It does, but only in matters of level of guilt. Now you are mixing civil and criminal with constitutional.
lets not go off subject shall we?? we are discussing constitutional law here... intent of the founding fathers did NOT come with the packet. On 11/3/08, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
