• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Birthers Move Over and Make Way for Thirteenthers

I had never heard of this before today, but the thirteenthers are an amazing new addition to anti-Obama crazies, following in the footsteps of the birthers. Iowa Republicans are trying to ratify the original 13th Amendment:



The idea being that, since Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, he would be ineligible to be President of the United States if this amendment ever passed. (Ronald Reagan was knighted, but that came after the presidency. And even if he was still in office, it would probably be okay with Iowa Republicans because, you know, Ronald Reagan.) How come Democrats didn't get this creative from 2000 to 2008? We just went to Michael Moore movies all the time.


Make Way for Thirteenthers | Blogtown, PDX | Portland Mercury

*****

I think the GOP should make this part of their national platform.

If they passed this law tomorrow, Obama would still be president. No such thing as ex-post-facto laws here in America, as they are banned by the Constitution.
 
If they passed this law tomorrow, Obama would still be president. No such thing as ex-post-facto laws here in America, as they are banned by the Constitution.

I think that would be a matter of application and interpretation for the Courts to decide. Honestly, I can see an argument either way.

But it's irrelevant. It'll never happen. And somebody should check into what the Iowa Republicans are smoking.
 
It's already been mentioned in the thread. If you amend the Constitution, the amendment trumps any existing, conflicting provision. All they'd have to do is include "this amendment shall apply to any current office holder" or something like that.

But no, it isn't going to happen, so it doesn't matter. Not that it would anyway, because the Nobel Prize isn't a title of nobility.
 
It's already been mentioned in the thread. If you amend the Constitution, the amendment trumps any existing, conflicting provision. All they'd have to do is include "this amendment shall apply to any current office holder" or something like that.

But no, it isn't going to happen, so it doesn't matter. Not that it would anyway, because the Nobel Prize isn't a title of nobility.

It is if you don't know how to spell or use a dictionary. :lol:

I wonder exactly who their audience is with this? They must think it will get them somewhere with some target group?
 
It's already been mentioned in the thread. If you amend the Constitution, the amendment trumps any existing, conflicting provision. All they'd have to do is include "this amendment shall apply to any current office holder" or something like that.

But no, it isn't going to happen, so it doesn't matter. Not that it would anyway, because the Nobel Prize isn't a title of nobility.

Well you know...as long as it keeps us talking about THIS and not

This...

detroit-then-now.jpg


Jobs...unemployment...budget deficit...war on terror..
 
Well you know...as long as it keeps us talking about THIS and not

This...

detroit-then-now.jpg


Jobs...unemployment...budget deficit...war on terror..

You should have seen Detroit under Reagan...not a pretty place. Of course the dishonesty of taking pictures from different neighborhoods for the then and now is also amusing...
 
Well you know...as long as it keeps us talking about THIS and not...

Heaven forbid anyone actually talk about something other than what you want to talk about. :roll:
 
Wait, let me get this straight, they want to remove the president from office on the basis of a law that was never passed? :lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

That's a very good point! Even if they passed that, our laws prohibit ex post facto laws, meaning it would not apply retroactively.

I remember years ago when Bill Maher made the following comment:

They had a recall to get rid of Governor Gray in California. They tried to impeach Bill Clinton. And they went to court to keep Gore from becoming President. It's clear that Republicans will do anything to get elected -- except get the most votes.
 
It's already been mentioned in the thread. If you amend the Constitution, the amendment trumps any existing, conflicting provision. All they'd have to do is include "this amendment shall apply to any current office holder" or something like that.

Good point.
 
Like I said.... they would have to change 1,9,3 before they could apply it to Barry's peace prize.

Care to elaborate? What do the 1st, 3rd and 9th Amendments have to do with the issue at hand? (Not trying to be difficult; I just don't understand where you're going with this?)
 
Last edited:
Care to elaborate? What do the 1st, 3rd and 9th Amendments have to do with the issue at hand? (Not trying to be difficult; I just don't understand where you're going with this?)

That's okay. I didn't understand the swipe from him about how I should read the constitution. I'm not the dumbass who is trying to amend it so that Obama will be stripped of his Presidency.
 
You should have seen Detroit under Reagan...not a pretty place. Of course the dishonesty of taking pictures from different neighborhoods for the then and now is also amusing...

Anopther brilliant tactic...forget that Reagan was elected president 30 years ago...and lets avoid talking about NOW...current administration...freqin GENIUS...

Well...I know I hired you to manage my store...but what the ****...its OK you are a dismal failure...because the guy 30 years ago was ****ed too...

yeah...THATS a GREAT tactic!!!
 
VanceM,

I think what Redress was eluding to is you can't blame Pres. Obama for Detroit's economic problems when the city fell in decline long before he came into office. If you want to blame anyone for the city's problems, there's plenty of blame that should have been casts long ago.

Redress rightly was also trying to deflect from the ridiculous idea that somehow any laws, plans or policies enacted by the current President would somehow turn things around overnight. To use a dieter's analogy...it took a long time for the individual to put on the weight; it's gonna take a long time to take the weight off. Same thing applies here.

