Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

By "history" I take you to mean "legislative record," which is often misleadingly referred to as legislatively history. Because non-citizen Chinese laborers seem to be pretty spot-on "history" from the time.

Or do you prefer to believe that those who drafted the amendment were not aware of these laborers?

you're not normally as much a dickhead as GGG so I'll ask you once more- was their anything in the record of the amendment that explained what they were trying to do, or was it silent. I get the language seems to cover people who happen to be in the country and give birth, but was there any discussion as to whether that was intended to be covered?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you're not normally as much a dickhead as GGG

I'm confused. You sure you didn't mean to say I am dumb or something?

so I'll ask you once more- was their anything in the record of the amendment tat explained what they were trying to do, or was it silent

I don't specifically know. But GGG is right that there were other non-citizens running around having babies at the time. If someone can provide something that says "no, we didn't mean the "yellow" ones," I'm open to your point. But absent affirmative evidence on that point (which I'm only saying hasn't been provided, not that it doesn't exist), I think he has a point that there were other well-known groups of potential anchor-baby parents around at the time.

We could move to the next stage of the discussion about which matters more, the realty at the time of the amendment or the stated intentions of whatever minority of amendment supporters was recorded somewhere, but I don't think we need to get that far.

Finally, shouldn't you be watching the Spartans against the Wildcats? It seems surprisingly close at the moment.

Even more finally, I can't think about mid-19th century Chinese immigration without thinking about Ian McShane as Al Swearengen.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm confused. You sure you didn't mean to say I am dumb or something?



I don't specifically know. But GGG is right that there were other non-citizens running around having babies at the time. If someone can provide something that says "no, we didn't mean the "yellow" ones," I'm open to your point. But absent affirmative evidence on that point (which I'm only saying hasn't been provided, not that it doesn't exist), I think he has a point that there were other well-known groups of potential anchor-baby parents around at the time.

We could move to the next stage of the discussion about which matters more, the realty at the time of the amendment or the stated intentions of whatever minority of amendment supporters was recorded somewhere, but I don't think we need to get that far.

Finally, shouldn't you be watching the Spartans against the Wildcats? It seems surprisingly close at the moment.

Even more finally, I can't think about mid-19th century Chinese immigration without thinking about Ian McShane as Al Swearengen.

again, I have no position. I'm just wondering. I'll put you down for "has no idea." GGG defaults to that, so that means your collective knowledge base is about equal to the detailed understanding of evolution you all brought to that question.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

again, I have no position or knowledge.

Fixed that for you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Fixed that for you.

I admit it. I would never claim knowledge where I had none. to do so is pathetic.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

detailed understanding of evolution you all brought to that question.

You really want to go back there? I mean, I try really hard to leave that one alone so as not to seem to bully you into defending the "intelligent design" nonsense that you have spewed in the past. But that's just me being nice.

But please feel free to explain how hypothesis in the absence of contravening evidence (not the same as lack of evidence), is the same as faith.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

You really want to go back there? I mean, I try really hard to leave that one alone so as not to seem to bully you into defending the "intelligent design" nonsense that you have spewed in the past. But that's just me being nice.

But please feel free to explain how hypothesis in the absence of contravening evidence (not the same as lack of evidence), is the same as faith.

are you saying there is evidence that God didn't create the World? I agree there ain't much evidence it did, but you feel contrary? what?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

are you saying there is evidence that God didn't create the World?

No, but you have previously equated hypothesizes about transition from single to multi-cell organisms, for example, to intelligent design based on faith.

Once again, the difference is the openness of the theory to revision based on evidence and observation. The "god" crowd tends to have zero openness. And no, an as yet untested hypothesis isn't faith.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

again, I have no position. I'm just wondering. I'll put you down for "has no idea." GGG defaults to that, so that means your collective knowledge base is about equal to the detailed understanding of evolution you all brought to that question.

I think people are having 3 problems recognizing this as a serious question. First, it's the Tea Party line du jour, and so when you repeat it others (including me) immediately suspect you are just stirring up shit.

Second, if an issue is clear in the constitutional language ("all") and clear in the USSC precedent, it's unclear why anyone would care about the so-called legislative history, or even what that would entail with respect to an amendment (do we look at what each state legislature discussed before voting on the amendment?)

Third, it's very difficult for me to understand how the "history" could possibly support the interpretation that the Constitution was amended in order to make freed slaves citizens. That would have required only an act of Congress -- "all former slaves born in the US are hereby declared citizens." It's not like slavery was continuing after the 14th amendment, so why would there need to be an amendment?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I think people are having 3 problems recognizing this as a serious question. First, it's the Tea Party line du jour, and so when you repeat it others (including me) immediately suspect you are just stirring up shit.

Second, if an issue is clear in the constitutional language ("all") and clear in the USSC precedent, it's unclear why anyone would care about the so-called legislative history, or even what that would entail with respect to an amendment (do we look at what each state legislature discussed before voting on the amendment?)

Third, it's very difficult for me to understand how the "history" could possibly support the interpretation that the Constitution was amended in order to make freed slaves citizens. That would have required only an act of Congress -- "all former slaves born in the US are hereby declared citizens." It's not like slavery was continuing after the 14th amendment, so why would there need to be an amendment?

I do know enough about the history to know the amendment backed up an act of congress, since congress wasn't sure "only an act of congress" was required.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I do know enough about the history to know the amendment backed up an act of congress, since congress wasn't sure "only an act of congress" was required.

Did the act of Congress use the same words?

Really, 5 minutes on Google will lead you to USSC discussion on the issue you are ranting about. That you haven't bothered to do this suggests that your inquiry is not genuine, but just another Hankesque effort to declare everyone else here "stupid." That approach lost its charm 6 years ago.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

But GGG is right that there were other non-citizens running around having babies at the time.

My only comment was about the words of the amendment. But that's ok, I don't mind being confused with Sidd.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My only comment was about the words of the amendment. But that's ok, I don't mind being confused with Sidd.

My apologies to Sidd.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

My apologies to Sidd.

That's a start, but you have a long making of amends road ahead of you.

Hank and I are waiting......

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you're not normally as much a dickhead as GGG so I'll ask you once more- was their anything in the record of the amendment that explained what they were trying to do, or was it silent. I get the language seems to cover people who happen to be in the country and give birth, but was there any discussion as to whether that was intended to be covered?

Hank, you seem to have something in mind. Do you want to tell us what it is, or is that too close to actually taking a position for you?

I will give you credit, though. You seem to have somewhat more sophisticated kinks than Sebby, what with the way you get off on having Adder google for you.