Question About Presidential Eligibility.

[Burgold]

Just for humility's sake. I globally googled JMS and wrong and got these results -- About 1,700,000 results (0.13 seconds)

Burgold wrong equals a disappointing About 42,400 results (0.38 seconds)

Petermp wrong equals About 4,410 results

[techboy]

I interpret that as more folks globally consider me a genius than in the smaller pool of folks at extremeskins.

Either that or you happen to share a screen name with a very popular television show creator's initials.

which isn't that extrodinary given I've lived in the world all my lfe and only been sharing my incite on extremeskins for a few years.

Don't be so hard on yourself. You cause a lot of disagreement, but I don't think it rises to the level of incitement.

Not that I find your line of google reasoning disappointing. I can't help but think it's rather misleading...

If so, it's your fault. The initial point was that you use the word "pedantic" a lot. I think I like your method better, though.

[Burgold]

To be fair, we all develop pet words. While reviewing my novel last week, some of the recurring words surprised me. I definitely have some favorites.

[JMS]

No it hasn't. It has always meant the same thing - citizen at birth.

I disagree that all citizens at birth were considered natural born citizens throughout our history. I don't think you can support that.

During the Supreme court Insular cases of the early 1900's people born in US Territories like Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines were considered US citizens, and even citizens at birth, but not "natural born citizens". Their citizenship was inferior of continental born American citizens. One which did not allow them to immigrate freely to the states; and one which did not convey Natural Born Citizenship allowing them to run for high office.

Today, people born in Puerto Rico for example are full American citizens even those born under the insular acts of the supreme court.

This demonstrates both that all people born citizens were not natural born citizens historically. It also further shows natural born citizenship expanding independent of citizenship. It is irrefutable evidence that the United States has in fact had second class citizen ships in our history..

In the 1922 case of Balzac v. Puerto Rico, the U.S. Supreme Court went even further than the early Insular Cases, ruling that conferral of U.S. citizenship on residents of Puerto Rico in 1917 did not incorporate the territory into the union. That meant U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico were not on the path to equality with U.S. citizens in the states, or even U.S. citizens living in the incorporated territories of Hawaii and Alaska. The Balzac court’s assurance that the U.S. would respect "fundamental rights" in Puerto Rico did not lead to full citizenship or government by consent of the governed

http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2004/vol8n30/Dredscott.html

Balzac v. Puerto Rico. In the appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts on the island in deciding that the provisions of the Constitution did not apply to a territory that belonged to the United States but was not incorporated into the Union. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balzac_v._Porto_Rico

The unanimous opinion of the Court was delivered by Chief Justice Taft. The Chief Justice argued that although the Jones Act had granted citizenship to Puerto Ricans, it had not incorporated Puerto Rico into the Union. That is, although Puerto Rico had been under the control of the United States since the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898, the territory had not been designated for ultimate statehood, and Congress could determine which parts of the Constitution would apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balzac_v._Porto_Rico

(Had to get my corporate lawyer involved to pull this one out.. thanks Jake.)

So you guys are wrong. They were wrong that the meaning of natural born American has never changed. You Predicto are wrong that people Born America Citizens have always been equivalent to Natural Born Citizen. I am correct that we have absolutely had second or third tier class of citizens... folks born US citizens without the full advantage of citizenship such as Natural Born Citizenship, convey.

And to further prove my point...

"JMS right" yields 5,800,000 hits on google

"Predicto right" only yields 318,000

"Techboy right" 242,000

"Lombardi's_kid_brother" right a very disappointing 6 results.

But the underlying constitutional meaning of the natural born citizen clause of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution means the same thing it always did - citizen on the day of your birth.

That's what it means today. That's what it has come to mean. But the historical facts are that the term "Natural Born Citizen" used in the constitution was not defined in the constitution. It has been interpreted differently over the centuries, and we have had citizens by birth, as detailed in the insular acts, who were not conveyed the rights of "natural born citizens". Historically there was no equivelency between citizenship and natural born citizenship. We have had folks with citizenship from birth with less rights than folks we consider "natural born citizens".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases

So the law on general citizenship has changed, but the constitutional meaning of the Natural Born Citizen clause has not changed. And that is no obfuscation or pedantry or meaningless distinction.

