Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Newsweek has a fascinating report on a plank in the platform of the Iowa Republican Party to reintroduce the "real" 13th amendment -- not that pesky one that outlawed slavery, the one that would strip Barack Obama of his citizenship for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Seriously.
The platform calls for "the reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment, not the 13th amendment in today's Constitution." And what was the original 13th amendment? Climb into Professor Peabody's Wayback Machine:
Return with us now to the tumultuous years leading up to the War of 1812, when fear of "foreign influence"--by England or France, depending on whether you were a Republican or Federalist--was a dominating issue in American politics. Jerome Bonaparte, the younger brother of Napoleon, had recently spent several years in the United States, where he married Elizabeth Patterson, the beautiful, ambitious daughter of a wealthy Baltimore merchant. In 1810, Jerome was on the throne of Westphalia, while Elizabeth was in America with their son, Jerome Napoleon. (The couple would never see each other again.) According to historian Michael Vorenberg of Brown University, having a nephew of the emperor of France growing up on American soil might have made the pro-British Federalists uneasy, or, just as likely, suggested to them a way to tie the Republicans to the French Legion of Honor, the Trilateral Commission of its day. Desiring to get out in front of the issue--or possibly seeking to score points against the Federalists, who had their own embarrassing ties to the British aristocracy--Republican Sen. Philip Reed of Maryland introduced an amendment meant to strengthen the existing "emoluments clause" in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution.This clause reads:
"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."
Reed's proposed amendment extended the ban from office-holders to "any citizen of the United States" and made the penalty loss of citizenship:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
The bill passed both houses of Congress but the war of 1812 intervened, more states joined the union and the whole issue went away. Until now. Of course, this amendment would not only strip President Obama of his citizenship, but also Jerry Lewis, who has received a medal from the government of France, and many other Americans who have received honors from foreign countries.
I guess this is the birther backup plan -- "Okay, so maybe he is a citizen. But this amendment will strip him of it." Good planning, guys.
Politics
Comments
So, we're going to kick out all the Nobel Prize winners?
What about Olympic medals? Are they evil signs of treason, too?
Posted by: anon | July 29, 2010 10:39 AM
But the Nobel Prize doesn't come from any of those. It comes from the Nobel Foundation, which is a private organization that just happens to be based in Norway.
Idiots.
Posted by: chris | July 29, 2010 10:40 AM
Even if this amendment was ratified, aren't people exempt from crimes they committed before that crime was made illegal? Would Obama have to give the medal back?
Posted by: Brandon | July 29, 2010 10:42 AM
I meant the Iowa GOP are idiots. Just to be clear.
Posted by: chris | July 29, 2010 10:42 AM
Forget Jerry Lewis: probably half our generals & admirals have received awards from foreign governments - it's actually fairly common. Why does the Iowa GOP hate our troops?
Posted by: WScott | July 29, 2010 10:43 AM
Of course, even if this passed, why would Congress not give their consent to him accepting the Nobel Prize? And even if the next congress was rabidly tea party crazy, wouldn't his acceptance be grandfathered in?
OK, I know I'm trying to actually take this seriously.
Posted by: Odie | July 29, 2010 10:45 AM
Speaking of birthers, remember that "John Adams" guy who so confidently predicted some bombshell revelation that would blow Obama out of the water, any day now? That was back in 2009, and still no big shocking bombshell. I wonder if "John Adams" will ever come back here and explain what went wrong. Or maybe he's distracted by another big shocking bombshell he saw in a porn mag...
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 29, 2010 10:47 AM
He should give the Nobel back anyway. What a bullshit sham that was. "Here's a peace prize. By the way, you were nominated like, 10 months ago, before you'd done anything. Words and rhetoric are really important, you know!"
Posted by: Buffoon | July 29, 2010 10:48 AM
Brilliant!
Not only could they get rid of Obama, but they could also get Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Sweeeeet.
Oh wait. Didn't Henry Kissinger and Elie Weisel win Noble Peace Prizes too? Dang it. Thems good people.
