(11-09-2015 12:04 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote: (11-09-2015 03:06 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: I am interested in jurisdictional issues as they apply to the concept. If you wouldn't mind indulging a tangent here unrelated to the Obama issue, (of which I have little interest at this point as it is to me a fait accompli); Since nation-states are defined by borders, how does jus sanguines and jus soli apply to states/territories within a nation-state? Thank you.
I'm not sure I understand your question.
69/70/75 undoubtedly knows more than I do about this stuff anyway.
I just wanted it to be clear that Obama's citizenship is unconditionally legitimate by jus soli, not dependent on his mother's residence history, and not merely a fait accompli.
Thank you. I'll preface my comments by saying I think you'll find yourself laughing at what I write based on what I imagine might be your preconceived notion of me from other posts elsewhere. That's okay. I try to have more than one dimension, which I see as a strength, though I make no claim to be perfect, as has been oft pointed out to me.
You may be surprised, but I very much count on that bolded part to be true. I think the concept applies equally and should apply equally to all, regardless of background or circumstance, but then to me the fundamental question is seldom clearly raised in these ways except in the most unusual of cases.
I have learned that there is what is written and then there is the legal custom and inertia. When one is wont to point that out, feathers get ruffled. Some folks don't like to have to follow or be subject to the rules. Remember, Nixon thought he should be above the law. Ridiculous to me. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal..."
But I'm talking about courts and judges and regular people here, not Presidents and diplomats and lawyers. One thing I've learned is that most all people when it comes down to it want the exception or the waiver for their situation. They will most often fight like a rabid, cornered dog to the end for it rather than submit to equality. Another word for it would be selfishness. That is where all too many problems start, most of which could be quickly dispensed in equity were followed.
To me, (and I believe to the Founding Fathers) equity can come only from objective truth. If one has no grounding objectively, then it is only a matter of time before one finds oneself in a situation created by trying to do whatever does not deem unquestionably wrong, but leads to the commission of wrongdoing, whether ostensibly unintentional or not. (and we are all subject to this truth, as we are all human.) The intention and/or tendency to seek the "out" is where the problem lies. Some call it sin, others "life."
The one word I'd probably change in the Declaration is "happiness" with "satisfaction." To me satisfaction implies occasional unhappiness, but the obverse does not appear to me to be true. It is the misconstruing of this concept that appears to be the cause of much grief. Mercy is a choice, governed by universal truth, not a guarantee, problems arise by trying to impose it on others. Few people seem to argue for equality, and that's a shame because we live in a country that as an ideal believed that experiment to be worth the price it cost to establish it, even if imperfectly.
As far as my calling it a fait accompli in your discussion about the current President, I was referring more to the fact I just don't feel all worked up about it like some folks might, which also may surprise you. I'm more interested in what he did with it. But I guess at this juncture we've largely seen that, and it is a matter of opinion whether we agree or disagree.
The question I was postulating had nothing to do with him or his situation, but the border idea seemed applicable, which is why I ask the questions I do here. I am concerned with establishing more true equality for all. But of course, with equality comes responsibility, and some try to avoid that at all costs, most of all those who ostensibly legislate where they have no jurisdiction, which creates innumerable problems. I realize fundamentally, some people don't want equality, though they purport to, they want to pick and choose. Such is this mortal coil.
I'd imagine you might find my take on these types of issues surprising from some of my posts. But I make the distinction between participating on a free sports board and a court of law. The same rules do not appear to fundamentally apply, although that is also not the border I am asking about. That's the best I can do to clarify at this juncture, pending any responses you'd care to post regarding what I already stated in this and other posts.
/
Presidential Horse Race Thread
