Prince Harry

[Wilber]

You have every right to be critical, and you have been.

I have only been critical of your insistence that you system isn't arbitrary when it comes to place of birth. If that is what you choose to do, that's your business but it is still arbitrary.

That you find any outside criticism of your system to be "arrogant and condescending" is your problem, not mine. It's also your problem that you make it out to be anything other than what it is.

You are free to be as arrogant and condescending as you wish.

I respect your country very much. I've said so time and again. That doesn't mean I have no criticism about anything.

It can be a fine line between criticism and lack of respect.

[Guest American Woman]

Untrue. Many monarchs weren't the first born.

Of course not, because it used to have to be the firstborn male; the discrimination against females has just recently been amended. Some also had to give up the monarchy because they married a Catholic or whatever. But the order of succession is first born, 'all things being equal' - and that is what I am referring to, okay? Glad that's settled.

[Guest American Woman]

You are free to be as arrogant and condescending as you wish.

I sure am, but criticism isn't being "arrogant and condescending." That you take it as such is your problem.

It can be a fine line between criticism and lack of respect.

That's your opinion, based on your sensitivity level. IOW, that's how you choose to see it, no more, no less. I'm not going to refrain from criticism just because you think it shouldn't be allowed. Again, that's your problem.

[Wilber]

I sure am, but criticism isn't being "arrogant and condescending." That you take it as such is your problem.

That's your opinion, based on your sensitivity level. IOW, that's how you choose to see it, no more, no less. I'm not going to refrain from criticism just because you think it shouldn't be allowed. Again, that's your problem.

It's not a problem but why should I accept your criticism of inconsistencies in my system when you won't hear of any when it comes to yours?

[g_bambino]

Of course not, because it used to have to be the firstborn male; the discrimination against females has just recently been amended. Some also had to give up the monarchy because they married a Catholic or whatever. But the order of succession is first born, 'all things being equal' - and that is what I am referring to, okay?

The monarch has ended up being not the first born for reasons other than simply the rule of male preference primogeniture; the law does not set the order of succession as "first born". The law has not been changed to remove male preference primogeniture. Nobody since James II missed out on becoming monarch because they were Catholic or married to one. Nobody said the rules were "equal". Everyone has opely admitted they are discriminatory, some reasonably so, some perhaps not. The rules pertaining to those wishing to attain the office of the US president are also discriminatory. Some reasonably so, some seemingly not. You are evidenly able to acknowledge the reality of our rules, but are unable to do so for your own.

[Guest American Woman]

It's not a problem but why should I accept your criticism of inconsistencies in my system when you won't hear of any when it comes to yours?

I already recognized a hypothetical scenario that you brought up as a potential problem; one that the Supreme Court might have make a decision on. I would say that's "hearing what you have to say." As for whether or not you accept my criticism, that's a personal choice on your part.

[Wilber]

I already recognized a hypothetical scenario that you brought up as a potential problem; one that the Supreme Court might have make a decision on. I would say that's "hearing what you have to say." As for whether or not you accept my criticism, that's a personal choice on your part.

What you think a Supreme Court might do means nothing until they do it. We have a Supreme Court to.

[Guest American Woman]

What you think a Supreme Court might do means nothing until they do it.

Why would they deal with a hypothetical? Furthermore, again, what I think is based on past actions/decisions.

We have a Supreme Court to.

Yes, and your situation isn't a hypothetical, so have they had any inclination to act on it?

[Wilber]

Why would they deal with a hypothetical? Furthermore, again, what I think is based on past actions/decisions.

Yes, and your situation isn't a hypothetical, so have they had any inclination to act on it?

Why would you bring them up then?

Neither is yours. It is interesting that you speculate on whether they would rule on a US born citizen not having enough residency to qualify but apparently a sixty year old foreign born who has spent all but the first year of his life in the US is cast in stone.

We have been able to change the rules of succession without the courts and I have no doubt we will do so again in the future, yet according to you, we are inflexible and arbitrary ones.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

Why would you bring them up then?

You brought them up.

Neither is yours. It is interesting that you speculate on whether they would rule on a US born citizen not having enough residency to qualify but apparently a sixty year old foreign born who has spent all but the first year of his life in the US is cast in stone.

I "speculated" because the way it's written doesn't make all situations clear. I pointed that out, that the requirement isn't specific, and could therefore be up for interpretation. Again. I'm basing that on past actions/decisions.

We have been able to change the rules of succession without the courts and I have no doubt we will do so again in the future, yet according to you, we are inflexible and arbitrary ones.

You haven't been able to change the rules of succession without changing the law. On the other hand courts are for clarification, and as I pointed out, such clarification may be needed in our future. Furthermore, I never said Canada was inflexible and/or arbitrary. It would really help if you stuck to what I actually say and think.

[Wilber]

You brought them up.