Posted by: carlsonjok | July 29, 2010 10:49 AM
Time to strip George W. Bush of his citizenship. He was awarded Afghanastan's Ghazi Amanullah Khan Medal by President Karzai in 2009. Reporters present at the award ceremony were ordered by Karzai to address Mr. Bush as Your Excellency.
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/rawanews.php?id=903
Posted by: Dr X | July 29, 2010 10:50 AM
These wingnuts are not merely bedwetters unable to move out of Mom's basement, they control the Republican party at a state level. And this isn't the only state where the wingnuts control the party, we know Texas does and is it Idaho's state GOP body who recently started promoted the crazy?
I assume if this is the level of discourse at the state level governing bodies in Iowa and Texas, what might we find in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina and Arkansas? And if this is the leadership, it's not difficult to imagine how much crazier the constituents' beliefs are. Virginia's AG and Gov. are actually starting to look more sane (well, not really, but saner.
The prescient movie Idiocracy isn't so prescient after all, they forget to add an equal dose of batshit crazy.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2010 10:52 AM
Ronald Reagan was knighted by Queen Elizabeth. OK, so he's dead, but we could always dig him up and eject the corpse from the country, right?
Posted by: Lmf3b | July 29, 2010 10:54 AM
Hmm. George Bush, Sr., was knighted by the Queen of England. Would that count?
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 29, 2010 10:54 AM
A quick Google search turned up this list of Americans who have been Knighted by Queen Elizabeth.
Bill Gates
Rudi Guiliani
Billy Graham
Alan Greenspan
J Edgar Hoover
Bob Hope
Henry Kissinger
Andre Previn
Norman Swarzkopf Jr.
Steven Spielberg
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 29, 2010 10:56 AM
So anyone who accepts a Nobel Prize for anything is thereby and automatically considered un-American by the Iowa GOP? I consider that a totally unsurprising admission of the radical right's mindset.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 29, 2010 10:59 AM
If the Consitution were amended to say that the New 13th Amendment had retroactive effect, it would be by definition constitutional. In any case, the ex post facto clause applies only to criminal laws. and not to civil laws or other provisions of the Constitution.
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | July 29, 2010 11:02 AM
As I wrote on this elsewhere, does that mean the Iowa Republicans also want to strip the citizenship of President Eisenhower (who, along with Generals Patton and Bradley, received honors from the King of Great Britain after WW2)?
Or General Schwarzkopf and Powell who were both honored by Queen Elizabeth II after the first Gulf War?
Posted by: Joe Shelby | July 29, 2010 11:02 AM
"I assume if this is the level of discourse at the state level governing bodies in Iowa and Texas, what might we find in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina and Arkansas?"
The Arkansas General Assembly is democratic controlled thank you very much....
Of course that doesn't necessarily mean it's liberal. Arkansas's probably the state in the union that most exemplifies blue dog democrats. (pro-gun, pro-life, democrats that mix on fiscal policy grounds some are more liberal others are not.)
On the other hand, the relative conservativeness of the state democratic party and it's long domination. (Republicans have not controlled either chamber within living memory) means that the state GOP is definitely a bit out there.
Posted by: Ben P | July 29, 2010 11:04 AM
Patton:
Honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire
Honorary Companion of the Order of the Bath [61]
Belgian Order of Leopold
Belgian Croix de Guerre
French Legion of Honor
French Croix de Guerre
Luxemburg War Cross
Grand Luxemburg Cross of the Order of Adolphe of Nassau
Grand Cross of Ouissam Alaouite of Morocco
Order of the White Lion of Czechoslovakia
Czechoslovakian War Cross
Eisenhower:
Argentine Order of the Liberator San Martin, Great Cross
Belgian Order of Léopold
Belgian Croix de Guerre/Belgisch Oorlogskruis
Brazil Campaign Medal
Brazil War Medal
Brazilian Order of Military Merit, Grand Cross
Brazilian Order of Aeronautical Merit, Grand Cross
Brazilian National Order of the Southern Cross
British Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross (GCB)
British Africa Star with "8" and "1" numerical devices.
