superheroes politics?
ville terminale
Hitman of Las Vegas
terminale) wrote:
>are they all republicans because of their patriotism and law and order stance?
Nope.
Samy Merchi
> are they all republicans because of their patriotism and law and
> order stance?
Oliver Queen isn't.
--
Samy Merchi | sa...@iki.fi | http://www.iki.fi/samy | #152235689
Reader of superhero comic books, writer of superhero fanfiction
"*Astrolabe*...whirls...*twirls*!"
Todd Tamanend Clark
>
> are superheroes all republicans because of their patriotism and
> law and order stance?
If they were, I wouldn't be buying comic books.
Some liberal and/or radical super characters are:
Alec Holland/Swamp Thing
Beatriz DaCosta/Green Flame/Fire
Bernard Baker/Animal Man
Black Orchid
Chanka/Silver Deer
Connor Hawke/Green Arrow
Danielle Moonstar/Psyche/Mirage
Dinah Lance/Black Canary
Doctor Stephen Strange
Don Hall/Dove
Elizabeth Twoyounmen/Talisman
Emanuel Santana/Scout
Gloria Munoz/Risque
Gregorio De La Vega/Extrano
John Stewart/Green Lantern
Katar Hol II/Hawkman
Kid Eternity [Vertigo]
Lois Lane
Lonnie Machin/Anarky
Maria De Guadalupe Santiago/Silverclaw
Maya Lopez/Echo
Michael Twoyoungmen/Shaman
Oliver Queen/Green Arrow
Pamela Isley/Poison Ivy
Peter Petruski/Paste-Pot Pete/The Trapster
Robert Bearclaw/Ripclaw
Roy Harper/Speedy/Arsenal
Sarah Rainmaker
Sarah Walks Unseen/Lament
Shade, The Changing Man [Vertigo]
Sylvester Santangelo/Coyote
Tefe Holland/Swamp Thing
The Forever People
The Invisibles
The Key
Winonah Littlebird/Owlwoman
Yolanda Montez/Wildcat
- - - -
TODD TAMANEND CLARK
Poet/Composer/Multi-Instrumentalist/Cultural Historian
The Monongahela River, Turtle Island
- - -
Staff, Mask, Rattle (Double CD: Instrumental)
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/ttc2
- - - -
"The Republicans stand for raw, unbridled evil and greed and
ignorance smothered in balloons and ribbons."
- - Frank Zappa
Selaboc
> are they all republicans because of their patriotism and law and order stance?
Actually, a better phrasing would be are they all conservatives
because of their patriotism and law and order stance? since one can be
conservative and a Democrat or liberal and a republican (granted
you'll be in the minority for those parties, but they do exist).
Either way, the Answer is no. Olliver Queen springs to mind on the
liberal side of Super heroes. (With Hawkman being his conservative
opposite number).
Dakota Monroe
For some reason I always figured the x-men would be democrats if they
had to choose between the two. Batman is probably a republican. If not
it would be really suprising. Maybe superman too. Spiderman? Can't
tell. Wonder woman? Your call is as good as mine. Hulk? Maybe a
democrat or at least the bruce banner from the tv show struck me as
one. Then again maybe thats just because of the era the show was made
in. Hmm so maybe theres a trend here? DC heros are republicans while
Marvel heros are democrats? interesting.
Dwight Williams
Indeed. Look at El Diablo II with his Democratic Party card and his Dos
Rios City Council seat.
--
Dwight Williams, Storyteller
Artist - _Evening Shift_ Comics for Arctic Star Studios
Mr. Anderson
news:Xns948E758A5...@130.232.1.14:
> Oliver Queen isn't.
Do you think the man who dreamed up that name was suggesting that Errol
Flynn might be gay?
Mr. Anderson
news:41960cc5.04021...@posting.google.com:
Doctors and journalists are typically liberal, so you might as well put Don
Blake/Thor and Clark Kent/Superman onto your list.
Selaboc
I don't know, I always figures Tony Stark And Captain America would be
conservative/republican. And of course Green Arrow is definitely
liberal/democrat. Though those may be the exceptions to your rule. I'm
not sure about Superman. Sure he has that whole conservative rural
upbringing, but he's a journalist which tend to lean liberal. He could
be in either party. Perhaps he's an independant?
Sorted magAZine
"Selaboc" <c64...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c20e9e9.04021...@posting.google.com...
Good Jesus you Americans are strange! The two-party system is an anomaly.
D.
The Babaloughesian
"Sorted magAZine" <edi...@NOSPAMsortedmagazine.com> wrote in message
news:8YbXb.5112$cb7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
Cool. Any idea how we could get rid of it?
