.

There is a double standard applied, even as an 'unicorporated territory'.

Of course there is. If there weren't, there would be an awful lot of Panamanian citizens who would be considered US citizens and would thus likely be breaking US law by acting as Panamanian citizens. It would be a mess!

But the really crazy double standard would be the one in which McCain would have been unquestioningly considered a US citizen if he had been born in a London hospital completely outside the jurisdiction of the US, but not if he were born in a US-controlled portion of Panama.

It says that people who were born in the territory have been deported due to being in the country illegally.

No, it doesn't.

Have there been more al-Q attacks killing thousands of people in the US?

No...

No, just hundreds of thousands in Iraq.

Incidentally, 1000's of people weren't being killed in the US after the attack on Afghanistan. Considering in our history there has only been one such attack such as you described and that considering that the attack on Afghanistan was intended to deal with that, what does that have to do with Iraq?

Maybe not, but you did pick up another liberal voter to be lost in the noise. Then again, y'all are probably in the demographic that doesn't vote much. So, except for visible, national elections, we're probably safe to assume the status quo won't change much.

I love when you get wounded and tuck tail and growl and as you slink away. See that last line, it's not debate. Nor have your replies been for some time. So untuck the tail and pretend like you're here to actually apply rational arguments rather than just propagandize, hey?

No, just hundreds of thousands in Iraq.

Incidentally, 1000's of people weren't being killed in the US after the attack on Afghanistan. Considering in our history there has only been one such attack such as you described and that considering that the attack on Afghanistan was intended to deal with that, what does that have to do with Iraq?

I think it's the 'let them die over there, so they don't die over here' logic.

So long as we can keep bombs going off in Iraq, we're safe here. And the beauty of it is - there's really no way to 'prove' it wrong. Even if there WERE terror incidents here, directly connected to Al-Qaeda, you can still use that 'logic' to explain why there were not more attacks.

So, we stir up an anthill, sit here all proud of ourselves... meanwhile we create a situation that drives people towards agencies like Al Qaeda, and we leave them basically alone to strengthen themselves.

And, no doubt, when and if they strike again - we'll look all surpised. Again.

Here's more proof (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13183), as if it were needed, that O-bomb-a is just as bloodthirsty as McMurder.

Here's more proof (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13183), as if it were needed, that O-bomb-a is just as bloodthirsty as McMurder.

So you do not approve of taking care of business that should have been taken care of first?

Here's more proof (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13183), as if it were needed, that O-bomb-a is just as bloodthirsty as McMurder.

Strawman.

Obama presented himself as more about being against-the-Iraq-war, than purely anti-war. Which identifies him with most American voters, I suspect.

Most people have objected to the Iraq war, NOT because it is a war, but because of the way it was based on lies, spiralled out of control, and does more harm than good.

Given that the main instigation for war is (has been) supposed to be about 'terror', and that that has always been more about Afghanistan than Iraq - there's nothing inconsistent about that platform.

Have there been more al-Q attacks killing thousands of people in the US?

No...

So you're gonna buy that rock I'm selling you that keeps away tigers then?

No, it doesn't.

some people born in the Canal Zone when it was under American jurisdiction have been deported from the United States or convicted of being here illegally.

Deported or convicted of being here illegally. So some were convicted and weren't deported and some got deported.

One way or another, it makes it clear that not everyone born in the PCZ during US control was considered to be a citizen. Being born there was not the requirement. It was being born there to US citizens that did it.

One way or another, it makes it clear that not everyone born in the PCZ during US control was considered to be a citizen.


I'm not sure if that's the case or not - that's certainly not what the article says.

It says that not everyone has been considered equal, but it doesn't say whether or not they are considered citizens.


Being born there was not the requirement. It was being born there to US citizens that did it.

After the law was changed, perhaps.

The point, of course, would be that that law changed AFTER McCain was spawned.

On the contrary. I vote at every opportunity I get. But, probably more scary for you, I'd imagine, I'm incredibly active, also. Hell, I even got legal right to perform marriages, just so that I'll be able to perform gay marriages in Georgia, if a loophole ever opens up.

I'm your worst nightmare.
Hardly. First, you don't seem like Southern material. I doubt you'll last. Second, as long as you don't force me to marry a homosexual in some misguided Equal Opportunity effort, I couldn't care who marries whom.

Anyway, just keep taking yourself seriously. It's guaranteed to make friends.

