American Politics during the Bush Presidency

[QUOTE=Sidney Riley] < snip >

What's happening with the National Popular Vote initiative is being done in strict accordance with the Constitution. It is being passed state by state, in the respective legislatures, just as the Constitution envisioned. < snip > [/QUOTE]I don't have the legal smarts to be debating this. But it seems to me like an attempt to alter the way we elect presidents without altering the constitution. And I have always thought that it's the purview of the constitution to determine how we elect presidents. Why not ACTUALLY alter the constitution? And what will happen if this passes in all 50 states and then one state changes it mind?

I'm from a state (NY) which does not allow for referendums. So if / when I learn that this is being discussed in the NY state legislature, I will be asking my state representatives how it is that this measure which gives the people more power to determine the president is not being put before the people.

I'm surprised, but glad, that I learned about this here. Thanks to whoever brought it up.

Bob

[QUOTE=AllIWantisLove]. It seems to me like an attempt to alter the way we elect presidents without altering the constitution. And I have always thought that it's the purview of the constitution to determine how we elect presidents. Why not ACTUALLY alter the constitution? [/QUOTE]Once more, Article II, Section 1 of the U. S. Constitution states: [I] Each State shall appoint, [u]in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct[/u], a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress[/i].

In other words, the Constitution gave us a [I]flexible[/i] means of changing the way we appoint electors (to elect the President) without having to change the Constitution itself.

Up until now, we've generally used the winner-take-all system. If someone wins 51% of the state's popular vote, they get all that state's electors. But there's nothing sacred about that. The Constitution does not say that's how it has to be done.

[QUOTE=AllIWantisLove]And what will happen if this passes in all 50 states and then one state changes it mind?[/QUOTE]First, it doesn't need all 50 states to work. It only need enough states so that the sum total of electoral vote equals or exceeds 270. If and when enough states pass the legislation to achieve that, it's almost certain the rest of the country will go along. But again, any state can appoint electors in the manner they see it.

Right now Maine and Nebraska each appoint electors in a manner that differs from how the other 48 states do. No problem.

[QUOTE=AllIWantisLove]I'm from a state (NY) which does not allow for referendums. So if / when I learn that this is being discussed in the NY state legislature.[/QUOTE]This legislation has been introduced to the New York state (by Republicans)

[url]http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=NY[/url]

I don't know the status.

[quote=Sidney]Once again, I call for the impeachment of Bush, the all time worst President![/QUOTE]Sid, just hold your breath and wait 11 months and you'll have your wish - evil Bush will be gone and (this is probably not your wish) President McCain will be inaugurated.

(P.S. - Do you have any doubt that if you got your wish and the Democrats were in control the budget would be $4.5 trillion and not $3 trillion? Your desires seem to be rather contradictory - which is OK, because nobody pretends that BDS sufferers have a normal, logical thought process. ;) )

Hunt-

I will give you 2/1 on a $100 USD bet that McCain WILL NOT be elected president in November.

Hunt, as an educated and successful man, I really do not understand how you could think that Bush has done EVEN ONE thing to enhance the direction / future / condition of the US. The reputation of the US abroad is ruined, the country is nearing bankruptcy internally, and a few mis-events could realistically cause a chain-reaction leading to the collapse of the dollar. Bush and his cronies have successfully re-set the environment in the US to the days when the robber-baron capitalists exploited the middle and lesser classes to an embarrassing degree. The over-invoiced government domestic contracts of 100 years ago have been replaced by no-bid military-industrial complex agreements overseas in which the no bids are awarded to companies owned by the Presidents's own friends and colleagues. Start, a war, award taxpayer-funded contracts to your friends, let those friends over-charge the taxpayer for services (or lack thereof) they provide, then have those friends fund your next election campaign.