Chilean Chief Commander of the [Order of Merit]]
Chinese Order of Yun Hui, Grand Cordon
Chinese Order of Yun Fei, Grand Cordon
Commonwealth realms Order of Merit
Czechoslovakian Order of the White Lion
Czechoslovakian Golden Star of Victory
Danish Order of the Elephant
Ecuadorian Star of Abdon Calderon
Egyptian Order of Ismal, Grand Cordon
Ethiopian Order of Solomon
French Croix de Guerre
French Legion of Honor, Grand Cross.[89]
French Order of Liberation
French Military Medal
Greek Order of George I with swords
Guatemalan Cross of Military Merit, First Class
Haitian Order of Honor and Merit, Grand Cross
Italy Military Order of Italy, Knight Grand Cross
Italy Order of Malta
Japanese Collar of the Supreme Order of the Chrysanthemum
Luxembourg Medal of Merit
Luxembourg War Cross
Mexican Order of the Aztec Eagle, First Class
Mexican Medal of Civic Merit
Mexican Order of Military Merit
Moroccan Order of Ouissam Alaouite
Netherlands: Order of the Netherlands Lion, Knight Grand Cross
Norwegian Order of St. Olav
Pakistani Nishan-e-Pakistan, or Order of Pakistan, First Class
Panama Order of Vasco Nunez de Balboa, Grand Cross
Panama Order of Manuel Amador Guerrero, Grand Master (collar grade)
Philippines Distinguished Service Star
Philippines Shield of Honor Medal, Chief Commander
Philippines Order of Sikatuna, Raja (First Class)
Polish Cross of Grunwald, First Class
Polish Order of Polonia Restituta
Polish Virtuti Militari
Soviet Order of Suvorov
Soviet Order of Victory
Tunisian Order of Nichan Iftikhar, Grand Cordon
Reagan:
Honorary Knight Grand Cross
Fellow of Keble College, Oxford
Grand Cordon of the Order of the Chrysanthemum
Posted by: AnonymousCoward | July 29, 2010 11:11 AM
Posted by: dean | July 29, 2010 11:12 AM
Not surprisingly, their platform also includes this:
4.27 - We believe that Intelligent Design theory, or Creationism, should be included with all science instruction along with the Darwinian theory. No theory should then be taught in public schools to the exclusion of the other.
Posted by: Taz | July 29, 2010 11:13 AM
I'm curious as to how the concept of the penalty of "loss of citizenship" would work. How could you deport someone who's never been a citizen of any country other than the USA? Are you going to pick a country at random and parachute the offender in against his will and that of the recipient country? Or do you just take them outside the 12-mile territorial limit and kick them off the boat?
The more I consider this, the more I think it is possible that the people who came up with this idea might perhaps be stupid.
Posted by: Martin C | July 29, 2010 11:21 AM
Martin C:
I think the unspoken thought is that Obama would have to return to Kenya. I'm not sure they have thought it through for Jerry Lewis and General Schwartzkopf.
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | July 29, 2010 11:30 AM
@Martin C
You give him (or her) to the country that gave out the award. Which, again, in the case of the Nobel Prizes, presents somewhat of a problem, as they are not awarded by any country but rather by a private organization that is based in another country.
I'm sure the Nobel Foundation has a basement with a springy old couch, black and white Sylvania with rabbit ears, and easy access to the laundry room. Obama could live there. He could ask Pat for tips.
Posted by: chris | July 29, 2010 11:30 AM
Taz @ #21
"Not surprisingly, their platform also includes this:
4.27 - We believe that Intelligent Design theory, or
Creationism, should be included with all science
instruction along with the Darwinian theory. No theory
should then be taught in public schools to the exclusion
of the other."
Which creation theory? If one, then all: Hindu, Mayan, Egyptian, etc. Fair is fair.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | July 29, 2010 11:34 AM
Well, clearly the the nobel prize is a "Title of nobelity". I mean the two words (noble, nobel) are practically the same!!
Posted by: mousedude | July 29, 2010 11:35 AM
The "real 13th Amendment" has long been a favorite among the patrons of the Alcoa Haberdashery Shoppe as the "Titles of Nobility Amendment". Quite a few have claimed tht it was actually ratified and has been hushed up by a conspiracy of lawyers, whom they contend would be stripped of their citizenship because many put "Esq." after their names.
