Another possible Nobel twist(s)...

On Oct 17, 10:28*am, "~^ beancounter ~^"
wrote:
oh well then...dumb ass dem logic tells us he must
be a racist as well...ha, ha, ha!!!!!

Imbecile.

g.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:23:40 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

BJ Conner wrote:
wrote:

... OTOH, I've gotta admit, much like the possible
_technical_ legal issues surrounding Obama's place of birth, that I don't think
the Founding Fathers had the intent to prevent such an acceptance, at insofar as
the medal itself - the money, however, is another issue. ...

"...... birth, that I don't think the Founding Fathers..."
The operativie words finally come out "I don't think". nor should
you try. Do something your good at, if you ever find anything.

Yep, Rick has crossed the line from right-wing partisan to
right-wing whackjob. The moment you start talking about
"_technical_ legal issues surrounding Obama's place of birth"
you've left the sanity line way, *WAY* back in your rearview
mirror and you're speeding hell bent for leather into loony
land.

As I understand it, the "birthers" claim is that Obama was born in Kenya and
since his mother could not have been in the US 5 years after her 14th birthday
(as she wasn't yet 19 at the time), based on US law as it was at the time of his
birth, it would mean that "technically" he _might_ not be a "natural born
citizen," as he would have been had his mother been 3 months older (assuming,
arguendo, that he had been born in Kenya in the first place).

Since at varying times in US legal history, these factors have changed up and
down age-wise, etc., and that change has been essentially an arbitrary and/or
"ministerial" type of thing (as opposed to something with a basis in law or
legal theory), I don't believe that those involved in the drafting and signing
the US Constitution would have had the slightest intent to exclude someone under
such circumstances, even if some future unforeseen law created such a
technicality. While they were arbitrary and absolute in the _age_ requirements
- IOW, if a person weren't of the mandated legal age when elected - they
obviously recognized that "natural born citizen" involved intent as well as one
or more particular facts of parentage and birth and that it did not solely
depend upon geographic location of birth (the Naturalization Act of 1790, by
some of the same folks, for example). If it did, among the other reasons, they
could have had to wait at least slightly less than 35 years (or 14, depending)
to elect a POTUS.

Long story short, IMO, whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or on a ship in
international waters, he's eligible to be POTUS as a "natural born citizen"
insofar as the Constitution, and "the Founding Fathers,'"_intend(ed)_, even if
some weird technicality in various code changes appears to create a technical
legal issue surrounding his mother's - not his - age. He was born to a
US-citizen mother of a father who had resided the US for the required time.

About the only thing that _might_ hold water is if his mother renounced her US
citizenship before his birth but still as an (legal, majority-age) adult. As an
aside, I don't know the exact dates, but if she was 17 when he was conceived,
that would give the right-to-life types among the birthers a real attack of
indigestion... IAC and AFAIK, even the wackiest of the "birthers" doesn't
allege any such renunciation, but ??? (and really, I don't care).

HTH,
R

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:14:45 -0400, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Something I've yet to see addressed is the whole legal issue of Obama and
the
Peace Prize. While Roosevelt and Wilson were awarding it while POTUS,
I've no
idea what was ruled, if anything, by the SCOTUS on it.

why??

First, let's separate the "award," the medal, and the money as they are
distinct, discreet things. While he would be free to accept the "award," the
actual medal and the money are another matter. Assuming the medal to have
"nominal value" (as an object itself), he's seemingly clear there. The money,
OTOH, is not of "nominal value," and therefore, his acceptance of it is, IMO,
iffy. Moreover, for example, there are the tax implications of it, should he
personally accept it and donate it.

Because no one would have questioned, in any way whatsoever, the
'legitimacy' of the award. Somehow, the black dude gets the award, and some
folks have questions?? Sheesh, this whole tack of yours is starting to
reek.....badly.

Um, why are you bringing race into this? IAC, even if race mattered in this
case, he is just as "white" as he is "black." Further, he didn't give himself
the thing, 5 Norwegians gave it to Obama the US President, not Obama the lawyer,
the husband, father, whatever, but not Obama, the person. I will step out on a
limb and guess that you do not claim that he won it for anything he did prior to
his election in Illinois (and really, anything prior to his election as
President, or at least his nomination - IOW, if Hillary had been the Dem
nominee, he would not have even been in contention, even if nominated). So
Obama the person, along with whatever personal physical attributes, really isn't
even relevant to the issue of the Peace Prize. But Obama winning as the
President of the US, not as the person, is also why it's a potentially sticky
legal situation. He didn't win as Obama the person or even for any act he did
as a person, he won for what Obama the POTUS has done or potentially will do
entirely in that role. As a contrast, IMO, had he been a peace activist, which
played even a substantial role in his getting elected President, and then won
the Prize, also as a result of what he did prior to election, there would not be
(a) potential issue(s).

TC,
R
Tom

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Yep, Rick has crossed the line from right-wing partisan to
right-wing whackjob. The moment you start talking about
"_technical_ legal issues surrounding Obama's place of birth"
you've left the sanity line way, *WAY* back in your rearview
mirror and you're speeding hell bent for leather into loony
land.