Suerte,

Dirk Diggler

Karl Rove to join FOX Newschannel. Why don't they just superimpose a big elephant head on the tv screen when this show starts? LOL.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Much more savings with less military procurement. More savings with more isolationism. A simple oil conservation would do much for the dollar. I can't go on--it is just too irritating-- the top level conspiracy that helps the Bush constituency (oil, military, industrial) that supports every evil oil dictator in the world, mas, mas mas![/QUOTE]If it's all a crooked conspiracy to favor Big Oil, how come Bush can't seem to get his cronies the clearance to drill even one well in that barren wasteland called ANWR, the one that has 20 billion barrels of oil sitting underground? And it's not a whole lot of trouble up there, either - a few dozen polar bears are a lot less dangerous than a few thousand crazed Muslim terrorists like they have in Iraq.

If it was all a crooked conspiracy, Sid, opening up ANWR would have been done already: Representatives and Senators buy very cheap, as the Chinese have found out. Only a few million in "contributions" to a half dozen recipients would do the trick. (Oh - and there's no oil at all in Afghanistan, so why the fuck did Evil Bush dispatch the Army over there? Perhaps because some desperadoes based there killed 3,000 people six years ago? Nah! Because we know that was an inside job by McChimpyBushalliburton, wasn't it?)

And Dirk, I don't agree with your assessments but I agree to take on your bet. Get Jackson your $200 and I'll send him my $100 and we'll settle up on the morning of November 5th!

Peace to you both, my friends - we may disagree on things, but I like you both. And I will be doubly pleased to take my friend Dirk's money! ;)

[QUOTE=Sidney]Once again, I call for the impeachment of Bush, the all time worst President![/QUOTE]You should thank your lucky stars for Bush. His incompetence, ineptitude, cronyism, and partisanship have energized the country as it hasn't been energized in years, and it has done more to revitalize the Democratic Party than anyone could have imagined.

The current Democratic Congress is a harbinger; a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate is a distinct possibility come this November,.

And, with Ann Coulter threatening to campaign for Hillary if McCain gets the nomination:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc[/url]

And Susan Eisenhower leading the Republican crossover to Obama:

[url]http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476[/url]

A Democratic President is almost assured. Results:

* The Federal bench is going to be re-liberalized for sure.

* Some manner of national health care will take root.

* Taxes are going to get rebalanced and the deficit is going to get a little bit more under control.

* Don't expect any sort of immediate pullout from either Iraq or Afghanistan. No matter what anyone says, we're not going to pull the plug (nor should we)

The far right blogsphere and the Limbaughs and Coulters of the country will whine and bray, but it won't be with the same power that they had when Bill Clinton was President. The Republican Party has pretty much shot its wad (as the current presidential lineup reflects. ..as the mass Republican exodus from Congress reflects...as the color of various statehouses reflects) and it will be a while until they get their act back together. The Republicans are pretty much in the same boat the Democrats were in in '68 or thereabouts. At this point, leadership of the country is the Democrats' to lose.

And in large part, this is all because of George Bush.

So don't be too hard on the guy. He delivered for us. Heh...heh...

[QUOTE=Sidney]Much more savings with less military procurement. More savings with more isolationism. A simple oil conservation would do much for the dollar. I can't go on--it is just too irritating-- the top level conspiracy that helps the Bush constituency (oil, military, industrial) that supports every evil oil dictator in the world, mas, mas mas![/QUOTE]I think we will lose a lot more if we simply get out of Iraq and AF now. I highly doubt a nation could lose money after winning the war. AF is for it's location, Iraq has natural resouces, and Iran is in the middle of AF and Iraq.

[QUOTE=Sidney]We have been doing this idiocy for almost 200 years. Let the Taliban and Drug Lords fight it out! Get the fuk out!

-------------------------

Bushies want high prices for existing oil! They don't want new supply (ANWR) Answer this Hunt--why has there been zero effort to conserve petrol products? Why has there been only minimal tokenism in the effort to develop alternative energy sources? Why are sugar cane imports severely restricted?

-------------

Congressmen can be bought for a very few thousand dollars. I have been there and witnessed them begging for donations and giving their votes for peanuts.[/QUOTE]Sid, you say we're in Afghanistan in order to Christianize it? Are you serious? :eek:

As for conserving oil, I'll give you the answer to your question, which is based on supply and demand. In the long term, "conservation" doesn't work. If you conserve oil and use less of it and the price drops, you discourage production and exploration of new supplies. If you have high demand and high prices, you encourage production and exploration of new supplies. It's the iron law of supply and demand at work, writ large.