Why I bother, I don't know.

Given by your definition the term "Natural Born Citizen" is equivalent to people born as citizens and given your readily admit who is granted citizenship at birth, has been in a constant flux throughout our existence. It does seem pedantical for you to claim the definition for "Natural Born Citizen" has been constant or consistant. Especially since nowhere in the constitution are the terms implied to be equivalent... and as I have demonstrated historically they are not equivelent.

However That was not the crux of the discussion between you and I. The Crux of the discussion was your claim the two concepts have always been equivalent. People born with American citizenship have always been considered "Natural Born". I think that was the more interesting topic of this thread, the one which the insular cases highlight only one example of where that belief is wrong. I believe there are many more, which might also be interesting to explore.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 09:05 AM ----------

Just for humility's sake. I globally googled JMS and wrong and got these results -- About 1,700,000 results (0.13 seconds)

Burgold wrong equals a disappointing About 42,400 results (0.38 seconds)

Petermp wrong equals About 4,410 results

"JMS right" yields 5,800,000 hits on google

---------- Post added June-3rd-2011 at 09:13 AM ----------

If so, it's your fault. The initial point was that you use the word "pedantic" a lot. I think I like your method better, though.

And the point which I was demonstrating was that google is an entirely ambivalent tool for supporting one's argument in such a statistical way. All it proves is the letter combinations appear in proximity the meaning, words, context and association of the words, which are all important, are not addressed via google searches. The latter irrelivent entries regularly overshadows the intended targets of such a search..

And incite was used correctly above.

[PeterMP]

And the point which I was demonstrating was that google is an entirely ambivalent tool for supporting one's argument in such a statistical way. All it proves is the letter combinations appear in proximity the meaning, words, context and association of the words, which are all important, are not addressed via google searches. The latter irrelivent entries regularly overshadows the intended targets of such a search.

In some cases that might be true, but it isn't for pedantic and JMS when limited to www.extremeskins.com.

Oh and letter combinations are words.

[JMS]

In some cases that might be true, but it isn't for pedantic and JMS when limited to www.extremeskins.com.

If it's untrue, it's untrue.... It's illogical to say the exact same metric is true for one set, and false for another set of random postings all other things being equal..

Oh and letter combinations are words.

No they aren't. THECATATETHEHAT are letter combinations and equivalent in google to "the cat ate the hat" which are words. Google doesn't distinguish between letter combinations and words.. Doesn't distinguish between if I used the word pedantic or if you did in a thread I posted in. doesn't distinguish between the hundreds of thousands of times people called me a genius on this board in a thread and when I posted in a thread frequented by "The Evil Genius".... It's an ambivalent erroneous metric used as you were trying to use it. An ambivalent erroneous metric which also happens to consistently associate my posts with correctness as given above.

Now having said that I have used the word Pedantic a lot... But oddly enough I believe only refferencing three extremeskins posters. Most often two, yourself and techboy... most recently with the cabal of legal scholars. Now you can say I'm stuck on the word and use it too much. I would argue that the limited set of folks I've used it on relative to those who post here and who I've discussed with, actually shows my use of the word is quite consistant, even if accuracy would need to be debated on a case by case basis.

[techboy]

And the point which I was demonstrating was that google is an entirely ambivalent tool for supporting one's argument in such a statistical way. All it proves is the letter combinations appear in proximity the meaning, words, context and association of the words, which are all important, are not addressed via google searches. The latter irrelivent entries regularly overshadows the intended targets of such a search.

All right, since you seem determined to take this far too seriously, I will as well.

The point of my observation is that it is an all too frequent debating tactic of yours to accuse the other person of being pedantic. If you google JMS pedantic site:extremeskins.com, you will find hit after hit of you calling somebody pedantic. It's absolutely amazing how many pedantic posters we have here on extremeskins. Maybe you just naturally attract us to yourself, like an aura.