Detroit and other economically depressed cities didn't just fall into decline from the inaction or wrongful actions of just one person. It's going to take alot to get such economically depressed cities back on their feet. It starts w/the city planners getting their citizens involved and with their policy makers to find ways to bring new businesses to their area that promote job creation and job growth. But the President's policies in and of themselves will not be able to turn that around for Detroit or any other city. They may be a start, but it's up to the city planners themselves to turn things around in Detroit.

That's okay. I didn't understand the swipe from him about how I should read the constitution. I'm not the dumbass who is trying to amend it so that Obama will be stripped of his Presidency.

The reason I asked is because none of the Amendments Crunch mentioned have anything to do with citizenship or the Presidency. As to the original drafting of the 13th Amendment these "13ners" would like to bring back, they'd have a very difficult time doing so considering:

a) Art. 1, 2, and 3 already outline the qualifications and elective processes for the Legistlative, Executive and Judicial branches of government; and,
b) the 14th Amendment clearly defines who are this nation's citizens.

And if you wanted to go further, Art. 3, Sect. 3 covers acts of Treason. So, IMO, all the basis that the original drafting of the 13th Amendment would have covered as far as citizenship, subversion of power and authority, and where one's alliances are draw in this country are already covered under the Constitution as it currently stands. There's really no need to rehash an old and useless amendment whose only purpose obviously is to remove someone from office just because someone doesn't like him. Pure foolishness. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Anopther brilliant tactic...forget that Reagan was elected president 30 years ago...and lets avoid talking about NOW...current administration...freqin GENIUS...

Well...I know I hired you to manage my store...but what the ****...its OK you are a dismal failure...because the guy 30 years ago was ****ed too...

yeah...THATS a GREAT tactic!!!

If the guy 30 years ago put something into place that the current manager has no way of controlling on the short term (lets assume there is an issue with pensions), than it wouldn't be his fault. We should put blame where blame is due and not simply assume the current manager is a superman.
 
Care to elaborate? What do the 1st, 3rd and 9th Amendments have to do with the issue at hand? (Not trying to be difficult; I just don't understand where you're going with this?)


LOL..... I posted a few up that Article I, section 9, clause 3 would have to be amended before anything could be done as far as changing the 13th amendment and having it affect Barry's Nobel Peace Prize. (that is assuming the Nobel would fall under the 13th, which I doubt)

Sorry, I just short handed it to 1,9,3. :shrug:
 
VanceM,

I think what Redress was eluding to is you can't blame Pres. Obama for Detroit's economic problems when the city fell in decline long before he came into office. If you want to blame anyone for the city's problems, there's plenty of blame that should have been casts long ago.

Redress rightly was also trying to deflect from the ridiculous idea that somehow any laws, plans or policies enacted by the current President would somehow turn things around overnight. To use a dieter's analogy...it took a long time for the individual to put on the weight; it's gonna take a long time to take the weight off. Same thing applies here.

Detroit and other economically depressed cities didn't just fall into decline from the inaction or wrongful actions of just one person. It's going to take alot to get such economically depressed cities back on their feet. It starts w/the city planners getting their citizens involved and with their policy makers to find ways to bring new businesses to their area that promote job creation and job growth. But the President's policies in and of themselves will not be able to turn that around for Detroit or any other city. They may be a start, but it's up to the city planners themselves to turn things around in Detroit.



The reason I asked is because none of the Amendments Crunch mentioned have anything to do with citizenship or the Presidency. As to the original drafting of the 13th Amendment these "13ners" would like to bring back, they'd have a very difficult time doing so considering:

a) Art. 1, 2, and 3 already outline the qualifications and elective processes for the Legistlative, Executive and Judicial branches of government; and,
b) the 14th Amendment clearly defines who are this nation's citizens.

And if you wanted to go further, Art. 3, Sect. 3 covers acts of Treason. So, IMO, all the basis that the original drafting of the 13th Amendment would have covered as far as citizenship, subversion of power and authority, and where one's alliances are draw in this country are already covered under the Constitution as it currently stands. There's really no need to rehash an old and useless amendment whose only purpose obviously is to remove someone from office just because someone doesn't like him. Pure foolishness. :roll:

Oh...Im sure Reddress will insert her intent. My point behind posting the pictures is simple...if people want to continue to use racism, classism, Tea Party, high heel shoes, and lunatic fringe arguments...thats fine...I'll point to the extreme to bring it back to what is important...especially during the run up to the election.
 
If the guy 30 years ago put something into place that the current manager has no way of controlling on the short term (lets assume there is an issue with pensions), than it wouldn't be his fault. We should put blame where blame is due and not simply assume the current manager is a superman.

We didnt hire Barrack Obama to be Ronald Reagan. He applied for the job of president. His job is to implment policy passed by the congress for the betterment of the United States. I dont give a **** if it was Carter before Reagan, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, or Bush2. None of that **** matters TODAY. TODAY we yhave 10%+ unmployment and thats on paper. In reality its far worse. We have c ities that are crumbling. We have a massive budget deficit.

