Ted Cruz, so whaddya think?

How come I have to follow the Framers' intent? Did they ever follow my intent? Politeness has its limits when it's not mutual.

 

I just remembered when I signed that uncoerced contract.

 

If one is birthed via c-section they may not be president, as they aren't natural born.

 

I was making a joke with a point. People here are trying to interpret the law one way or another, but until the supreme Court hears arguments we won't really know. Because, just going by the wording without reason or intent, my scenario of c-sectioners not being valid would sound appropriate. Any reason applied, and of course even Donald Trump can run even though he was ripped by Beelzebub's tar-laden belly, in America.

 

That statement right there bugs the hell out of me. Why would people want the court to tell us what the law means? The term has already been define contemporary with the time of the creation of the Constitution and it is available to read. It is not difficult to understand and it seems quite logical. People of today might want to change it slightly or radically but before deciding, they should read it and then amend it if change is desired. What I object to is ignoring the requirement out of ignorance of meaning of Natural Born citizen and the intent of why the requirement was stipulated. Having the court change the meaning is a ridiculous lazy form of extreme apathy. But then, so is ignoring the requirement.

 

The courts aren't there to change the meaning, they are there to interpret. I've heard comments on tv from people who interpret it both ways. Eventually, the courts decide on the interpretation they believe the constitution implied. Or at least that's their charge. That's why they are there.

 

Did you read it yourself?

 

10 million people on net gained

Wow! They just blow off those that lost their health insurance. They did the same to the workers that got cut back to part time work.

 

Wow! You just blow off those who gained health insurance.

By the way, it's who, not that.

Besides, if you don't consider health insurance a worthy freedom to subsidize, why do you care when it gets unsubsidized? That's your goal. Why aren't you praising the loss of health insurance to the undeserving scrub 47%, for example Republican small business owners?

 

Glenn Beck leaves the Republican Party.
O'Reilly disagrees with Glenn Beck over everything.
Beck would vote for Ted Cruz. O'Reilly argues that Cruz is a loser.
They agree that they dislike Karl Rove and his dirty tactics.
And there are more disagreements.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/41324592...=obnetwork&playlist_id=trending#sp=show-clips

(How do I display this video as a video?)

 

No I have not. It could be simple as you state, but in that case the courts decision would be obvious. From the bit I saw on tv (cnn I think) there appeared to be a debate. Perhaps I'll read the part myself if I get a few minutes. But regardless, you must admit there are groups who interpret both ways. Just because you find it obvious doesn't mean everyone dose, else there wouldn't be segments on tv, articles in papers and such discussing the issue.

But either way, I don't think it should be a hindrance if one has lived their whole life in America. So if it's deemed allowable, fine by me. If it isn't, I'd be in favor of an amendment as I stated earlier.

 

My views are all over the map. I lean liberal, but I also appreciate common sense and that belongs to everyone, even if few use it.

 

I wasn't claiming Santa is real, I was claiming that there are people who believe in him.