Sorted magAZine
"The Babaloughesian" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c0jotm$18bhs0$1...@ID-177202.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > I don't know, I always figures Tony Stark And Captain America would be
> > > conservative/republican. And of course Green Arrow is definitely
> > > liberal/democrat. Though those may be the exceptions to your rule. I'm
> > > not sure about Superman. Sure he has that whole conservative rural
> > > upbringing, but he's a journalist which tend to lean liberal. He could
> > > be in either party. Perhaps he's an independant?
> >
> > Good Jesus you Americans are strange! The two-party system is an anomaly.
>
> Cool. Any idea how we could get rid of it?
>
D.
Hacksaw
"Sorted magAZine" <edi...@NOSPAMsortedmagazine.com> wrote in message
Hear the cries of "The comic geeks are revolting!"?
--- Hacksaw
Sorted magAZine
"Hacksaw" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:102qv1...@corp.supernews.com...
D.
Clell Harmon
dakot...@hotmail.com (Dakota Monroe) wrote:
>termin...@hotmail.com (ville terminale) wrote in message news:<d8e25435.04021...@posting.google.com>...
>> are they all republicans because of their patriotism and law and order stance?
>
>For some reason I always figured the x-men would be democrats if they
>had to choose between the two. Batman is probably a republican. If not
I doubt Bruce puts much trust in any politician.
>it would be really suprising. Maybe superman too. Spiderman? Can't
Clark can't vote. I mean think about it, not born here, not
naturalized, the boy scout in Clark wouldn't let him register.
Besides he wouldn't chance jury duty.
Dakota Monroe
Well we have more then two parties. Green, Reform, and Libertarian are
a few of the other parties. It's just that dem and rep are by a long
shot the largest which probably over 90% of people identify with. Only
slightly better I guess is the british system where probably what 80%
of people are either Labour or Conservative?
ville terminale
morton kondracke started out as a liberal but turned neo-conservative.
and, he looks like clark kent.
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> . Wonder woman? Your call is as good as mine.
Wonder Woman isn't a US citizen, so she isn't Democrat or Republican; but
she apparently has taken some strong environmentalist and pro-abortion
stances in her current book, which makes her well on the liberal side
AFAICT.
--
Solum semel vitam percurris; ergo maximo gusto fruere, tanto quo potes.
--- Seneca
Kevin Robinson
>
A digression in response to your exclamation:
States with single-member districts in the legislature, with first-
past-the-post elections, usually without a runoff, tend toward a
2-party state. Britain, the USA, and the other Westminster-descended
parliamentary states have all had long periods of only 2 major parties.
Sometimes a new party, such as Labour in the U.K. or the Republicans
in the USA, supplants one of the old ones. Note how the UK's Liberals
went from one of the two major parties, to a minor party, split into
2 parties, 1 merged with another small party, the other even smaller.
Federalism intensifies this. The USA doesn't have really have 2 major
parties. It has 2 coalitions, each composed of competing parties of
the fifty states. Ignore the Congress, and focus on the President,
and the electoral college intensifies the bifurcation.
Mix these systems up, and things are a little different.
Germany has modified proportional representation, with a threshold
level before a party can be seated. One of their national parties,
the Christian Democrats, has a sister party, the Christian Social
Union, that is based in one state, Bavaria. If the USA ever adopts
a responsible parliamentary system, and proportional representation,
then we will start sprouting parties the way we do religious sects.
This is not likely.
What does any of this has to do with comics? Most characters who
are U.S.-based have middle to upper income backgrounds, a college
education, and are based in big cities. That demographic is
majority Democratic, supporting social-democratic policies, but not
necessarily radical. Even a "red anarchist" like Oliver Queen thinks
nothing of chasing down "drug dealers." Supposed reactionary Batman
doesn't use a gun, and probably would repeal the Second Amendment.
[Note: this is a retcon. Bats wears a gun on the cover of `Tec 27
and does until the editors have second thoughts about how he machine-
gunned some "zombies" created by Prof. Hugo Strange, in Batman #1.]
Steve Ditko's "Mr. A" is a Randian Objectivist. His "The Question"
was a milder version of that kind of individualist, until Denny
O'Neill had him shot, suffer hypothermia, and the resulting brain
damage allowed him to be brainwashed into Zen Pinkoism. :)
Sandra (Phantom Lady) Knight's Dad was a Senator, as was Tom
(Black Condor) Wright. The party of neither was ever mentioned,
but WWII was a Democratic-majority epoch. Bruce Wayne was
appointed to the Senate once, to complete the term of a dead
member. Neptune Perkins of The Young All-Stars, and later of
Old Justice, represents Hawaii in the Senate.
Aquaman, Namor, Diana of Themyscyra, Thor, Maxima, and others
are monarchists, constitutional or otherwise.
Kevin
(Libertarian)
Viper
> naturalized, the boy scout in Clark wouldn't let him register.