Im a realist...I dont expect The One to fix everything overnight. However when your policies INCREASE unemployment and INCREASE budget deficits then you dont get to run around, hide behind mommies skirt and blame it on the last guy...or the guy 5 presidents ago. Thats pathetic. If he isnt up to the job he should be fired. If I hired an office manager to run a branch and that iundividual kept giving me some lame assed weak dick response like gee...I didnt know this job would be so hard, or golly...its not fair you blame me...its not my fault...you know what? ****ing wah...take your ass to Burger King or Taco Bell. Because in the big boy world...its not my fault is a lame ass response.

I dont know how many people here actually work for a living...pay taxes, etc. If everyone wants to play silly games about blame this guy or that...well...thats fine...its not the real world...you have that perogative. But everyone MIGTHT want to look at that budget deficit. Last time I checked we are at approx 97.5-98% of our GPD in budget deficit alone. We are at the point where we will soon not be able to pay even our interest on the debt that BOTH PARTIES have accumulated. Whining about whose fault it was or blaming the other guy is simply idiotic. To blame Reagan means you actually believe that democrats and republicans aborgated the responsibilities of congress and turned over controls to our king. Bull****. Republicans AND democrats in congress have spent us into this mess. And worse...we have let them...and not just let them...we ENDORSE it because we want those little crumbs Sammy doles out to us.
 
LOL..... I posted a few up that Article I, section 9, clause 3 would have to be amended before anything could be done as far as changing the 13th amendment and having it affect Barry's Nobel Peace Prize. (that is assuming the Nobel would fall under the 13th, which I doubt)

Sorry, I just short handed it to 1,9,3. :shrug:

No, the Nobel wouldn't fall under the original 13th. :lol:

But look at the language. I'm not sure it's specific enough to be construed as amending Art 1 Sec 9 Cl 3 as it reads. But the Iowa Republicans' platform is to ratify the original 13th as-is. Any changes or additional language and they'd have to resubmit the new amendment and start the process over again. You can't just send a constitutional amendment to the equivalent of reconciiation.
 
No, the Nobel wouldn't fall under the original 13th. :lol:

But look at the language. I'm not sure it's specific enough to be construed as amending Art 1 Sec 9 Cl 3 as it reads. But the Iowa Republicans' platform is to ratify the original 13th as-is. Any changes or additional language and they'd have to resubmit the new amendment and start the process over again. You can't just send a constitutional amendment to the equivalent of reconciiation.

Maybe they will deem it passed. :mrgreen:
 
LOL..... I posted a few up that Article I, section 9, clause 3 would have to be amended before anything could be done as far as changing the 13th amendment and having it affect Barry's Nobel Peace Prize. (that is assuming the Nobel would fall under the 13th, which I doubt)

Sorry, I just short handed it to 1,9,3. :shrug:
Oh...okay...I get it now. And for once, I'd have to agree with you. Art I, Sect. 9, clause 3 would have to be repealed in order for the original 13th Amendment per this discussion to take affect.
 
What I don't get is why they think they need to change the 13th amendment when it's already covered by Article I, section 9, clause 8.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

So let's look at that....

Did he accept a "present" in the case of the Nobel prize? Yes

Did Congress OK it? I don't think so.

Did he accept the prize from a government?...... A case can be made for that.

Members of that committee:

Thorbjørn Jagland
b. 1950.
Chair of the Nobel Committee.
Secretary-general Council of Europe.
President of the Storting. 2005-2009.


Ågot Valle
b. 1945

Member of the Storting 1997-2009.


Kaci Kullmann Five
b. 1951
Deputy chair of the Nobel Committee.
Self employed Advisor Public Affairs. Chairman of the Young Conservatives, 1977-79. Member of the Storting, 1981-97.


Sissel Marie Rønbeck
b. 1950
Chairman Social Democratic Youth (AUF) 1975-1977. Member of the Storting 1977-1993.


Inger-Marie Ytterhorn
b. 1941
Senior political adviser to the Progress Party's parliamentary group. Member of the Storting, 1989-93.

Committee members | Nobels fredspris

So 2 out of 5 are current members of the Storting, and the other 3 are past members.

What is the Storting? It's the Parliament of Norway.

The Storting is the supreme legislature of Norway, located in Oslo.

Parliament of Norway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
No nutty theory is so stupid it won 't find some one who will believe it...
 
In the wake of the DOJ's turmoil and at the risk of folks turning their noses up at the decision rendered, I'll post the following for your reading pleasure:

From the Syracuse.com article (see my post #49):

Jerry Aldmen from Newsweek reported, "Unfortunately for them, the Department of Justice looked into whether Obama needed Congressional approval to accept the Nobel under the existing emoluments clause, and based on the meaning of “foreign state” (which would not cover the Nobel Prize Committee) concluded that he did not."

Take that for what it's worth...
 
Back
Top Bottom