I love when you get wounded and tuck tail and growl and as you slink away. See that last line, it's not debate. Nor have your replies been for some time. So untuck the tail and pretend like you're here to actually apply rational arguments rather than just propagandize, hey?
Pal, I'm just here to enjoy myself. These discussions have to end at some point because of the intractability on both sides. Why not end it with something harmless?

Pal, I'm just here to enjoy myself. These discussions have to end at some point because of the intractability on both sides. Why not end it with something harmless?

Like insulting your 'opposition'?

Is this 'harmless' in the same way that killing Iraqis is?

I'm not sure if that's the case or not - that's certainly not what the article says.

It says that not everyone has been considered equal, but it doesn't say whether or not they are considered citizens.

Someone who is deported or convicted of being here illegally is not a citizen.

After the law was changed, perhaps.

The point, of course, would be that that law changed AFTER McCain was spawned.

And, as I said, it was quite clearly changed to close a ridiculous loophole that many people wouldn't have really agreed was there anyways.

Born on US soil - definitely a citizen

Born outside of US soil and US control, but to parents who are US citizens - definitely a citizen.

Born in a US-controlled area that isn't US territory - ZOMG, it says and. What do we do if only one of the conditions is met??!! This is confusing!

So, to avoid the latter response, a law was passed. But it obviously didn't keep people from getting worked up over it.

Hardly. First, you don't seem like Southern material.

What, exactly, does it take to be "Southern material"?

I doubt you'll last.

What? You think anyone who doesn't agree with your politics eventually moves away?

Hardly. First, you don't seem like Southern material. I doubt you'll last.


I'd wonder how you defined Southern material there?

I've managed to put up with y'all for almost a decade, already... I can probably hold out a little longer. :)


Second, as long as you don't force me to marry a homosexual in some misguided Equal Opportunity effort, I couldn't care who marries whom.


Really? I'm sure you would vote against constitutional amendments to redefine marriage, too.

(The point, which you missed, was that I not only vote, but am also 'active').


Anyway, just keep taking yourself seriously. It's guaranteed to make friends.

Is taking yourself seriously an insult? Is this a southern vernacular thing?

Someone who is deported or convicted of being here illegally is not a citizen.


Unless there are citizens and citizens, eh?

And we already know, for sure, that there are (at least) two different legal entities termed 'citizen'.

Unless there are citizens and citizens, eh?

And we already know, for sure, that there are (at least) two different legal entities termed 'citizen'.

Yes, we do. There are natural-born and naturalized citizens.

None of them can be deported or convicted of being in the country illegally while a citizen, as they are all equally covered by Constitutional protections. Only if citizenship is revoked for some reason is either action possible.

Yes, we do.

The important part.

I certainly don't know every in-and-out of American constitutional law, precedent and general jurisprudence to know how far beyond that it extends.

But, apparently even some consitutional experts believe there is some space for contention.

The important part.

I certainly don't know every in-and-out of American constitutional law, precedent and general jurisprudence to know how far beyond that it extends.

But, apparently even some consitutional experts believe there is some space for contention.

Constitutional experts generally agree that only a natural-born can be President, since it says so in the Constitution (although there is some contention even on that - some argue that the 14th Amendment effectively does away with that requirement, but it isn't a common argument).

The contention here is over whether or not a particular set of persons count as natural born. Most people, Constitutional experts or otherwise, would say that the question is settled. Personally, I think it's pretty clear that the law the author of the article cites was meant to close a loophole and those who passed it probably thought that it would settle the question. A few people, however, are still raising it.

In the end, it is incredibly unlikely that there will be any serious threat to McCain's candidacy from this issue.

Constitutional experts generally agree that only a natural-born can be President, since it says so in the Constitution (although there is some contention even on that - some argue that the 14th Amendment effectively does away with that requirement, but it isn't a common argument).

The contention here is over whether or not a particular set of persons count as natural born. Most people, Constitutional experts or otherwise, would say that the question is settled. Personally, I think it's pretty clear that the law the author of the article cites was meant to close a loophole and those who passed it probably thought that it would settle the question. A few people, however, are still raising it.


Yes, the law was meant to close a loophole. ANd maybe it does.

But McCain was STILL born before that law.


In the end, it is incredibly unlikely that there will be any serious threat to McCain's candidacy from this issue.

Oh, I absolutely agree.

Recent history, especially, has shown that constitutionality is relevent only when it's politically expedient.

What, exactly, does it take to be "Southern material."


Another attempt to use ad hominem in place of an actual argument, it would appear - since the usual 'fuck and run' modus operandi seems to be holding true.