> Besides he wouldn't chance jury duty.
I can just picture Clark Kent trying to leave jury duty to go save someone
"Uh your honor...ummm...I have to use the restroom! PLEASE!"
--------------------------
Comic books and sports cards:
www.UltimateCollecting.com
Movies, Music, Video Games, and more:
www.FunkDiggityFresh.com
JS
> Actually, a better phrasing would be are they all conservatives
> because of their patriotism and law and order stance?
Naughty boy. Don't question the patriotism of liberals. That way
lies McCarthy and our country right or wrong thinking.
Sorted magAZine
"Dakota Monroe" <dakot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8b15372.04021...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Good Jesus you Americans are strange! The two-party system is an anomaly.
> >
> > D.
>
> Well we have more then two parties. Green, Reform, and Libertarian are
> a few of the other parties.
Not in any meaningful way. I'm from Ireland where coalition government is the
law.
> It's just that dem and rep are by a long
> shot the largest which probably over 90% of people identify with. Only
> slightly better I guess is the british system where probably what 80%
> of people are either Labour or Conservative?
This shows you how weird your thinking is. People aren't Labour or
Conservative (with a big C), they may vote that way, but they're rarely
defined by it. Also, you're leaving out the Liberal Democrats who are in the
historic pre-Labour second party tradition of the Liberals and are challegning
the Tories for opposition dominance. Anyway, the UK system is also messed up -
PR is, without doubt, the most representative and the best defence against an
over-reaching government.
D.
Sorted magAZine
"Kevin Robinson" <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3be3f335.0402...@posting.google.com...
> "Sorted magAZine" <edi...@NOSPAMsortedmagazine.com> wrote in message
news:<8YbXb.5112$cb7....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > Good Jesus you Americans are strange! The two-party system is an anomaly.
> >
>
> A digression in response to your exclamation:
>
US. People ARE Republicans or ARE Democrats, rather than just vote for them
every couple of years. Even in the UK, there is not the same level of
identification with parties. Many conservatives vote Labour these days.
D.
Peter Dimitriadis
: > Clark can't vote. I mean think about it, not born here, not
: > naturalized, the boy scout in Clark wouldn't let him register.
: > Besides he wouldn't chance jury duty.
:
: I can just picture Clark Kent trying to leave jury duty to go save someone
:
: "Uh your honor...ummm...I have to use the restroom! PLEASE!"
Actually, wouldn't Clark's job as a reporter, although maybe not
disqualify him from jury duty, cause most prosecutors or defense attorneys
to veto him for their cases? I mean, they typically get rid of anyone who
_watches_ too much media, woudln't they do the same for someone who
actually is a reporter? Course, I am not a lawyer or a jury-expert. ;)
Peter Dimitriadis
Clell Harmon
Oh sure, go hang out around what's left of the pits of any
major coal town, and commune with the locals about the 'good old days'
of Thatcher... During the time I spent in Britian I was amazed how
many people defined their political beliefs by those of their parents.
Things MAY have changed in the last 15 years, but I doubt it. (I mean
are you guys selling small appliances with plugs attached to their
cords yet?)
In the US people cross party lines all the time. A successful
candidate pretty much has to appeal to crossovers to get elected in
most places.
Kevin Robinson
> On 13 Feb 2004 07:41:15 -0800, fleeing his large male nurses,
> dakot...@hotmail.com (Dakota Monroe) wrote:
>
> >termin...@hotmail.com (ville terminale) wrote in message news:<d8e25435.04021...@posting.google.com>...
> >> are they all republicans because of their patriotism and law and order stance?
> >
> >For some reason I always figured the x-men would be democrats if they
> >had to choose between the two. Batman is probably a republican. If not
>
> I doubt Bruce puts much trust in any politician.
>
>
> Clark can't vote. I mean think about it, not born here,
Under Golden Age & pre-Crisis "Earth-1" continuity, yes. But in both
cases he was an adopted foundling, and gained his parents' citizenship
the same way a child from abroad would when adopted by citizen
parents. True, his paperwork may be a little different, as the local
authorities may have assumed that he was born somewhere in the
vicinity of where he was found. The only civic duty Clark couldn't
perform would be to take office as president or VP, who have to be born
here, or of parents who were already citizens.
After the Byrne reboot, in the post-Crisis era, baby Kal-El's starship
was also an artificial womb of the type then in use on that awful,
cold, sterile, sexless "Krypton." Technically, Kal wasn't "born"
until the gestation chamber opened up, after landing on Earth. Hence,
a case can be made that Clark Kent was born in the USA. The only
hitch here is that the Kents passed the boy as their biological child,
rather than as an adoptee.
The "Smallville" TV show has reverted to "Clark as adoptee," even
if the Kents & Lionel Luthor navigated the legal paperwork on the
left-hand side.
