I've read Ramsey's piece before. The argument that a common law concept would be derived from acts of Parliament is contradictory on its face.

It's understood that the US inherited certain legal concepts from Britain, while simultaneously not being bound by its Parliamentary acts (such as any edicts against America seceding.) And under common law, those who were born outside of Britain had no right to citizenship; Parliament could permit it, but there was no common law that mandated it.

This reminds me a lot of the modern arguments over the Second Amendment, with a lot of revisionists (in this case, on the right) who like to ignore very obvious indications that it concerned the militia -- anyone who reads the Congressional debate can see this. Because of their modern agendas, they work very hard to turn it into something that those who wrote it never intended.

I realize that a lot of people on both sides of the aisle don't like this natural born citizenship clause, but the answer is to amend the constitution, not to distort what it means. It's not as if the founders got everything right or we're obligated to maintain every idea that they had, but we should follow the process that they created for changing it.

Depends how you define restrictions. Access to abortions can be difficult for women depending where in Canada they live.

While it will change by end of the year PEI up til now had nowhere in the province to get one.

New Brunswick requires approval from 2 doctors, has to be done in a hospital.



http://www.nafcanada.org/access-abortion-ca.html

If you really want to get into situation of "natural born" consider this. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. Washington became Pres in 1789. The constitution says minimum age to be Pres is 35. 1788 + 35 = 1823 as the first year a natural born individual could be President.

So technically only persons born after ratification would be elibible for Pres because Constitution came into existance in 1788. If you count time under the Articles of Confederation, 1778 ratification, you have another 10 years to work with giving 1813 as the first eligible year.

In the 1788 scenario the first 19 Presidents were non native born. In the 1778 scenario it would be the first 18.

But, of course, that was covered with the "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution," portion of the elegibility details.

There was case law that established that those who born in the American colonies prior to the founding of the US were US citizens.

If it begins at birth, why is abortion prohibited beyond 24-28 weeks?

I suggest you consult the wealth of evidence on this that confirms an unborn baby can both feel pain and hear things long before they fall out of their mother's vagina; they are in every sense human

Liberals also make me laugh but I don't go around saying as much in an immature and pretty pathetic attempt to put them down. If you want to debate with me, I suggest you stop being so smug and learn to respect other people's points of view

I don't agree with them on that. Not much more I can say

You misunderstood

Clearly, abortion and conception are worlds apart

Clearly. Can you explain what you meant then? Why mention condoms etc?

Scientific consensus is that the fetus doesn't feel pain until the third trimester.

JAMA Network | JAMA | Fetal Pain:Â Â A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence

I believe condoms came up in the context of using abortion casually as a form of birth control; as in ... guy forgot to use condom; girl gets pregnant; girl has an abortion.

I believe the anti-abortion lobby tries to paint all abortions as being of this nature; I don't know what the statistics are.

Why does abortion have to always come up in elections?

Does any other western country have this debate nearly every single election?

I live smack in the middle of bible belt country in British Cloumbia here and Abortion protests by the religious oddities happen but I cannot recall it ever being part of any of the elections. Pretty much all of the elected officials in this area are also very religious. Mayor is even a pastor.



On another election topic, I got an email yesterday from the San Diego voter office and ballot will be sent out Wed via email.

Now just have to think if I should vote and send right away or wait a bit and vote closer to June.

That is always the hard decision.

*If* you're certain you've already made up your mind - what would be a reason to wait?
(I've never voted by mail - so haven't personally considered this before you just raised it)

ps: So having now thought about it for 3 seconds, and assuming from your posts you're going to vote for a Dem candidate - it strikes me that for Hillary, write-ins won't be as important as they might possibly be for Sanders - because she already has a whopping lead overall. But for him - the possibility that write-ins might possibly make a decisive difference (?) - and if the number of write-in ballots returned prior to 7 June is substantial - it would add to the argument that CA. isn't 'in the bag' for her - unless and until all the votes are counted.
And furthermore - I haven't looked up where the 2 stand in the CA. polls at the moment - nor do I know how write-ins for one candidate or the other impact ......impact what?.....impact anything (until they're actually counted)!

You're the writer-in-er - what's your take?

Suppose thinking about it the primary does not make much difference. Either way my vote will be a democrat.

I lean more towards Sanders but not sure if Ill vote that way yet.

Last I looked Clinton has a strong lead over Sanders that I doubt he can overcome.

California is a Clinton safe state in my view.


I am curious to see how they handle the ballot. In the past the overseas ballot for San Diego was a xerox copy of the original but only contained the federal offices.

Basically a cut and paste and then xerox it....

California doesnt permit overseas voters to vote in state or local issues or offices. But I hear some states do.

Probably should wait then till you're sure - if there's no discernible impact either way....

Actually you echo my sentiments.
Contrary to the patronising disparagement and assumptions from a know-it-all in this thread - until a few days ago I thought "good thing California doesn't get to vote 'till June, because if I had to do it now - I absolutely don't know whom I'd vote for."

Finally have made up my mind. That's not to say I won't change it.
So - as CA. voters - in this crazy election - we can both be happy we have that luxury

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...tar-jon-ronson

Interesting article on Monica.