All the CAFE standards and oil conservation requirements will do not one thing to produce a new barrel of oil. On the other hand, $100 or $200 a barrel oil will not only encourage development of new supplies, it will also set the market loose on development of true alternative energy sources - something no government program or dictate will ever do.

I'm disappointed your macroeconomics professor was so ineffectual that he didn't imprint this lesson on your brain stem. But worry not, most politicians forgot their supply and demand lessons as well.

[QUOTE=Sidney](A Yahoo and CNN report) They claim he was shot in the back by 2 gunmen, not shot in the front by Sirhan Sirhan![/QUOTE]I saw two of these "experts" briefly interviewed the other day. Not very impressive. Beware nutcases looking to make a name for themselves.

[QUOTE=Doggboy] Beware nutcases looking to make a name for themselves.[/QUOTE]My exact thought when I heard them.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Normally, CNN should be accurate. Surely, it should be easy to determine if RFK was shot in the back.[/QUOTE]Hey El Sid,

No offense intended, but I agree! If RFK had been shot in the back it would have been known long before now! There is a cottage industry of so called experts who pop up every so often with "amazing" information that might indicate a conspiracy with any number of events in the past. CNN and any other number of reputable and less reputable media organizations air this stuff for two reasons-1. The populace is intrigued and will watch, resulting in increased viewing numbers and hopefully increased advertising rates and 2. On the off chance that the "experts" are right, then CNN or whomever doesn't want to be left out and looking like they got scooped.

People love this kind of silliness and can't get enough of it, thus we will continue to see it ad nauseum. Just this week the Titanic tragedy was blamed on BAD RIVETS! I ain't no structural engineer but I'm guessing that iceberg would have laughed at the better rivets as well.:)

[QUOTE=Sidney]CITGO IS CHANGING.

Verified with [url]www.SNOPES:[/url]

DO NOT BUY FROM PETRO EXPRESS!

'PETRO EXPRESS' IS ALSO 100% OWNED BY 'CHAVEZ.'

BOYCOTT 'CITGO' AND 'PETRO EXPRESS'.[/QUOTE]Maybe you should actually read that snopes article: [url]http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/citgo.asp[/url]

"Many different oil companies buy crude oil from Venezuela, so even Americans who shun CITGO brand gasoline have no guarantee that they aren't still sending their money to that country. And although Citgo may be owned by Petrleos de Venezuela, it is a formerly American company which is still headquartered in the U. S. (in Houston, Texas) employs 4,000 people, and supplies 14,000 independent retailers with gasoline and other petroleum products -- Americans with no substantive connection to Venezuela who would be economically harmed by such an action. (Citgo also provides free or discounted heating oil to low-income communities and tribal reservations within the United States. And, of course, in today's oil market Citgo could likely find alternative buyers for its products far more easily than the U. S. Could make up the shortfall created by a cut-off of Venezuelan oil."

[QUOTE=Sidney]CITGO IS CHANGING.

'PETRO EXPRESS' IS ALSO 100% OWNED BY 'CHAVEZ.'

BOYCOTT 'CITGO' AND 'PETRO EXPRESS'.[/QUOTE]Hmm. Buy my gas from countries of the middle east who have pronounced their hatred for us for 30 years and have actively acted against us (9/11) or from a paper dictator who hates everyone?

Are you advocating boycotting just Chavez or those in the middle east? If you advocate boycotting both for their hatred of the US, you have better sell your car and not fly anywhere anymore!

Hard decision but I think I prefer to support Chavez over those in the middle east. Chavez's dictatorship will be relatively short-lived compared to those in the middle east.

Suerte.

Stowe

So, Sidney, do you use public transportation in Buenos Aires or do you take taxis all the time? Taxis? Yeah, I thought so.

This post said something about hitchhiking earlier, was it edited?

True story:

My best friend marries an Argentine, after they get married while she is waiting for her visa to move here (49 weeks, obviously she might be a terrorist) she got pregnant (yes by him) went to full term and had a baby. The child was conceived in Mexico brought to term and delivered in Argentina. Because my buddy still resided in the EEUU she (child) was granted an American passport at birth and is considered a native born US citizen.