The Iowa Republicans have just associated themselves with some of the most drool-stained idiots on the 'net.
For a good giggle at other peoples' misfiring neurons, try Googling "titles of noility amendment" of "TONA".
Posted by: Ktesibios | July 29, 2010 11:42 AM
Chris@24
They are probably confused because most Lauriates recieve the prize from the hands of the King of Sweden. Of course the Peace Prize is awarded by the Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Commission* in a seperate cerimony.
* See its foreign, it even says "Norwegian" right on the label!! And even worse, he was awarded the prize by a "Chairman"!!! How much more socialist can you get??!?!eleventy-one!!
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2010 11:43 AM
These guys must be why the word "Iowa" is said to actually mean "Idiots Out Wandering Around."
Geeez.
Posted by: G Barnett | July 29, 2010 11:48 AM
@Martin C
They'd send Obama to HI and cut it loose so it can be its own country again.
@Taz
Seriously, it's about time the kiddies learned about the Time Cube. Teach the controversy!
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | July 29, 2010 11:50 AM
The Time Cube is your friend. Trust the Time Cube.
I believe that the people who propose these crazy ideas don't actually want them enacted (at least most of them), they are just trying to fire up their base with a 'they don't let us do anything we want, we're being persecuted' complex.
Posted by: Penn | July 29, 2010 12:02 PM
Ahhh, an open admission that ID is Creationism ... this should be saved, somewhere, it could be useful.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 29, 2010 12:17 PM
If Germany gave Hasslehoff a medal, then I might led the GOP have this one.
Posted by: CW | July 29, 2010 12:30 PM
No theory should then be taught in public schools to the exclusion of the other.
Cool. I can come up with dozens of theories they can teach in Iowa schools. First one is my theory that the brains of all Republicans actually never evolved beyond that of apes.
Posted by: Tom | July 29, 2010 1:03 PM
"No theory should then be taught in public schools to the exclusion of the other."
Cool. So along with the christianists creation myth our school children will also hear the Greek and Roman stories? The Navajos'? And all other Native Americans'? Hindu mythology? Scientology? Mormonism?
I'm sure the Asians and Europeans are shaking in their boots at the thought of the well-educated American students their kids will have to compete against in 10 years.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 29, 2010 1:14 PM
I'm curious as to how the concept of the penalty of "loss of citizenship" would work.
Their only interest is to get the black guy out of office. So, when they talk about loss of citizenship, they're talking about removing one of the qualifications for the Office of the President.
After the total failure of the birther movement. This seems to be their Hail Mary pass.
I just realized. Birther movement and bowel movement are similar.
Posted by: Owen | July 29, 2010 1:27 PM
Did they do their homework and realize they also had to take are of that awkward ex post facto rule that prohibits punishing someone for an act that was not made a transgression until after the fact? I mean if we made it against the law to be assholes, we could round up a whole bunch of people in Iowa. (Not just there, of course.)
Posted by: Zeno | July 29, 2010 2:03 PM
Yee Tom what a viscous comment. What have apes ever done to you? You slander apes everywhere by comparing their brains too Republicans.
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | July 29, 2010 2:16 PM
I wonder if these dingbats want to retroactivly strip Charles Lindberg of his citizenship for having accepted a medal from Herman Goerring in the 30s.
Posted by: Paen | July 29, 2010 2:26 PM
In terms of divided loyalty, should something like this be applied to U.S. corporations that extend operations to offshore tax havens? Perhaps *they* should be stripped of access and privileges as well.
Posted by: Daniel Kim | July 29, 2010 2:38 PM
The "real" 13th Amendment: ...any title of nobility or honour....
I could see the reasoning behind this in the 18th century, when titles of nobility and knighthood implied loyalty and mutual obligations under the old feudal rules.
Nowadays, though, titles of nobility are, much like the Nobel Prize, just honorary awards given to people for having done something very, very cool. The old fears (like those in barring non-natural born citizens from eligibility for President) seem to be archaic under present realities.
Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with someone who was given a "title of nobility" serving as an elected or appointed official.
But, whatever gets the scary black Kenyan Muslim atheist Marxist out of the White House, I guess.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 29, 2010 2:42 PM
I believe I've posted it before, but I'll do it again.
IOWA is just an acronym for "Idiots Out Wandering Around."
Posted by: Dugglebogey | July 29, 2010 3:06 PM
My theory is the empty Thugs's heads were convenient waste bins when the FSM discovered a load of rancid infested cheese whilst preparing The First Pasta™.
Which probably means the FSM didn't intend the Thugs to be so stupid.
Posted by: blf | July 29, 2010 3:10 PM
Nowadays, though, titles of nobility are, much like the Nobel Prize, just honorary awards given to people for having done something very, very cool.
Wrong. The phrase "title of nobility" means, and always has meant, an arbitrary grant of special legal or political rights and/or privileges over and above those held by ordinary citizens. Examples could include a dukedom (which was an unelected government position), a right to cast two votes instead of just one, exemption from certain legal obligations, or eligibility to serve on certain governing bodies not available to others. Examples do NOT include medals for extraordinary military or other achievement, "honorary" degrees or titles, or awards such as the Nobel Prize, which bring prestige and possibly money or access to certain jobs, but no extra formal political rights.
The Nobel Prize would NEVER have counted as a "title of nobility" in the Framers' eyes, and neither would any of those other awards listed @19 above. The Framers' sole concern here was to prevent a feudal-aristocratic order from being created in the US, and to prevent any foreign feudal order from compromising our basic principle of equality under the law.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 29, 2010 3:11 PM
Let's not forget all the men and women awarded Kuwait Liberation Medals from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Truly they need to be punished.
Posted by: Alareth | July 29, 2010 3:26 PM
While we're at it, we could reinstate slavery and kill the rest of the Injuns, just as bible-gawd intended.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 29, 2010 3:35 PM
RB@44
Im curious what legal or political right and/or privilege over abd above those held by ordinary citizens did Gen. Schwartzkopf recieve with his Knighthood? Or did Bill Gates recieve with his? Im not saying they didnt recieve any as my knowledge of the matter is pretty thin, but all I can find is that Bill Gates gets to put "KBE" after his name. Or is a Knighthood not a title of nobility?
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2010 3:41 PM
Dave: the answer is, none at all -- the "knighthoods" were purely honorary, and besides, such titles have long ago lost whatever real political power they once carried. AFAIK, neither Gates nor Schwartzkopf were granted a right to debate and vote in the House of Lords, or any other such political power in any government. (If they had exercised any such privilege, they could be stripped of their US citizenship; but that would not be a "title of nobility" issue, that would be an issue of US citizenship law, which applies to ANY US citizen serving in ANY foreign government, civil or military service.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 29, 2010 3:52 PM
The only reason they're proposing this is because they think it has a better chance of passing the "Barack Hussein Obama can't be president anymore" amendment. And yes, they would insist that the amendment includes his middle name.
Posted by: Dennis N | July 29, 2010 4:03 PM
RB
OK, what privileges would they receive if they became subjects of Her Magesty and had their awards made substanitive? My understanding is that membership in the House of Lords was always restricted to hereditary peerage (and is now further restricted.) Near as I can tell, all Paul McCartney gets out of his Membership in the Order of the British Empire is the ability to put "MBE" after his name.
You say, "such titles have long ago lost whatever real political power they once carried" but that seems to be the same as Chiroptera's "Nowadays, though, titles of nobility are, much like the Nobel Prize, just honorary awards" to which you replied, "Wrong". So Im just a bit confused on what you thought was wrong with that sentence.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2010 4:14 PM
Dave: What I was calling "wrong" was the assertion that titles of nobility, as the Founders understood them, are, or ever were, comparable or equivalent to the titles and awards given out today.
OK, what privileges would they receive if they became subjects of Her Magesty and had their awards made substanitive?