And incite was used correctly above.

Again, a joke. I don't hold your spelling against you at all, as I am well aware that it is not a sign of lack of intelligence. I deal with that in a professional capacity every day.

Sometimes, though, your spellcheck/brain kicks out some things that are pretty funny to me, like cheesy 80's bands instead of Supreme Court decisions, and in this case, using "incite", which is to stir, encourage, or urge on (and often used in a negative context, like to incite a riot), instead of "insight", penetrating mental vision or discernment, which is what you were actually going for.

I wasn't mocking you for your spelling (and if I wanted to do that, there are far worse examples ), just pointing out something I found to be amusing, especially since you do frequently engage in lengthy arguments here.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I will point out that I have let you go pages and pages and pages without commenting on the fact that you don't know how to spell "precedent" despite the fact that you believe you understand the concept better than trained attorneys.

I think I deserve a gold star for that.

[JMS]

All right, since you seem determined to take this far too seriously, I will as well.

The point of my observation is that it is an all too frequent debating tactic of yours to accuse the other person of being pedantic. If you google JMS pedantic site:extremeskins.com, you will find hit after hit of you calling somebody pedantic. It's absolutely amazing how many pedantic posters we have here on extremeskins. Maybe you just naturally attract us to yourself, like an aura.

I'll bet you of the thousands of folks on this board, I have not used that term with more than five.. outside of this thread probable only two or three. I don't find that all that frequent even if that is a consistant comment on those posters discussion tactics.

I also don't think pedantic arguments among adults are typically that common, so the infrequency I've used the term seems to fit.

Again, a joke. I don't hold your spelling against you at all

Fair enough, I don't hold your mispelling against you either.

[Thiebear]

fine print: You must have 1+million to your name.

[PeterMP]

If it's untrue, it's untrue.... It's illogical to say the exact same metric is true for one set, and false for another set of random postings all other things being equal..

But all other things aren't equal, and we know that going in. There is no user here with a usernane containing the word pedantic.

You're arguing that I can't use a tool to weigh a mouse because I can't use it to measure an elephant, but I know that elephants are different than mice. I know going in that pedantic is a pretty rare word.

I know that I never use the word pedantic here, unless I'm having a discussion with you, where you used it first. The use of the word pedantics is definitely non-random so is your username.

THECATATETHEHAT are letter combinations and equivalent in google to "the cat ate the hat" which are words. Google doesn't distinguish between letter combinations and words

Not true.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&biw=957&bih=541&source=hp&q=THECATATETHEHAT&aq=f&aqi=g-l4g-ls1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=d2da7bf6259b98f9

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=the+cat+ate+the+hat&cp=8&pq=thecatatethehat&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&aq=0lv&aqi=&aql=&oq=THE+CAT+ATETHEHAT&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=d2da7bf6259b98f9&biw=957&bih=541

Now having said that I have used the word Pedantic a lot.

Which was the point techboy and I were making with the google search.

[techboy]

I'll bet you of the thousands of folks on this board, I have not used that term with more than five.. outside of this thread probable only two or three.

Mooka

alexey

PeterMP (one of many)

mad4comp

twa

Skinz4Life12

hokie4redskins

critics of Michael Moore (lots of people, but perhaps this one is a bit unfair)

Blighty Skins

sacase

rebornempowered (and JMS )

Kilmer17

Me (one of many)

I could go on (and I didn't even bother with this current thread, actually. What's the count here again?)...

[Burgold]

JMS,

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against Techboy when researching quotes is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha . .

[PeterMP]

I'll bet you of the thousands of folks on this board, I have not used that term with more than five.. outside of this thread probable only two or three. I don't find that all that frequent even if that is a consistant comment on those posters discussion tactics.

I also don't think pedantic arguments among adults are typically that common, so the infrequency I've used the term seems to fit.

