Worldwide Sawdust - Recent Comments

Ideas 4 GLOBAL Urising - RAINBOW REVOLUTION

RogerARTcom — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:30:24 GMT

Ideas 4 GLOBAL Uprising - NOW Going On...

Earth Citizens Unite ( IN COLOR ) All Around OUR Earth

- OUR E.C. GLOBAL - RAINBOW REVOLUTION -

JOIN IN anyGLOBALtime

info @....

http://www.RogerART.com

Peace, Love & Later, RogerART.com
.

The March 1 raid was carried out not to defend Colombia from terrorism, but to murder one man

soapsoap — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:15:07 GMT

I know nothing about war , i am a technician. But i am a Colombian. and what you call murder of a man , i call relief from a terrorist.

Or how do americans call the death-row???? Assasination?? no .

Let me tell you , that for more than 30 years we have lived with guerilleros on our country, and that almost all the people i know could tell me of one or various members of their families kidnapped by guerrila , to ask for ransom money at some point of time. In my family two cousins have been kidnapped for money by guerilla.

and this guy raul reyes.. might have something with all of this kidnapps.

Also remember guerillas members are protecting drug traffic, and it is unusual to find guerilleros on a camp without human shields. As they use their captives to prevent law forces to go for them.

I don't feel mercy for people who have been terrorizing my fellow countrymen for more than 3 decades.

I might be wrong , but i and not you know what is guerrila in my country, and as difference what you say is an opinion , what i say is a fact of my daily life.

This article is total BS - the writer hasn't done their homework

cbincovington — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:27:20 GMT

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(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."

From here: http://www.usconstitution.net/...

I have to believe

Bob Higgins — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:14:28 GMT

that we need to concern ourselves much more with substance and far less with symbolism, which is essentially what Obama is saying re the lapel pin issue.

Thanks for reading the piece and taking time to comment.

Bob

What's the goal?

Who's Sane — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:57:07 GMT

If patriotism could be assured by men's jewelry this would be a simpler world, wouldn't it? You could look at a guy and say, "He's no terrorist" and wave him past the metal detectors because OBVIOUSLY if he has on a U.S. flag he must be a good guy. Life isn't that simple.

I think it's great that people put up a flag on national holidays, I'm proud to live in this country myself, and to participate in this smelly democracy. But I think all too often displays of the flag are a form of political camouflage intended to convey legitimacy by simply showing a token.

Jewelry is great if you're trying to make a fashion statement, I'm sure.

Action speaks much louder when the question is patriotism.

Many people aspire to the presidency. You can feel it's a goal for McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, and others. Senator Obama conveys a different reason for campaigning: he doesn't seem to care about the title, that's just a means to an end not the actual goal. Obama's priority is about getting people to pay attention and own the outcomes, and he's going to work on his goals no matter what his title is - it just so happens that being President is a somewhat better better platform.

Ex Post Facto laws

liberaljournal — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:11:01 GMT

There are two parts to your question: 1) Does the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws render retroactive telecom immunity 2) Is Congress complicit in high crimes and misdemeanors?

To the best of my knowledge, here are the answers. #2 is a little easier, so I'll talk about that first. Congress itself is the legal arbiter of whether executive actions are high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress can decide to let crimes go unpunished. That's why it's up to us, the people, to vote them out if they don't do it. That's why, even though some people think politically we should sit on our hands because it will help Democrats win reelection if we don't institute impeachment proceedings, we still must. We the people are ultimately the only protectors of ourselves from illegal government exercises.

We have to support the efforts of Congressman Wexler and others, and I know you have. But the majority in Congress and the majority of people would rather let term limits run its course than uphold the rule of law.

As to #1, the courts have distinguished between civil and criminal laws in deciding what constitutes an 'ex post facto' law. Courts have said that the ex post facto prohibition was only meant to extend to government actions which criminally punished innocent conduct or extended sentences after the fact.

Recent cases dealing with ex post facto laws often cite back to a 1798 case, Calder v Bull, 3 U.S. 386, where the CT legislature passed a law requiring a new hearing over a dispute of an estate. Justice Chase wrote in part:

"I shall endeavour to show what law is to be considered an ex post facto law, within the words and meaning of the prohibition in the Federal Constitution....The prohibition, in the letter, is not to pass any law concerning, and after the fact; but the plain and obvious meaning and intention of the prohibition is this; that the Legislatures of the several states, shall not pass laws, after a fact done by a subject, or citizen, which shall have relation to such fact, and shall punish him for having done it. The prohibition considered in this light, is an additional bulwark in favour of the personal security of the subject, to protect his person from punishment by legislative acts, having a retrospective operation. I do not think it was inserted to secure the citizen in his private rights, of either property, or contracts. The prohibitions not to make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, and not to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, were inserted to secure private rights; but the restriction not to pass any ex post facto law, was to secure the person of the subject from injury, or punishment, in consequence of such law. If the prohibition against making ex post facto laws was intended to secure personal rights from being affected, or injured, by such laws, and the prohibition is sufficiently extensive for that object, the other restraints, I have enumerated, were unnecessary, and therefore improper; for both of them are retrospective....
There is a great and apparent difference between making an UNLAWFUL act LAWFUL; and the making an innocent action criminal, and punishing it as a CRIME. The expressions 'ex post facto laws,' are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors. The celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone, in his commentaries, considers an ex post facto law precisely in the same light I have done. His opinion is confirmed by his successor, Mr. Wooddeson; and by the author of the Federalist, who I esteem superior to both, for his extensive and accurate knowledge of the true principles of Government.
[Justice Chase goes on to cite State constitutions which clearly mention crimes or criminal laws in their 'ex post facto provisions]
I believe that but one instance can be found in which a British judge called a statute, that affected contracts made before the statute, an ex post facto law; but the judges of Great Britain always considered penal statutes, that created crimes, or encreased the punishment of them, as ex post facto laws.
If the term ex post facto law is to be construed to include and to prohibit the enacting any law after a fact, it will greatly restrict the power of the federal and state legislatures; and the consequences of such a construction may not be foreseen.

The concurrences also echoed the civil vs. criminal distinction.

Because telecoms have only breached (I guess I have to say allegedly) a contractual relationship, it's not an 'ex post facto' law, but rather an allowable retrospective law.

Well ...

Buckshot — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:54:54 GMT

fuck me with a pig! I'd take a dump on that fucking pile of horse manure if I thought it would do any fucking good! They're all a bunch of fucking whores and this whole fucking world is ready to sink under the weight of fucking flooding glaciers in only a few fucking years. You're from New York right? I mean fuck do you really think Hillary Clinton, or Obama or Edwards are going to do a fucking thing to stop New York City from drowning in the next fifty years once the fucking polar ice caps fucking melt? The world is going to hell and a fucking hand basket. I can't even get my fucking cattle to fuck each other anymore!

That's A Great Quote ...

Rob Ellman — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:50:15 GMT

I despise the feculent neocon loybbist Grover Nordquist but he had it right when he said, "Bipartisanship is like date rape."

Yeah, I've gotta say Edwards Too

UnCommontator — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:24:22 GMT

And I agree with both Krugman above and Harry S below:

"I don't like bipartisans. Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know that he's going to vote against me."

Happy New Year

Bob

Lewis

UnCommontator — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:52:20 GMT

I missed your comment until a few minutes ago,
Of course you can reprint anything you like.
I appreciate it.

I'm under the weather and headed for the sack.

Bob