I have no idea. That would depend on what Her Majesty specifically grants; and that, in turn, would be constrained by what powers current British law allows Her Majesty -- or any other branch of the UK government -- to grant. A foreign state could grant full citizenship to an American, thus making him/her a dual citizen, but that's not a "title of nobility." If the foreign state then grants this person some additional title of REAL nobility, like a dukedom or a seat in their cabinet or lege, then a) that power would only apply in the foreign state, and have no meaning under US law; and b) the person MIGHT be stripped of his/her US citizenship if he/she actually exercises that power or otherwise performs civil or military service for the foreign state.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 29, 2010 4:40 PM
Well, I guess we will be booting the Chief of Clan MacIntyre out of California- can't have those wily Scots noblemen subverting America, after all.
Posted by: Pohranicni Straze | July 29, 2010 5:08 PM
Didn't Caspar Weinberger receive an honorary OBE from the Queen after his retirement? I seem to recall TIME reporting that.
Dumbasses...
Posted by: GMpilot | July 29, 2010 5:13 PM
As to membership in Her Majesty's House of Lord, one must have a title of peerage....knights are not included in the ranks of peerage. The English peerage ranks are Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marquess and Duke. In Scotland, the Baroncy is not considered peerage and is replaced Lord of Parliament. The way to address a peer is " the Lord Earl ...." (or whichever rank).
If you remember your British history, it was the barons who rose up against King John and forced him to sign the Magna Carta.....
Knights are considered commoners as are Baronets.
Posted by: JHB | July 29, 2010 7:19 PM
Hmmmm.....as all Catholic priests are ordained under the authority of the pope, a foreign ruler, would that mean all RC clergy would have to be exiled to the Vatican?
And are winners of Ig Nobel prizes safe or does the King of Swedish Meatballs still count as foreign royalty?
Posted by: Rob Jase | July 29, 2010 9:19 PM
Just curious: Was the original 13th amendment passed by 2/3 vote in each house of Congress? Also, how are they going to reach 2/3 majority in both houses and 3/4 of the states nowadays? Doesn't sound very practical to me. Of course, I realize it's just grandstanding, but the possibility seems remote enough that it seems just silly. Perfect for a rethug platform, that is.
Posted by: JoeBuddha | July 29, 2010 9:56 PM
Knights used to be entitled to opt for trial by combat rather than trial by jury.
I'm not sure if that still applies.
Posted by: Ian Gould | July 29, 2010 10:02 PM
As someone who has researched and written (in small chunks) about the Betsy Patterson / Jerome Bonaparte affair, I should (a) correct the statement that they never saw each other again — in fact they were, much later, at the same social affair somewhere in Europe and for a brief instant glimpsed each other "across a crowded room," as Ezio Pinza would have it; and (b) note that Betsy spent much effort during the rest of her life trying to secure, officially, the right to use the name Bonaparte. This was finally granted, under circumstances I but dimly recall, by Napoleon III. Betsy was called Patterson, though, for all but her brief months of marriage.
Betsy's and Jerome's grandson, Charles Bonaparte, was a well-known civic reformer, and served as Teddy Roosevelt's Navy Secretary and Attorney General, in which latter capacity he founded the FBI.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | July 29, 2010 10:33 PM
Ian Gould - No, trial by Combat (or Ordeal &etc.) have been illegal in England for at least 35 years.
I dimly recall a case from the seventies where a man was tried for raping a woman (who later died from her injuries), and was acquitted. The victim's brother appealed the decision by combat (it had never been officially repealed), the accused refused the challenge and 'honour' was satisfied. It was then officially removed from the books. The last such case in England. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 30, 2010 2:16 AM
Anyway, the whole amendment wouldn't fly for the exact reason the dual-citizenship thing wouldn't fly:
Now when they pass this amendment they'll have to strip all Americans of citizenship (with some noted exceptions).
Ridiculous! - Dingo
-----
* Except those with a provable connection to either
a) the American First Nations or
b) with those formerly regarded as slaves
Posted by: DingoJack | July 30, 2010 2:45 AM
ex post facto law, much?
also:
if i've understood correctly, the group that gives out the Nobel prize is none of those things.
