Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for September 27, 2013

Yes, it’s a rerun, only Sundays’ are new. Sometime mid-November. For further details see comments passim ad nauseam, or google it. Please don’t ask, we’re sick to death of answering.

Actually I think I’ve read that Trudeau has decided to retire and re-run past strips indefinitely. Then he can rest on his laurels while milking the past popularity of the strips, sort of like the Democrats.

after 40 years of brainwashing,, somehow i don’t expect the Right to be anything but what they are. the Bigotry of low expectations or some such idiocy. lol

at least they live up to their reputations. Sad though, they used to be humans

God, this is all so irrelevant now. I don’t think I want to view your cartoons any more. And Trudeau, you were so good – even for us Down Under.

Ahhh..Politirant!Happy Fryday!

sigh … laugh … ignore … chuckle … sigh … flag … flag … smile … just another day in Doonesbury paradise

Sarge, maybe you need to listen to Billy Joel’s song Shades of Gray. One verse strikes me as very relevant.Now with the wisdom of years, I try to reason things outAnd the only people I fear are those who never have doubtsSave us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they’re forI won’t be righteous againI’m not that sure anymore,Now that is the voice of the wise man, to realize no one has a lock on the truth. Not liberals and not conservatives. No one!

It’s really not so much about WHAT you say, but HOW you say it.

Someone needs to get a life!

Conservative trolls are the herpes of the written word. Notice how there’s always one who is hell-bent on proving to the world how incredibly ignorant and brainless they are? How pathetic they have to defend themselves so desperately. It’s really sad how some people choose to waste their already pointless lives mired in abject stupidity.

It’s the HATE and ARROGANCE. There, I’ve said it. I’m done now

OK. Since you state there are no shades of gray in our Constitution, I have a couple of questions for you. 1.Why is it illegal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater as a joke? Isn’t that a violation of free speech? 2. The eighth amendment prohibits the government from imposing excessive fines or punishment. What exactly constitutes an “excessive punishment”?

Hey Tea Party, I know you’re a troll but what exactly in the strip set you off? I just want to try and understand your psychosis.

Hey T-bag I don’t want to harm you. Your doing a fine job already. I want to see what makes you what you are.

So.. you’re just stubborn or clueless, or both? Help me out here. The dems won the White House, we have a black prez (about time too) so just.. GET OVER IT!!!

You actually believe in the American Constitution as modified by English Common Law?

.Your posse report was a political vehicle for muddying the water

Have you actually read Minor clear through?-Quoting Minor, “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of theirparents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”-The question of what “natural born” means was explicitly set aside, not ruled upon, because it didn’t matter in determining whether Mrs. Minor was a citizen.-Read Wong Kim Ark for the Supreme Court’s reading of common law and of lower court decisions regarding “natural born.” You will find that common law did not rule out “natural-born subject” for the offspring of foreigners in England at the time of birth. There are, of course, no “natural-born citizens” in common law, only subjects of the king. In short, the SCOTUS justice that wrote Wong Kim Ark believed that common law refutes rather than supports the argument that a natural born citizen requires citizen parents.-Read the the full text of Minor v Happersett and US v Wong Kim Ark.

Ah, but I DID watch it just for you. That is why I can say that.No legal authority.Funded by political opponents.Not an unbiased investigation.Not a real investigation, more like a rubber stamp.. And yes, you did maintain Constitutional designation of American citizenship depends on common law rather than accept the fourteenth as definitive..You cite common law as giving citizenship based on citizenship of the father and declare that natural birth requires married citizens as parents despite the Constitution doing such a thing..You declare the Supreme Court wrong in claiming final authority regarding Constitutionality of laws, despite the Constitution laying it out..You cite the Supremes as being wrong either when they declared an individual income tax Constitutional or when they said it wasn’t, without acknowledging an amendment made both rulings correct at the time..Please try honesty, doing otherwise is dishonorable. It smears all servicemen.

More simply to the point, the 14th was intended to confer citizinship on former slaves, none of whose parents was a citizen. Claiming it required both be citizens would have reversed the result.Please open your eyes.

It does not say that ONLY those people are natural-born citizens. Read the rest of the sentence: “These were natives or natural-born citizens, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ALIENS OR FOREIGNERS.” It does not say “as distinguished from some lower category of citizenship.” -I most certainly do not accept your misinterpretation of Minor v. Happersett.

One-note trolls like TEA Party make me wish that GoComics would contract with Google to use YouTube’s new commenting system. http://bit.ly/comspam

So you are actually admitting there ARE gray areas.

I’m not advocating anything. I dispute your insistence that the constitution is black and white.

I remember distinctly during Bush’s reign, that anyone who spoke out against the war in Iraq were called treasonous, so you don’t have any sympathy from me there.

If you hate it, why are you here?

Please cite this supposed study.

The content of your posts is not only irrelevant to the comic, and so repetitive as to be the very definition of spamming, but now by bringing your military service into the discussion in a disgusting attempt to give credence to your hatred and lies you’ve revealed what we all knew: You’re the banned “GuardSGT”.

I served for 21 years, too. You don’t speak for me, nor do your antics typify veterans. Check the FEC filings for donor to the last Presidential campaigns – people who listed their occupations as military gave far more money to the Obama campaign than to the Romney campaign. That’s a verifiable fact.I’m sending a message to Gocomics about your trolling, spamming, and posting under a different name after being banned. I’m sure you’ll start to snivel about your First Amendment rights – so here’s my reply: I’m exercising MY First Amendment rights in so doing.