Mooka:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?322651-Could-a-sumo-wrestler-effectively-play-in-the-NFL&p=7496377&viewfull=1#post7496377

Yourself:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?194090-Victim-wears-Mohammad-cartoon-to-Madrid-trial/page10

mad4comp:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?236713-Jefferson-used-quran-to-help-with-the-constitution&p=4851919&viewfull=1#post4851919

Burgold:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?198094-The-Diamondback-(UMD-student-newspaper)-Co-op-offers-apology-to-Jewish-student&p=3768131&viewfull=1#post3768131

twa:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?201512-Cheney-VP-office-not-an-quot-entity-within-the-executive-branch-quot&p=3885817&viewfull=1#post3885817

And of course there is me, techboy, and the people in this thread, and I'm not even through the 2nd page of hits.

[JMS]

But all other things aren't equal, and we know that going in. There is no user here with a usernane containing the word pedantic.

You're arguing that I can't use a tool to weigh a mouse because I can't use it to measure an elephant, but I know that elephants are different than mice. I know going in that pedantic is a pretty rare word.

And do we have a poster with the name "right"?

Actually I'm arguing if you can use a measurement of weight for a mouse and an eliphant then you can use that metric. But if a metric can't be applied meaningfully across conistant sets then it's not a reasonable metric.

Consistancy here being random unrelated entries or articles.

Google hits as a statistical polling tool is not a reasonable metric.

I know that I never use the word pedantic here, unless I'm having a discussion with you, where you used it first.

Agreed, and I would argue if you wanted to have a discussion on the relivency or correctness of the use of the word a more reasonable approach would be to revisit the threads and your arguments where I used the term, not a blanket google search. One which also favors my arguemnts with correct and myself with genuis, and yours not so much, As I have said, I have used that word several times in our discussions to your point. fewer times with Techboy. Outside of this thread those are the only folks I can recall useing pedantic strategums in a discussion. The majority of my discussions with you guys I dont' think I've used that word.

But you guys do tend to dive deep into the details when you are on the run.

The use of the word pedantics is definitely non-random so is your username.

They are random in both cases. Google was not designed nor is it meaningful to use it as you are doing. Not in a global set, not in a smaller set such as extreme skins.

A simple textual search would be more meaningful, but the algorithms employed by Google blows the statistical value for hits meaning out of the water.

[PeterMP]

And do we have a poster with the name "right"?

No, but right is a much more commonly used word than pedantic.

[techboy]

Agreed, and I would argue if you wanted to have a discussion on the relivency or correctness of the use of the word a more reasonable approach would be to revisit the threads and your arguments where I used the term, not a blanket google search.

That was the point of my initial comment, actually. It was you that decided that it was the word count that mattered, and started counting. I never even mentioned the number of hits. I initially let it slide because I thought your response was clever, but you seem to have missed the point entirely.

As you can see from the brief list I put above (and I actually missed Burgold from the 1st page, and the people in this thread, and whoever might have been further in... I stopped after a few minutes), looking at the individual posts, you call people pedantic all the time.

One which also favors my arguemnts with correct and myself with genuis, and yours not so much, As I have said, I have used that word several times in our discussions to your point. fewer times with Techboy.

You called PeterMP pedantic so often, there are even cases where you refer to it as a general part of his character.

I suspect you would have gone there with me too, except that it's easier to dismiss me as a faith based reasoner. Has more punch.

[JMS]

Mooka:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?322651-Could-a-sumo-wrestler-effectively-play-in-the-NFL&p=7496377&viewfull=1#post7496377

2010

In a thread entitled "Could a sumo wrestler effectively play in the NFL?" he defended his statement as not having to do with sumo wrestlers.

Yourself:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?194090-Victim-wears-Mohammad-cartoon-to-Madrid-trial/page10

2007

Actually this is Techboy using it against himself from which goes to my greater point.

I was making the case that all religions have tenants that their followers don't adhere too... He made the case that it varies widely example ultra orthodox jews would be more stricts than others. He both said I made a good point and that his point might be pedantic because I think it's understood.