Posted by: andrew | July 30, 2010 6:32 AM
Andrew - The King of Sweden isn't, in fact, the King of Sweden?!?
Who knew? ;) - Dingo
----
PS: It's the King who physically hands out the huge medals, certificates and, no doubt, giant cheques to the recipients.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 30, 2010 7:49 AM
What, we ALL get Gumnut Clusters? What sort of perverse incentives will that impose on our already benighted socialist economy? And if you make EVERYONE honourable, that'll cause unrest. DJ, you're both a royalist AND a pinko.
Posted by: Nouveau Royal Azaria Bee | July 30, 2010 8:43 AM
NRAB - Who said it was a Royal honour & what makes you think you're not all a little nuts?? :) - Dingo (with nut-clusters)
Posted by: DingoJack(with nut clusters) | July 30, 2010 8:53 AM
Well, it's probably more "royal" than "honourable" to wave your nut-clusters about in public.
Posted by: Nouveau Royal Azaria Bee (with bigger nut-clusters) | July 30, 2010 9:03 AM
NRAB - Bring back His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Norton of these United States. Now there was a man who knew how to treat his nut clusters! :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 30, 2010 9:09 AM
As someone pointed out, Nobel is a NGO not a foreign power.
If we're going to exile people who have received titles/awards from a NGO, doesn't that exile every person who's ever received "employee of the month?" An end of year bonus? And what about anyone who has received a degree from a private University? I never trusted those Duke graduates....
Posted by: eric | July 30, 2010 11:37 AM
Do you think any of those Iowa Republicans ever swear allegiance to King Jesus?
Under their amendment, wouldn't that disqualify them from citizenship?
Pass the amendment. We'll ship every fundamentalist Christian in Iowa back to . . . Palestine?
Damn. This all reminds me of the story Molly Ivins told about legislators not paying attention to what they were doing . . .
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 31, 2010 1:19 AM
This is very interesting article by
Arthur Ruger( whole article can be read here)
http://coastalrain.tripod.com/americanchristian/id13.html
I am the unificationist. This article coincide with my belief on "faith and reasons" personally.
" Our left-brain is primarily an interpreter of facts – an encyclopedia of personally acquired knowledge and experience.
The right brain, the creative and imaginative side, is the source of our music, poetry and inventions.
Through our senses facts and experience are admitted into our thinking. They are ordered and collated on the left side of our brain and then conceptualized and understood on the right side.
Balance and harmony of perception are the natural path of our spiritual and physical evolution to wisdom and a higher spiritual plane. Real balance and harmony require perceptual willingness to trust what arises within that inner garden.
We are equipped to see in three dimensions: height, width and depth. Without three-dimensional vision, we see only a square instead of a box and a circle instead of a sphere.
Logic suggests that a prompting moves more naturally through the mind via the creative and imaginative side -- the right brain side.
Left-brain thinking turns on the spirit receiver by its ability to read words, remember definitions, remember stories and remember personal life incidents.
Right brain thinking activates the more spiritually creative aspect of thinking that senses the will and influence of ideas both higher and deeper in the mind.
To live entirely with an emphasis on left-brain thinking makes us no more human than a computer, which amasses knowledge and acts only according to facts in the database.
To live entirely with an emphasis on right brain thinking causes us to live in a world of fantasy, wishful thinking, and imaginary states where the practical application toward bringing wishes to reality is missing.
Right brain conceives the wish, but left-brain has the resources to realize the wish.
It is sensible then that the infinite would not speak to humans solely through right side thinking where ideas would remain only in a conceptual state without the will and knowledge to action. Creativity then springs into action in a mind balanced with knowledge AND imagination.
Spiritually speaking, we are better served by reading formal scripture with a sense of creative imagination rather than with rigid left-brain literal thinking.
One primary weakness of contemporary Christianity is that while Jesus did all that He did using the Law as reference material to teach and point toward God, Christianity uses scripture as Law only and points not at God but at Jesus.
Do we lazily rely on left-brain-dominated blindness by acting only as the words are literally written?
