I, too, have a severe weakness for Denny Crane...... one of the funniest characters ever to hit the screen.
On 11/3/08, Cold Water <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Speaking of lousy lawyers and embraceable ewes, the minute I saw the > subject > of this thread I thought of last week's episode of Boston Legal where Denny > Crane (I can mention the name Denny Crane without being accused of > something > stupid right?) and Alan Shore went to a dude ranch and Denny took his > Viagra > and had an episode of Priapism and then outside their tent comes this > (lovely LOL) ewe.... Sorry! Boston legal is a guilty pleasure of mine... > Anyway, each time I see "euwetopia" (have spent no time there and don't > know > anything about the place) mentioned here I think of this type of > thing. Are > they a bunch of sheep fuckers? > > CW > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "PoliticalForum" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 05:07 > Subject: Re: Embraceable ewes... > > > > By the way... > > Are you trying to say that the Law does not consider intent? > > Like I said, I think you are likely a very lousy Lawyer. > > > On Nov 3, 2:02 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > INTENT is NOT law. If an interpretation is needed it goes to the > > courts.... > > Until they issue a RULING (not worded as a "probability") then the law is > > "Defined". > > > > This section (8-1403) is in an ever evolving stste of definition... we > > must > > live with what is/was at the time it happened until the definition is > made > > a > > part of the Constitution to ensure equal ENFORCEMENT. > > > > On this matter the constitution does not "speak for itself". If it did > > this > > conversation could and would not take place. There would be no opinions > or > > rulings issued or needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Again, I believe the Constitution speaks for itself. > > > > > And just because some Law didn't keep up, I am not going to make that > > > a reason to overlook the intent of the Constitution. > > > > > On Nov 3, 1:36 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > iT IS NOT MY OPINION.... it was/is the LAW. sorry you can't seem to > > > > come > > > to > > > > grips with that. > > > > > > read 8-1403 AGAIN.... IT SPECIFICALLY LEFT OUT THE CANAL ZONE BIRTHS > > > this > > > > was noted and corrected AFTER McCain was born. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > So let me get this straight... > > > > > > > You seem to believe that a child BORN to Citizens of the U.S. has > > > > > his > > > > > "natural" part taken away depending on where he was Born? > > > > > > > That is your position? > > > > > > > And you wonder why I call you ignorant?!?!?!?!? > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 1:13 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > FROM YOUR LINK..........it does not say he IS a Natural Born > > > > > > citizen > > > now > > > > > > does it??? > > > > > > > > it is an issued opinion, not a ruling READING > > > COMPREHENSION!!!!!!!!!!! > > > > > > > > This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this > > > > > > motion > > > for > > > > > > provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born > citizen. > > > > > > > > July 9, 2008 > > > > > > > > *Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. > > > > > > 08-14< > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621#> > > > > > > * > > > > > > > > *Abstract: * > > > > > > Senator McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to U.S. citizen > > > > > parents. > > > > > > The Canal Zone was territory controlled by the United States, but > > > > > > it > > > was > > > > > not > > > > > > incorporated into the Union. As requested by Senator McCain's > > > campaign, > > > > > > distinguished constitutional lawyers Laurence Tribe and Theodore > > > Olson > > > > > > examined the law and issued a detailed opinion offering two > > > > > > reasons > > > that > > > > > > Senator McCain was a natural born citizen. Neither is sound under > > > current > > > > > > law. The Tribe-Olson Opinion suggests that the Canal Zone, then > > > > > > under > > > > > > exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the > > > > > > Fourteenth > > > > > > Amendment's grant of citizenship to "all persons born . . . in > the > > > United > > > > > > States." However, in the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court held > > > > > > that > > > > > > "unincorporated territories" were not part of the United States > > > > > > for > > > > > > constitutional purposes. Accordingly, many decisions hold that > > > persons > > > > > born > > > > > > in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment > > > > > > citizens. > > > The > > > > > > Tribe-Olson Opinion also suggests that Senator McCain obtained > > > > > citizenship > > > > > > by statute. However, the only statute in effect in 1936 did not > > > > > > cover > > > the > > > > > > Canal Zone. Recognizing the gap, in 1937, Congress passed a > > > citizenship > > > > > law > > > > > > applicable only to the Canal Zone, granting Senator McCain > > > citizenship, > > > > > but > > > > > > eleven months too late for him to be a citizen at birth. Because > > > Senator > > > > > > John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a "natural born > > > > > Citizen" > > > > > > and thus is not "eligible to the Office of President" under the > > > > > > Constitution. > > > > > > > > This essay concludes by exploring how changes in constitutional > > > > > > law > > > > > implied > > > > > > by the Tribe-Olson Opinion, such as limiting the Insular Cases > and > > > > > expanding > > > > > > judicial review of immigration and nationality laws passed by > > > Congress, > > > > > > could make Senator McCain a citizen at birth and thus a natural > > > > > > born > > > > > > citizen. