Birthers, Tenthers, and now Thirteenthers

Has anyone else heard about the "original Thirteenth Amendment"? Don't worry, they're not favoring a return to slavery; their argument is that since Obama got a Nobel Prize, under the original Thirteenth Amendment, he'd no longer be a U.S. Citizen. Of course, that amendment was never ratified, so...

 

That would mean that any American who got a nobel prize would no longer be a citizen. Considering the prize is as aspiration for many Americans in the sciences, this looks stupid.

Also it'll never get through. Ever.

 

Do you mean the Titles of Nobility Amendment? Since it was never ratified, it was never on the books, and it could not be used retroactively unless specifically written as such. Further, since as written, Congress could authorize Obama to recieve his cash prize (didn't he donate it anyways?) it wouldn't affect his ability to govern.

 

Leave it to the Tea Party to drag up some archaic piece of legislation that never got passed, is not important or relevant in any way, and which nobody has ever heard of....just to take another cheap shot at Obama.

 

Imagine if they applied this level of close reading to all of the recent legislation they think they oppose.

 

While they may be Tea Party members, there's also a possibility that they are not. Further, it certainly doesn't indicate that the average Tea Party member supports (or is even aware of) this idea.

 

Okay, that is just desperation on anyone's part. Let's claim that our xenophobic paranoia is now justified by our nation's leader receiving a huge honor. Yay. As if it's not bad enough that in spite of voting for Obama, I still get all of the Sarah Palin ads on Facebook.

 

Unbesmurffingbelievable!

If anyone had any doubt about there still being racism in our country, this puts that doubt to rest.

If Obama were white, there would not be this ridiculous level of scrutiny into his birthplace, or anything else about him.

Many Americans have accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. I doubt very much that even if this amendment were ratified, it would apply to them.

I'll have to do a little more research, but I do think that the Nobel Prize Committee is made up of multi-national members.

So, it isn't just one government or foreign power conferring the honor, pension, or prize.

 

The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which is made up of 5 people appointed by the Norwegian Parliament.

That could fit the definition of accepting a "present" or "honour" from a "foreign power" under the terms of that amendment (if it were to be ratified).

Kimball Kinnison

 

Ahh, but you guys are missing the punchline to all this. You see, according to reports, it is the Republican Party of Iowa that has been promoting this idea in their party platform. Here's one link, duly noted as biased: huffingtonpost.com

Check out the punch line at the end:

 

Thanks for the info, KK. You always provide me with info I didn't have.

I would never accept a Nobel Prize in the first place because Alfred Nobel is famous for inventing TNT.

And, one other question, do we really need Iowa as a state?

 

I was under the impression that that was part of his motivation for creating the Peace Prize.

 

I somehow doubt the individuals favoring this have the prospect of winning a prize in the sciences in their future.

 

This is just one of those things that I just scratch my head and wonder why we are even talking about it.

We can't even get a party that had 60 seats in the Senate, a large majority in the House, and the Presidency to really be able to do all that much, and we are talking about potential Constitutional Amendments? Maybe when this country can just pass legislation on a regular basis then we can worry about the problems of not enough gridlock.

 

QFT!

 

That's what motivated the prize, yes. But, by the same token, the prize is still basically funded by blood money and I wouldn't feel right helping to assuage the guilt of a man who made his money in armaments by accepting the prize.

This will probably be worthy of its own thread, but now some Republicans want to redefine the 14th amendment where it states that all persons born in the US are US citizens.

 

Are they "Fourteenthers"? Actually I've heard of this. There's a lot of talk in my home state (AZ) of pushing for the elimination of what they affectionately call "anchor babies", those children allegedly born in the U.S. for the sole purpose of establishing a fast path for the parents to get residency or nationalization.

So, in essence, they want to legislate a reinterpretation of the Constitution so that you are only born a citizen of the US if you are born on US soil to parents who are already US citizens. From this article:

 

Hmm, I think the 'foreign visitors' might be stretched to cover babies born to illegals, especially those women who cross the border just as they are going into labor, then go back across the border a few days later. They cross the border to get better medical care, but under the law right now, the baby is a US citizen.

Don't know how it would affect babies born to illegals who have been here for years and years, as that would seem to nullify the visitor section of that clause.

 

There is nothing inherently evil about TNT, but i guess that is for another topic.

 

Point of order: Nobel invented dynamite, not TNT (and despite what Chuck Jones and Mel Blanc would have you think they are two different things).

 

Constitutional Amendments are one of the aspects of the American political process that has always seemed fantastical to me, having grown up in the political climate that I did.

How the hell are you gonna find enough states to ratify an amendment on anything anyone cares about these days?

 

Well, the Repubs that are vulnerable in their districts or beholden to the extreme right are going to run with it, because they KNOW it'll never pass, and yet can accuse who is against it of having contributed to its failure. It also makes for great sound bites for the uninformed.

 

Tri-nitro-toulene or dynamite, which one has nitroglycerin in it? Or do they both?

I get their inventors confused, but then, I'm not an explosives expert. Just don't like things that make it easier for people to kill people.

I know both TNT and dynamite have uses other than warfare, but it seems warfare is where new devices are used/developed more often than not.

 

Then I take it you also hate cars, airplanes, radio, radar, satellites, the internet, photography, writing, math, physics, chemistry, and biology (especially anatomy), among other things?

 

You forgot boulders.