Do we think then that we have no need that they be placed in a context of spiritual internal feeling and understanding?
Or do we lazily reside in a fantasy world with a right-brain-dominated weakness of wishful trusting that if we "believe" in Jesus we are fulfilling God's intent in giving us life and opportunity?
Do we restrict ourselves to merely looking and pointing at Jesus instead of looking where He looked and pointing where He pointed?"
Posted by: Quigley | September 10, 2010 6:20 AM
As a Constitutional Conservative I am starting to wonder if anyone reads the Constitution any more and if the do, do they comprehend what they are reading? Clearly the Iowa GOP doesn't and most if not all our politicians don't either to include our President.
I think we should have a test on the Constitution for anyone in politics no matter what schools they have been to or degrees they hold.
As far as religion in schools go this is one of the things our founding fathers intended and therefore we should have required religious theology classes in all schools, because without being able to understand religion there is no way you can understand the Constitution.
And
Without understanding all religions you can not understand one by itself. In other words if you can not understand the jewish religion or islam, pagan, hundi, budism.... so on and so forth, you can not understand christianity. If one doesn't know the history of religion then how are they to understand the one they practice. This is one of the biggest failures of education and government in this country.
The Democratic Party has historically been the most racist, the most oppresive, the most damaging to this country and the Republican Party has been catching up to them very quickly in recent years.
Posted by: Leon Ewers | October 4, 2010 3:04 AM
Leon - "As far as religion in schools go this is one of the things our founding fathers intended... "
" ...without being able to understand religion there is no way you can understand the Constitution."
"Without understanding all religions you can not understand one by itself."
Citations please. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | October 4, 2010 3:46 AM
Are you at all familiar with James Madison?
The U.S. Constitution was, in fact, a strikingly secular document for its time. Contrast it with documents that came before such as the Magna Carta.
Posted by: DaveL | October 4, 2010 6:39 AM
Leon Ewers:
Contra to your insinuation, the Democratic party has significantly decreased its practice of racism as conservatives have mostly migrated to the Republican party and now dominate that party. That's also the root cause for your observation of why Republicans are becoming increasingly racist.
The migration of conservatives to the Republican party was motivated by many factors, Barry Goldwater's false and defective argument that states have the constitutional power to deny individuals their constitutionally protected rights, Nixon's Southern Strategy, The Democratic party's liberal wing leading the effort to actually defend the rights of non-whites (along with LBJ) starting in the late-50s/mid-60s, the religious right's leaders increasing dominance over its member's political views coupled to the GOP marketing for those votes.
Mr. Ewers - your whole post reeks of being misinformed. I merely noted one given DingoJack's requesting a citation for your obviously false assertion -that the founding fathers supported universal religious training (I assume you extend that to taxpayer-funded public schools), especially your insinuation that such a desire was monolithic. In addition DaveL's pointing out that the Constitution distinguished itself as radical given it being a secular document and its source of power - "We the People".
I'd argue your frustration regarding people being constitutionally illiterate appears to be fierce projection coupled to willful ignorance on your part. If you're seeking to prey on the uninformed with your misinformed version of history you will not do well in this forum; most of us who post here are neither - especially the blogger Ed Brayton.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 4, 2010 7:14 AM
Speak for yourself Michael -
I'm happy to play "count (and re-re-re-re-debunk*) the Barton 'quote'" with our latest contender for the title of 'Village Idiot'. :) - Dingo
----
* Or at least refer them to real experts on the subject of Mr. Barton, like Chris Rodda
Posted by: DingoJack | October 4, 2010 7:31 AM
Leon Ewers, #70: ...because without being able to understand religion there is no way you can understand the Constitution.
What? Have you read the Constitution? The president has a four year term, there are two senators from each state, people have the right to be represented by a lawyer in court; I don't see how religious gives us any more understanding of what these things mean.
Can you provide an example of how an understanding of religion increases our understanding of the Constitution?
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 4, 2010 7:38 AM
I think we should have a test on the Constitution for anyone in politics no matter what schools they have been to or degrees they hold.
A test which Leon just failed.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 4, 2010 8:31 AM