It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Libertygal
You still don't get it. It is a Constitutional right.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: Libertygal
You still don't get it. It is a Constitutional right.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.
No, an ex-post-facto law is not the same as a grandfather clause. One seeks to prosecute for previous actions and the other is an exemption to future actions, in regards to a new law.
I cited the definition of a clause. A "grandfather clause" is a type of those and those only exist written down.
Maybe you can tone down the ad homs and actually bring something to back up those claims?
ETA: I have no idea what you think you did in your following post but you didn't really answer anything.
originally posted by: Libertygal
If pointing out you cite my source as your own, from a source I cited after yor claim is ad homs, shame on me. Calked that disingenuous ad hom? Or truth? Is it an attemot at being deceptive? I think so.
You asked where it was in the Constitution. I answered. Now, thats not good enough.
I am not going to argue the guys case on ATS. Suffice it so say, he is protected by the Grandfather Clause. I cited the reasons,, and cited the Constitution.
I also asked a trivia question. Where is the second usage of the Grandfather Clause in the Constitution? It is in there, twice. Do you know? The first citation I gave refers to the actual law. The trivia question is an example of the actual USE of the Grandfather Clause in the Constitution itself. Meaning, it is an understood rule.
What I tried to do, in the second post, was to get you to do what you did in another post. Admit you may be mistaken. Were you aware you even did that? It's not a bad thing, we all make mistakes.
originally posted by: Libertygal
Wait. When did this become a discussion about his case being won based on Grandfather Clause?
And that I said, and have been saying that Grandfather Clause certainly will apply to him. Wriiten, or understood, he is grandfathered in, due to the fact his family has been there before the existance of the BLM.
I also stated that, mark my words, Grandfather Clause will appear in the documents. No where, even once, have I made the claim this will win his case. It is far, far larger than that. It is also not so small as to be negligible, either. It will be included, however, but certainly not crux of the case.
The problem was, he represented himself in court, and may have been ignorant of the Grandfather Clause.
Trivia answer:
The grandfather clause was used in the Constitution in reference to the Naturally Born Citizen, and requirements to be Preaident.
Our forefathers had to grandfather themselves in, because at the time of the writing of the Constitution, there was no United States, and certainly, no Naturally Born Citizens. So, they grandfathered themselves in, or we could have never had a first, or second President..
This was the first, Constitutionally based USAGE of the Grandfather Clause.
Clark County property records show Cliven Bundy's parents bought the 160 acre ranch in 1948 from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt. Water rights were transferred too, but only to the ranch, not the federally managed land surrounding it. Court records show Bundy family cattle didn't start grazing on that land until 1954.
originally posted by: yuppa
As for the rest who knows the truth really after so many years.