( post #140)

mad4comp:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?236713-Jefferson-used-quran-to-help-with-the-constitution&p=4851919&viewfull=1#post4851919

2008

Made the claim all Arab discovers / inventions were not actual discovers because they were based upon non arab foundations.... Like all western discovers which he did consider discoveres... I said his argument was pedantic...

I might have been wrong though... his argument was more sophmoric and wrong.

Burgold:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?198094-The-Diamondback-(UMD-student-newspaper)-Co-op-offers-apology-to-Jewish-student&p=3768131&viewfull=1#post3768131

From 2007

This was about a clerk who refused to serve a supporter of Israels. Burgold was making the case in post #109 that although nowhere in evidence did it say she refused to service jews, that that should be part of the discussion precisely because it was not stated. Which I did call pedantic argument... probable incorrectly... Erroneous would have been a better word.

twa:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?201512-Cheney-VP-office-not-an-quot-entity-within-the-executive-branch-quot&p=3885817&viewfull=1#post3885817

From 2007

This wasn't used against twa. In this thread Cheney was making the case that the VP's office was outside of the Executive Branch because he's the President of the Senate, but also outside of the Legislative branch... And thus the VP's office is not subject to laws designed to regulate either.. Which I'm sorry is a pedantic argument which Dick Cheney made orgiinally not twa... It's also a stupid argument.. put pedantic fits too.

And of course there is me, techboy, and the people in this thread, and I'm not even through the 2nd page of hits.

But your four cases did span five years... four freaking years and you came up with four cases and were wrong on another.... So tell me truthfully... Don't you find this line of questionging PEDANTIC?

Overly concerned with minute details or formalisms?

[PeterMP]

But your four cases did span five years... four freaking years and you came up with four cases and were wrong on another.... So tell me truthfully... Don't you find this line of questionging PEDANTIC?

Overly concerned with minute details or formalisms?

Google doesn't return hits by date, unless you ask for most recent, which I didn't do.

I find it pedantic that you just can't admit that you were wrong and move on. That you can't admit that you use the word pedantic more frequently than everybody else here (excluding when people use it when discussing the arguments that you said were pedantic) and that you've used at on many more people than 2 or 3 (or even 5).

[Burgold]

From 2007

This was about a clerk who refused to serve a supporter of Israels. Burgold was making the case in post #109 that although nowhere in evidence did it say she refused to service jews, that that should be part of the discussion precisely because it was not stated. Which I did call pedantic argument... probable incorrectly... Erroneous would have been a better word.

:doh:

[techboy]

From 2007

This wasn't used against twa. In this thread Cheney was making the case that the VP's office was outside of the Executive Branch because he's the President of the Senate, but also outside of the Legislative branch... And thus the VP's office is not subject to laws designed to regulate either.. Which I'm sorry is a pedantic argument which Dick Cheney made orgiinally not twa... It's also a stupid argument.. put pedantic fits too.

You were asking about irony earlier in the thread?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You know what's pedantic?

Using a lexus-nexus search to grab any USSC cases where the word "citizenship" is written and then claiming that they are about presidential eligiblity without actually reading them.

Actually, that may be the opposite of pedantic.

To be honest, I'm not 100 percent sure what the word means.

[techboy]

You know what's pedantic?

Pointing out that a lexus is a car, not a search engine, and that the term is correctly spelled lexis nexis.

[JMS]

You know what's pedantic?

Using a lexus-nexus search to grab any USSC cases where the word "citizenship" is written and then claiming that they are about presidential eligiblity without actually reading them.

Actually' date=' that may be the opposite of pedantic.

To be honest, I'm not 100 percent sure what the word means.[/quote']

I don't have a subscription to lexis nexis so I'm guessing you are being hypothetical. and are you actually saying now that "citizenship standards are unrelated to Presidential standards in a thread where you were trying to defend your destroyed claim that presidential eligibility hasn't change because it's always been defined as CITIZENSHIP STANDARDS?

Anybody can flip flop.... but to flop back again takes real skill.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

JMS, please indulge me. I am going to ask one question at a time. And I want to see your one sentence answers.

1. What is a natural born citizen?