Six months ago they all, moved to BsAs. My buddy of course has not renounced his membership in the land of the somewhat free and home of the kinda brave, he just lives down there like Dickhead and Davey. He called me last night and his wife might be, probably is, pregnant. Because he resides there, this next child of the same parents will not be issued a US passport and will not be considered a native born American. If at some point if they decide to come back here, she (the wife) still has a visa he will have to apply for a residency visa for his on fucking child! What if he doesn't come back for years, could the child be denied the ability to live in his own fathers homeland? What if it's later and the child is an adult, my buddy moves back gets in an accident, could only one of his kids come and see him in the hospital?

Seriously how fucked up is this? Is it right or does he have something wrong here? I'm having a hard time believing it.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]True story:

Because he resides there, this next child of the same parents will not be issued a US passport and will not be considered a native born American. If at some point if they decide to come back here, she (the wife) still has a visa he will have to apply for a residency visa for his on fucking child! What if he doesn't come back for years, could the child be denied the ability to live in his own fathers homeland? What if it's later and the child is an adult, my buddy moves back gets in an accident, could only one of his kids come and see him in the hospital? [/QUOTE]I am pretty sure that children of US citizens born outside of the US can get a US passport, though there may be age restrictions. (For example, they would have to get their passport before 18)

I have a coworker here who is a US citizen and has two children who were both born here, have never been to the US, and have US passports. Also, I know many other expats in other countries whose children were born overseas but have US passports.

It is my understanding that children born overseas to amercian citizens have citizen status. Not necessarily the wife who must go through visa process.

When I was doing this at the embassy here in BA there were a couple of Arg. Young people (18-23 years old) getting visas for US because their Dad was American.

A trip to the embassy would be worthwhile.

I dunno but I had a GF whose parents were both 100% American and she was born in the UK while the dad was in the military and she had to be naturalized. I know a bit about what you are talking about Daddy and my question is: [b]why[/b] should this potential person have a right to US citizenship? Not trying to flame and don't care one way or the other. Just want to explore the concept of citizenship and what it means.

Certainly the reverse is true in that any non-US citizen who can sneak into the country and give birth, the kid is a citizen automatically. Let's explore that concept too.

Not sure about your ex-GF but a child born to US citizen parents anywhere in the world is definitely a US citizen as is any child born within the territory of the United States.

There are a few caveats around residency of the parents in the first case which might be the source of the problems for your ex and DL's buddy.

[url]http://www.uscitizenship.info/en_US/faq/citizenship/ans/c15.jsp[/url]

I'm sure both of these paths to citizenship seemed reasonable when the US Constitution was written and the US was a nation of immigrants looking to grow. We seem to get worked up about it over the years whenever "we" don't like the immigrants (which has been about everyone at some point) and we usually use words like "security", jobs, or "national identity" to cloak our bigotry.

Personally, I support citizenship by birth. But I'm not sure there's much to discuss as it strikes me as purely a matter of personal preference. Kind of like blondes vs brunettes.

I always wondered about that whole thing as it was contrary to my own understanding. It came up when we went to Jamaica. She told the immigration people that she had been naturalized at the age of 10. Her dad was US military, and her mom was 100% American. They gave her a ration of shit coming back into the country. Later she showed me her naturalization papers. My guess would be, her dad was so fucking ignorant he had her naturalized unnecessarily. He was one dumb son of a be@tch and she was not too swift herself. She had big tits, though.

Didn't FDR have some kid who was born in Canada and they decided he was not eligible to be president? Isn't there some other rule about that which supersedes citizenship?

[QUOTE=Dickhead]Didn't FDR have some kid who was born in Canada and they decided he was not eligible to be president? Isn't there some other rule about that which supersedes citizenship?[/QUOTE]Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:

Be a natural-born citizen of the United States; (No foreign born citizen allowed.)

Be at least thirty-five years old;

Have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

That is why Arnold Schwarzenegger can never be president, unless they amend the constitution.