As I understand it, the "birthers" claim is that Obama was born in Kenya and
since his mother could not have been in the US 5 years after her 14th birthday
(as she wasn't yet 19 at the time), based on US law as it was at the time of his
birth, it would mean that "technically" he _might_ not be a "natural born
citizen," as he would have been had his mother been 3 months older (assuming,
arguendo, that he had been born in Kenya in the first place). ...

Barack Obama was born in the United States. It is insane to infer,
suggest, argue, speculate or wish otherwise. Get it ?

Good lord man, you've gone off your ****in' rocker. I wish you a
speedy recovery.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Oct 24, 5:22*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:14:45 -0400, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
Something I've yet to see addressed is the whole legal issue of Obama and
the
Peace Prize. *While Roosevelt and Wilson were awarding it while POTUS,
I've no
idea what was ruled, if anything, by the SCOTUS on it.

why??

First, let's separate the "award," the medal, and the money as they are
distinct, discreet things. *While he would be free to accept the "award," the
actual medal and the money are another matter. *Assuming the medal to have
"nominal value" (as an object itself), he's seemingly clear there. *The money,
OTOH, is not of "nominal value," and therefore, his acceptance of it is, IMO,
iffy. *Moreover, for example, there are the tax implications of it, should he
personally accept it and donate it. *

Because no one would have questioned, in any way whatsoever, the
'legitimacy' of the award. Somehow, the black dude gets the award, and some
folks have questions?? Sheesh, this whole tack of yours is starting to
reek.....badly.

Um, why are you bringing race into this? *IAC, even if race mattered in this
case, he is just as "white" as he is "black." *Further, he didn't give himself
the thing, 5 Norwegians gave it to Obama the US President, not Obama the lawyer,
the husband, father, whatever, but not Obama, the person. *I will step out on a
limb and guess that you do not claim that he won it for anything he did prior to
his election in Illinois (and really, anything prior to his election as
President, or at least his nomination - IOW, if Hillary had been the Dem
nominee, he would not have even been in contention, even if nominated). *So
Obama the person, along with whatever personal physical attributes, really isn't
even relevant to the issue of the Peace Prize. *But Obama winning as the
President of the US, not as the person, is also why it's a potentially sticky
legal situation. *He didn't win as Obama the person or even for any act he did
as a person, he won for what Obama the POTUS has done or potentially will do
entirely in that role. *As a contrast, IMO, had he been a peace activist, which
played even a substantial role in his getting elected President, and then won
the Prize, also as a result of what he did prior to election, there would not be
(a) potential issue(s).

TC,
R

Idiot.

g.

On Oct 24, 11:26*am, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:23:40 -0500, Ken Fortenberry





wrote:
BJ Conner wrote:
wrote:

... *OTOH, I've gotta admit, much like the possible
_technical_ legal issues surrounding Obama's place of birth, that I don't think
the Founding Fathers had the intent to prevent such an acceptance, at insofar as
the medal itself - the money, however, is another issue. ...

"...... birth, that I don't think the Founding Fathers..."
The operativie words finally come out *"I don't think". *nor should
you try. *Do something your good at, if you ever find anything.

Yep, Rick has crossed the line from right-wing partisan to
right-wing whackjob. The moment you start talking about
"_technical_ legal issues surrounding Obama's place of birth"
you've left the sanity line way, *WAY* back in your rearview
mirror and you're speeding hell bent for leather into loony
land.

As I understand it, the "birthers" claim is that Obama was born in Kenya and
since his mother could not have been in the US 5 years after her 14th birthday
(as she wasn't yet 19 at the time), based on US law as it was at the time of his
birth, it would mean that "technically" he _might_ not be a "natural born
citizen," as he would have been had his mother been 3 months older (assuming,
arguendo, that he had been born in Kenya in the first place). *

Since at varying times in US legal history, these factors have changed up and
down age-wise, etc., and that change has been essentially an arbitrary and/or
"ministerial" type of thing (as opposed to something with a basis in law or
legal theory), I don't believe that those involved in the drafting and signing
the US Constitution would have had the slightest intent to exclude someone under
such circumstances, even if some future unforeseen law created such a
technicality. *While they were arbitrary and absolute in the _age_ requirements
- IOW, if a person weren't of the mandated legal age when elected - they
obviously recognized that "natural born citizen" involved intent as well as one
or more particular facts of parentage and birth and that it did not solely
depend upon geographic location of birth (the Naturalization Act of 1790, by
some of the same folks, for example). *If it did, among the other reasons, they
could have had to wait at least slightly less than 35 years (or 14, depending)
to elect a POTUS.

Long story short, IMO, whether Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or on a ship in
international waters, he's eligible to be POTUS as a "natural born citizen"
insofar as the Constitution, and "the Founding Fathers,'"_intend(ed)_, even if
some weird technicality in various code changes appears to create a technical
legal issue surrounding his mother's - not his - age. *He was born to a
US-citizen mother of a father who had resided the US for the required time. *

About the only thing that _might_ hold water is if his mother renounced her US
citizenship before his birth but still as an (legal, majority-age) adult. *As an
aside, I don't know the exact dates, but if she was 17 when he was conceived,
that would give the right-to-life types among the birthers a real attack of
indigestion... *IAC and *AFAIK, even the wackiest of the "birthers" doesn't
allege any such renunciation, but ???

Imbecile.

(and really, I don't care).

Yeah, obviously.

Moron.

HTH,
R

Dumbass.

g.