I can think of Southern people I admire, and some less-so. I wonder which ones I'm supposed to be considering 'Southern material'?

Yes, the law was meant to close a loophole. ANd maybe it does.

But McCain was STILL born before that law.

Interestingly enough, laws can be applied retroactively when they help someone.

And if the law was meant to close a loophole (which was only there under a specific semantic interpretation in the first place), it's pretty clear that the intention was to confer natural-born status.

Oh, I absolutely agree.

Recent history, especially, has shown that constitutionality is relevent only when it's politically expedient.

I hardly think that's the issue. In this case, it's more a "spirit of the law" vs. a "ZOMG HOW CAN WE GET RID OF MCCAIN?" reading of it.

Another attempt to use ad hominem in place of an actual argument, it would appear - since the usual 'fuck and run' modus operandi seems to be holding true.

I can think of Southern people I admire, and some less-so. I wonder which ones I'm supposed to be considering 'Southern material'?

Given the fact that he doesn't think you qualify, probably the latter.

Maybe it's those people who fly the Confederate flag in place of the US one and pine for the "South to rise again"?

Interestingly enough, laws can be applied retroactively when they help someone.


So, it comes down to what the original law says? Or is there a highcourt precedent based on it?

That's what we're looking for then, yes? The basis for assuming it was intended to be retroactive?


I hardly think that's the issue. In this case, it's more a "spirit of the law" vs. a "ZOMG HOW CAN WE GET RID OF MCCAIN?" reading of it.

The article didn't really seem to be suggesting partisanship.

This sounds like X-files territory to me... everything is a conspiracy, it's impossible to question McCain's constitutional fitness for President without it being some part of an deliberate and political plan to spanner his works.

Given the fact that he doesn't think you qualify, probably the latter.

Maybe it's those people who fly the Confederate flag in place of the US one and pine for the "South to rise again"?

So - I'm being 'mocked' for not being a racist, religiously intolerant gynophobe? I think I'm strangely comfortable with the insult, then...

So, it comes down to what the original law says? Or is there a highcourt precedent based on it?

That's what we're looking for then, yes? The basis for assuming it was intended to be retroactive?

Unless the law actually specifically states it one way or another or we know that it was debated in Congress and either included or excluded, the courts would be the final determinant.

From what I can tell, that seems to have been the intent, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a court that would rule otherwise. You want to see some yelling about activist judges? Just watch the children of many military families in the post WWII era get suddenly declared non-citizens.

The article didn't really seem to be suggesting partisanship.

This sounds like X-files territory to me... everything is a conspiracy, it's impossible to question McCain's constitutional fitness for President without it being some part of an deliberate and political plan to spanner his works.

The people bringing it up are doing it to try and throw a monkey wrench in his candidacy. And they are the ones going out looking for scholars who will argue their point.

Is it possible to question it from a scholarly point of view? Sure. But it's really a bit of mental masturbation. Under the same semantic interpretation, the 1st amendment only protects the right to peaceably assemble if one also petitions the government for a redress of grievances.

Edit: I'd also point out that it isn't really a discussion of Constitutionality anyways, except as a resulting issue. The issue here is the interpretation of the law, not directly of the Constitution - which does not directly define "natural born".

Unless the law actually specifically states it one way or another or we know that it was debated in Congress and either included or excluded, the courts would be the final determinant.

From what I can tell, that seems to have been the intent, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a court that would rule otherwise. You want to see some yelling about activist judges? Just watch the children of many military families in the post WWII era get suddenly declared non-citizens.


And here's where it gets interesting for me. It was briefly bounced in the Senate, and a kind of gentleman's agreement has been made. But - is that binding? Precedent setting? It did come up about McCain, so it's not like it's some esoteric ivory-tower situation, this situation has actually been (briefly) discussed by 'a jury of his peers', so to speak.

The fact that they kind of gave it a wink doesn't mean the situation is resolved, necessarily. We still could (should?) have the discussion in real terms.

Of course, it would be political suicide.


The people bringing it up are doing it to try and throw a monkey wrench in his candidacy. And they are the ones going out looking for scholars who will argue their point.

Is it possible to question it from a scholarly point of view? Sure. But it's really a bit of mental masturbation. Under the same semantic interpretation, the 1st amendment only protects the right to peaceably assemble if one also petitions the government for a redress of grievances.

Back to what I was saying about constitutionality only being important where it's expedient.