[QUOTE=Tessan]Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:
Be a natural-born citizen of the United States; [b](No foreign born citizen allowed.)[/b][/QUOTE]From the website Easy Go provided, here is some interesting additional info:
[url]http://www.uscitizenship.info/en_US/faq/citizenship/ans/g68.jsp[/url]

[b]Is a child born outside the US to American parents legally eligible to become President?[/b]

Most likely yes.

The US Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Subsection 4) says: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

The term "natural born citizen" is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and it has never been the subject of any federal court ruling. Hence, its exact meaning could be subject to controversy.

While some have suggested that perhaps a "natural born citizen" must have been born on US territory (i.e., in keeping with the definition of a citizen given in the 14th Amendment), other legal experts believe the term refers to anyone who has US citizenship from the moment of his or her birth -- i.e., someone who did not have to be "naturalized" because he/she was born "natural" (i.e., born a citizen).

The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens". [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth.

At least three Presidential candidates in recent memory were born outside the US proper:

* Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican candidate, was born in the Arizona Territory in 1909 (Arizona did not become the 48th state until 1912). Goldwater lost the 1964 election to Lyndon Johnson.

* George Romney, a 1968 Republican hopeful, was born in Mexico in 1907 to American parents who had moved there to escape anti-Mormon persecution in the US. (Contrary to a widely held popular misconception, by the way, Romney's parents were settlers in Mexico, not missionaries.) Romney's campaign fizzled following a gaffe about his having been "brainwashed" by the military establishment into supporting US involvement in the Vietnam conflict.

* John McCain, an early Republican hopeful in the current (2000) campaign, was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to American parents. McCain dropped out of the campaign in favor of the Republicans' eventual nominee, George W. Bush.

Some questions were raised at the time regarding both Goldwater and Romney's eligibility for the nation's highest office, but no formal legal challenge was mounted in either case.

We will probably never really know whether an American citizen born outside the US can become President (or Vice-President) until a lawsuit involving such a candidate finds its way into the courts. This could happen, of course, if a foreign-born candidate were elected and the electoral college's choice were challenged in court; or, more likely, if such a candidate's right to federal campaign subsidies (matching funds) were questioned.

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U. S. Citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U. S. Citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U. S. For the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U. S. To transmit U. S. Citizenship to the child.

Or his child actually, he won't satisfy the residency requirement.

Why is this important? Well for one reason, say things go very bad, very quickly in La Republica, some tin hat sends the tanks rolling down Libratador to Plaza de Mayo and the juntas are back. My buddy decides, "hmmm maybe this isn't such a great place to raise kids" and wants to return his family to the States. He can go, he's part of the club, his wife can go she has a green card, his daughter can go she's considered native born even though the placenta that sustained her through gestation went into a dumpster behind the Spanish Hospital in BsAs. But his bouncing baby boy (or whatever) well I guess they can leave him in Chaco with the crazy inlaws and start working on his paperwork when they get here. I'm sure there is something he could do after the kid is born to start getting the ball rolling on a green card. But it's his FUCKING KID, born in wedlock he, she or it should be able to follow the family where ever mom and dad can go.

It's kind of fucked up here in the EEUU but overall it's still in the top 20 as far as quality of life (unless you wanna bang skinny women) and his kid won't be part of the club, the only member of the family without the shitting eagle passport.

Argentina is proud of it's citizenship, if any of your parents are Argies no matter how long they have been gone, why they have been gone, if you have never in your fucking life been to Argentina they will give you a passport.

They could solve the problem by coming back for the birth. The mother is Argentinian so getting the kid back to BsAs is as simple as a trip to any embassy. I may suggest this to him.

DH why shouldn't the kid have citizenship, his dad is a citizen.

So is this saying he had to be in the US for the five years prior to the birth? That doesn't make sense. That implies she had to be in the US at the time of conception. I read that to say he had to be in the US for a total of five years overall when the kid was born, which he was, right? I mean, he grew up in the US, yes?

I don't have kids and won't so I have no position on whether the kid should or shouldn't be a citizen. I am just interested in people's views on citizenship and what it means. My friend in the States who was born and raised in Buenos Aires until age 16 had to renounce her Argentinean citizenship to get US citizenship. That seems kind of bogus too.