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Gaar < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Funny... > > > > > > > > > The COURTS Ruled on the matter. > > > > > > > > > Again, your ignorance of the matter notwithstanding... > > > > > > > > >http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=87147 > > > > > > > > > Pretty sure the "Courts" are seperate from Congress. > > > > > > > > > As for Obama and proving his... > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you should READ the Document in question and get back > to > > > > > > > me > > > on > > > > > > > whether someone ineligible can Serve as President, and then > > > > > > > explain > > > to > > > > > > > me how you believe someone not eligible should be allowed to > > > > > > > run? > > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 12:46 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > A decision or law or resolution passed by "Congress" (McCain > > > > > > > > gave > > > his > > > > > > > > records to the Senate, NOT Congress... your ignorance > > > > > notwithstanding, > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > very telling) > > > > > > > > does not have the strength of nor does it supercede or set > > > > > > > > aside > > > the > > > > > > > > constitution....your ignorance or wishful/fantasy thinking > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > notwithstanding. > > > > > > > > > > Why has Obama not acted in the same, or even a like manner, > > > > > > > > when > > > such > > > > > > > > a thing is questioned of him? > > > > > > > > Show me the article, clause or law that says he should. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Gaar < > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > > > I believe I have a Duty to uphold it in the terms "I" > > > > > > > > > believe > > > it to > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > written, and not simply go with what you and your's believe > > > > > > > > > it > > > to > > > > > be. > > > > > > > > > > > When questioned about such a thing, McCain gave ALL of his > > > Records > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > Congress, and let them decide if he was or was not able to > > > Serve as > > > > > > > > > President. > > > > > > > > > > > Why has Obama not acted in the same, or even a like manner, > > > when > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > a thing is questioned of him? > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 12:34 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I did not write the laws you find lacking.......... > > > > > > > > > > However > > > we > > > > > BOTH > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > duty to see it upheld AS WRITTEN.....not more not less. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Gaar < > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 12:28 pm, "Mark Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not believe , I know, the constitution has the > > > > > > > > > > > > force > > > of > > > > > law. > > > > > > > So > > > > > > > > > far > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > has not been broken. > > > > > > > > > > > > > You and your's attempt to do just that > > > > > > > > > > > notwithstanding... > > > > > > > > > > > > > If he Wins, and it is proven he cannot Serve, do you > > > > > > > > > > > think > > > all > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > > > > people were planning on their Vote going to Joe Biden? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And so we have you and yours intentionally trying to > > > > > > > > > > > change > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > outcome of an Election, simply because you were not of > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > mindset > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > check your Candidate for his ability to Serve under the > > > terms > > > > > set > > > > > > > > > > > forth in the Document you "claim" to cherish... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Mark M. Kahle > > > > > > > > > > Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the > > > difference.... > > > > > Me- > > > > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Mark M. Kahle > > > > > > > > Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the > > > > > > > > difference.... > > > Me- > > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Mark M. Kahle > > > > > > Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... > > > > > > Me- > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- > > > > Mark M. Kahle > > > > Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... Me- > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > Mark M. Kahle > > Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... Me- > Hide > > quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > -- Mark M. Kahle Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... Me --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