Maybe it's because I have something of a vested interest in the specifics of how the US treats it's citizens-versus-non-citizens, but I find the whole constitutional argument to be annoyingly weak. A ghost hand reaching down through the decades to spank you if you're naughty... but only under certain, really specific, circumstances... and hang the rest.

Fine, ignore the constitution if you want... but then don't try to spank people with it, or argue it as a reason to do anything.

Pal, I'm just here to enjoy myself. These discussions have to end at some point because of the intractability on both sides. Why not end it with something harmless?

Translation: I've got no argument left to make so I'll end it with something harmless (like personal attacks).


I added that last bit, but since what you're "ending it with" is insults, that's what you're calling "harmless". Regardless, we agree. You do not have an argument left and your insults do demonstrate as much.

And here's where it gets interesting for me. It was briefly bounced in the Senate, and a kind of gentleman's agreement has been made. But - is that binding? Precedent setting? It did come up about McCain, so it's not like it's some esoteric ivory-tower situation, this situation has actually been (briefly) discussed by 'a jury of his peers', so to speak.

.

Talking about legibility, now that the primaries have been run, if either obama or mccain were found to be illegible at this stage, how would a new candidate be slected? Would it just go to the person who came 2nd in the primaires?

And here's where it gets interesting for me. It was briefly bounced in the Senate, and a kind of gentleman's agreement has been made. But - is that binding? Precedent setting? It did come up about McCain, so it's not like it's some esoteric ivory-tower situation, this situation has actually been (briefly) discussed by 'a jury of his peers', so to speak.

Like I said, the ultimate decision, if it were challenged, would be in the courts. The Senate resolution would likely carry some weight, but it was one of those "Congress expressing its opinion" type things, so it isn't specifically law.

Back to what I was saying about constitutionality only being important where it's expedient.

And, again, that isn't the issue. No one is arguing that Constitutionality isn't important. The argument is over the particular interpretation of the law. It isn't even about interpretation of the Constitution, because the argument isn't about whether or not a non-natural born citizen can be President. Thus, the actual Constitutional issue is not in question. It is a discussion of the law on exactly what "natural born" means.

Maybe it's because I have something of a vested interest in the specifics of how the US treats it's citizens-versus-non-citizens, but I find the whole constitutional argument to be annoyingly weak. A ghost hand reaching down through the decades to spank you if you're naughty... but only under certain, really specific, circumstances... and hang the rest.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Fine, ignore the constitution if you want... but then don't try to spank people with it, or argue it as a reason to do anything.

As has been explained numerous times to other people on this board, "I don't agree with that interpretation of the law" does not mean "ZOMG HANG THE CONSTITUTION!"

Meanwhile, the Constitution limits and defines governmental action, not individual action. So the only entities that can be "spanked" by the Constitution are governmental.

Talking about legibility, now that the primaries have been run, if either obama or mccain were found to be illegible at this stage, how would a new candidate be slected? Would it just go to the person who came 2nd in the primaires?

It would be up to the parties. In an effort at pretending to be democratic entities, they would probably go with the runner-up, but there is nothing legally requiring them to. They don't even have to hold primaries in the first place.

Talking about legibility, now that the primaries have been run, if either obama or mccain were found to be illegible at this stage, how would a new candidate be slected? Would it just go to the person who came 2nd in the primaires?

It might depend on the specifics.

As it stands right now, the Democrats would probably just jump straight to Clinton, if Obama got scuppered, somehow. But, the Republican race wasn't so closely contested. They might jump down to second place - or they might make a decision of expedience, and pick whichever candidate they figured had the best shot at defeating the Democrat (whichever it was) candidate.

Talking about legibility, now that the primaries have been run, if either obama or mccain were found to be illegible at this stage, how would a new candidate be slected? Would it just go to the person who came 2nd in the primaires?
I think you mean eligibility... Neither party has held their nominating convention yet, hence haven't nominated candidates. My guess is that all the delegates committed to the ineligible candidate would be released to vote their conscience.

What, exactly, does it take to be "Southern material"?



What? You think anyone who doesn't agree with your politics eventually moves away?
It takes someone that doesn't consider all Georgians to be retards.

It takes someone that doesn't consider all Georgians to be retards.

Wow. That was a bit beyond the grave...

This was about your 'attempt' to insult me, wasn't it?

I don't think all Georgians are retards. Hell, I married one, and I knew a few others that I'm not at all averse to.

I'm willing to make special exception for the right candidates, though.

Cut the digs, please, GnI, Myrmidonisia. Honours are even, no more needed.