I wasn't the one who started blathering about Supreme Courts and speculating on what they might do. The only thing that counts is the law as it stands.

[Guest American Woman]

I wasn't the one who started blathering about Supreme Courts and speculating on what they might do.

So when I respond to you, I'm "blathering?" As you, of course, are simply engaging in discussion, eh?

The only thing that counts is the law as it stands.

Perhaps in Canada, but not in the U.S.; as I pointed out, we turn to the Supreme Court for clarification when/if necessary.

Edited September 16, 2012 by American Woman

[msj]

I find it interesting talking about this hypothetical stuff.

Lets look at some interesting law.

You know, like the fact that 7 states ban atheists from holding office.

What's that part of the Constitution that speaks to this?

Oh, right, Article VI section 3.

I wonder: What would the SCOTUS do?

Edited September 16, 2012 by msj

[g_bambino]

The Act of Settlement and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are both parts of the Canadian constitution. The Ontario Superior Court already ruled in a case about the anti-Catholic provisions of the Act of Settlement that one part of the constitution can't make another part of the constitution unconstitutional.

[Wilber]

Perhaps in Canada, but not in the U.S.; as I pointed out, we turn to the Supreme Court for clarification when/if necessary.

So do we. Until that happens, the only thing relevant is the law as it stands. Anything else is conjecture.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

So do we. Until that happens, the only thing relevant is the law as it stands. Anything else is conjecture.

And as it stands, we haven't encountered the hypotheticals you raised - as your situation isn't hypothetical. So I'm not sure what you are getting at.

[Wilber]

And as it stands, we haven't encountered the hypotheticals you raised - as your situation isn't hypothetical. So I'm not sure what you are getting at.

What is hypothetical about the POTUS have to be US born? Nothing could be less hypothetical.

cybercoma said it best. In AW World.

The requirements are legitimate because they are the requirements.

Tautology club meets only on the days that tautology club has meetings.

I've tried but I can't top that.

[Guest American Woman]

What is hypothetical about the POTUS have to be US born? Nothing could be less hypothetical.

cybercoma said it best. In AW World.

I've tried but I can't top that.

If I wanted to hear what cybercoma had to say, I'd be discussing this with him; and since you're now resorting to his "AW World" responses, it pretty much tells me that you've nothing left to say.

[Wilber]

If I wanted to hear what cybercoma had to say, I'd be discussing this with him; and since you're now resorting to his "AW World" responses, it pretty much tells me that you've nothing left to say.

You didn't want to hear what he had to say, that is why you didn't respond to his post.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

You didn't want to hear what he had to say, that is why you didn't respond to his post.

I didn't respond to his post because I don't read his posts. I don't suffer fools gladly.

[g_bambino]

You didn't want to hear what he had to say, that is why you didn't respond to his post.

She didn't respond to yours, either. Or mine. Or another of cybercoma's.

[cybercoma]

She has nothing to prove because... well... she has nothing.

[g_bambino]

Interesting the difference between the reaction to the photos of Harry versus those of Catherine. Is it because of the context in which each were taken; uninvited paparazzi versus invited guest? Is it the legacy of Diana thing?

I wonder if the Duchess of Cambridge had simply ignored the publication of the pictures of her, the hubub might have died down by now. The Western public (outside the US, maybe) doesn't seem to be all that scadalised by nudity anymore, especially when it's just breasts; nice to look at, but a scandal? Hardly.

Interestingly, she accepted a garland of flowers from an indiginous woman in the Solomon Islands recently. The woman was, as is traditional (and ergo entirely socially acceptable), bare breasted. I doubt the irony was lost on the Duchess.

[Guest American Woman]

I wonder if the Duchess of Cambridge had simply ignored the publication of the pictures of her, the hubub might have died down by now. The Western public (outside the US, maybe) doesn't seem to be all that scadalised by nudity anymore, especially when it's just breasts; nice to look at, but a scandal? Hardly.

Yeah, it was the U.S. that was scandalized by her nude photos. That's where all the hubub is coming from. We're shocked as a nation, I tell you. Shocked.

Perhaps she was scandalized by her nudity being plastered all over the place. Perhaps one feels differently when it's them, personally, being thrown out there for the world to see. Perhaps your "nice to look at" is her invasion of privacy.

[g_bambino]

Yeah, it was the U.S. that was scandalized by her nude photos.

I didn't say her nude photos. I said nudity. There are topless women in daily newspapers in the UK. Broadcasters are slapped with multi-million dollar fines for showing a partly covered breast on television in the US. Bare buttocks are seen on Canadian cable television. US networks pixilate animated butt cheeks. The Duchess of Cambridge's breasts appear on the covers of popular, regular circulation magazines in Europe. US weeklies wouldn't even include them on the back page. Nudity remains a big deal to a not-so-small and not-so-quiet and not-so-uninfluential segment of the US population.