Best Birther Lunacy Evar

[Jerome]

basically your argument is the skill of the advocate is the determination of the truth

[ChuckF]

JEROME! Welcome back to the thread, buddy! Do you agree with Orly Taitz, who is an Esquire, that there is a "Constitutional right for redress of grievances?"

[Jerome]

# State Date *
1 New Jersey Nov 20, 1789
2 Maryland Dec 19, 1789
3 North Carolina Dec 22, 1789
4 South Carolina Jan 19, 1790
5 New Hampshire Jan 25, 1790
6 Delaware Jan 28, 1790
7 New York Feb 24, 1790
8 Pennsylvania Mar 10, 1790
9 Rhode Island Jun 7, 1790
10 Vermont Nov 3, 1791
11 Virginia Dec 15, 1791 *
12 Massachusetts Mar 2, 1939
13 Georgia Mar 18, 1939
14 Connecticut Apr 19, 1939
Ratified in 811 days

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction. [<OFr. redresser.]

[Jerome]

petition

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

# State Date *
1 New Jersey Nov 20, 1789
2 Maryland Dec 19, 1789
3 North Carolina Dec 22, 1789
4 South Carolina Jan 19, 1790
5 New Hampshire Jan 25, 1790
6 Delaware Jan 28, 1790
7 New York Feb 24, 1790
8 Pennsylvania Mar 10, 1790
9 Rhode Island Jun 7, 1790
10 Vermont Nov 3, 1791
11 Virginia Dec 15, 1791 *
12 Massachusetts Mar 2, 1939
13 Georgia Mar 18, 1939
14 Connecticut Apr 19, 1939
Ratified in 811 days

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


redress v. 1. To set right, remedy or rectify. 2. To make amends for. n. 1. Satisfaction for wrong done; reparation. 2. Correction. [

Can you indicate which portions, if any, of this post are relevant to the existence or non-existence of "Constitutional right for redress of grievances?" Because I don't see anything about a "Constitutional right for redress of grievances."

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

petition

...

[ChuckF]

Is there some relevance to this single word "petition?" Does it have some bearing on the existence or non-existence of the "Constitutional right for redress of grievances" to which Orly Taitz refers?

[Angakuk]

It is obviously the case that if one has the right to make a request, then one has the right to have that request granted. Otherwise, what is the point?

That being the case, I now intend to petition my employer for a 200% increase in my salary. It would be an obvious violation of my constitutional rights if my employer fails to grant said petition.

Why did I never think of this before?

I am feeling more than a little chagrined at my failure to previously take advantage of this rather obvious method of improving my financial condition.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Is there some relevance to this single word "petition?"

Only if you understand the English language.

Basically your argument is that the skill of the advocate is the determination of the right.

[Angakuk]

Basically, his argument is that the only constitutional rights we have are those that are enumerated in the Constitution. You have failed to demonstrate that the right to have our grievances redressed is among those rights so enumerated. You would recognize this fact if only you could read the English language. It is not even necessary that you be able to read legalize.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Basically, his argument is that the only constitutional rights we have are those that are enumerated in the Constitution.

You have it wrong, those are just the express rights that government is prevented by law from denying.

The document does not give rights to people, it restricts the rights of government.

[Angakuk]

We may indeed have rights that are not explicitly recognized by the Constitution, but those can hardly be claimed as constitutional rights. By definition, the only constitutional rights we have are those that are explicitly recognized by the Constitution.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

We may indeed have rights that are not explicitly recognized by the Constitution, but those can hardly be claimed as constitutional rights. By definition, the only constitutional rights we have are those that are explicitly recognized by the Constitution.

The constitution does not give any rights to people.

[Angakuk]

Be so kind as to point out where I said that it did.

[Jerome]

Congress shall make no law

shall not be infringed

shall not be violated


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Congress shall make no law

shall not be infringed

shall not be violated

This certainly does pertain to rights. Specifically, to the protection of those rights that are recognized in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This pertains to powers, not rights. They are not the same thing.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

basically your argument is the skill of the advocate is the determination of the truth

No, merely that the skill of the advocate is inversely proportional to the lulz generated by her quixotic campaign. If Orly Taitz were actually a competent lawyer, her filings wouldn't be nearly as lulz-worthy. Of course, if she were a competent lawyer, she'd know why her cause is hopelessly misguided and would turn her attentions elsewhere.

[ChuckF]

So, JEROME, do you agree with Orly Taitz, Esquire, that there is a "Constitutional right for redress of grievances?"

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Basically your argument is that the skill of the advocate is the determination of the right.

Could be! Maybe it's just that the world has never seen a single solitary birther who is not completely fucking retarded. Maybe if we did, we would see The Truth About HIV global warming the Holocaust Obama!

[Kael]

I have a grievance. Isn't someone going to redress it?

[Vivisectus]

They better, unless they want to violate your constitutional rights. Which would be yet another grievance you could get redressed!

[Sock Puppet]

I prefer my grievances nekkid. Damned fetishists.

[Escapegoat]

You folks are drawing a pretty fine line here. If the supreme court can find an implied right to privacy in the constitution, certainly we can infer a right to have a redress of grieviances, since the constitution protects it from the government.

I thought that the problem with orly's ridiculous petition was standing.

Eta
And the fact that the whole subject is batshit, since the president has a mother who was born an American in Kansas.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Escapegoat

You folks are drawing a pretty fine line here. If the supreme court can find an implied right to privacy in the constitution, certainly we can infer a right to have a redress of grieviances, since the constitution protects it from the government.

You can try to infer it, but I think that any court in the nation would point out how absurd it would be make the government ensure that everyone's petty gripes are resolved to their satisfaction. That's why it's a right to petition for a redress of grievances, and not a right to see every grievance redressed by the government. I am grieved that Jersey Shore is still on the air, but that doesn't mean that the government has the obligation to shut down MTV if they won't stop broadcasting that crap.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Maybe it's just that the world has never seen a single solitary birther who is not completely fucking retarded.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Escapegoat

And the fact that the whole subject is batshit, since the president has a mother who was born an American in Kansas.

The problem is not citizenship, it is natural born citizenship which denotes natural alliance. Obama admits on his own web site that he was born a Subject of the British Crown.