> not
> naturalized, the boy scout in Clark wouldn't let him register.
> Besides he wouldn't chance jury duty.
Being a reporter was enough to keep you off a jury for the majority
of Superman's run. Nowadays it won't necessarily, unless one
side or another in the trial would rather not have a journalist
empanelled.
Kevin
Jay and Diane Rudin
"Clell Harmon" wrote:
> Clark can't vote. I mean think about it, not born here, not
> naturalized, the boy scout in Clark wouldn't let him register.
> Besides he wouldn't chance jury duty.
Ummm. I cannot find any justification for "the boy scout in Clark wouldn't
let him register". The Boy Scouts teach that you *must* do your duty, and
the merit badges include "Citizenship in the Community" and "Citizenship in
the Nation".
Clark is a foundling, found within the U.S. borders, adopted as an infant by
American parents. He's a citizen.
Jay Rudin
Clell Harmon
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson) wrote:
A rather large, and for big Blue, inhibiting hitch. Even if
you assume that US law would accept the gestation matrix as a womb
(given the level of hysteria cloning engenders, unlikely), the fact
remains he was 'born' on a Krypton registered vessel (sorta like being
born on a foreign flagged ship in US waters doesn't make you a US
citizen) and stepped (or was lifted) into the US as an illegal
emigrant.
Yes, the Kents passed him off as their natural biological
child, but he isn't and he knows it.
One has to wonder how much perjury Clark has committed on
official government forms that ask for citizenship data...
Sorted magAZine
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:40:54 -0000, fleeing his large male nurses,
> "Sorted magAZine" <edi...@NOSPAMsortedmagazine.com> wrote:
>
> >My point was more about the excessive identification with the system in the
> >US. People ARE Republicans or ARE Democrats, rather than just vote for them
> >every couple of years. Even in the UK, there is not the same level of
> >identification with parties. Many conservatives vote Labour these days.
>
> Oh sure, go hang out around what's left of the pits of any
> major coal town, and commune with the locals about the 'good old days'
> of Thatcher... During the time I spent in Britian I was amazed how
> many people defined their political beliefs by those of their parents.
> Things MAY have changed in the last 15 years, but I doubt it. (I mean
> are you guys selling small appliances with plugs attached to their
> cords yet?)
>
Conservative majorities completely overturned in '97 into Labour majorities.
By 2001, many of these were strengthened rather than reduced (falls in Labour
votes were, in many cases, attributed to traditional Labour voters not
voting).
D.
Dakota Monroe
But thats the same way it is in the U.S. A person registers for a
party but just because you are a registered democrat does not mean you
can't vote for a republican and vice versa. A famous example are the
Reagan Democrats that voted republican during Reagan's elections.
Most Americans are in the middle anyway. Contrary to what the mouth
pieces of both parties will say and all the noise they make most
Americans are somewhere in the middle and relatively few vote for a
candiate simply because they are a dem or rep. For these people they
simply vote for a candidate who happens to be from a particular party
every four years. For others they identify so strongly with the
philosophies of one party that they vote for the candidate from that
party regardless.
Clell Harmon
"Jay and Diane Rudin" <ru...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>"Clell Harmon" wrote:
>
>> Clark can't vote. I mean think about it, not born here, not
>> naturalized, the boy scout in Clark wouldn't let him register.
>> Besides he wouldn't chance jury duty.
>
>Ummm. I cannot find any justification for "the boy scout in Clark wouldn't
>let him register". The Boy Scouts teach that you *must* do your duty, and
>the merit badges include "Citizenship in the Community" and "Citizenship in
>the Nation".
And the first thing a Scout learns is what makes a citizen.
Clark would never register to vote knowing he isn't eligible to.
Of course Clark never was a scout, by his own admission.
>
>Clark is a foundling, found within the U.S. borders, adopted as an infant by
>American parents. He's a citizen.
Clark is (in current continuity) an undocumented Alien,
adopted sans paperwork or official notification, and passed off as the
natural born child of the Kents. He is not a citizen.
>
>Jay Rudin
>
Dakota Monroe
> "Dakota Monroe" <dakot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d8b15372.04021...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > Good Jesus you Americans are strange! The two-party system is an anomaly.
> > >
> > > D.
> >
> > Well we have more then two parties. Green, Reform, and Libertarian are
> > a few of the other parties.
>
> Not in any meaningful way. I'm from Ireland where coalition government is the
> law.
>
A Green, Reform or Libertarian candidate can by law become president.
It's not beyond reason or law to say a candiate like a Ross Perot
could one day win as a candidate from a smaller party if his campaign
"catches fire" at the right time. How much more meaningful do you
want? Your original post implied that we only had 2 parties. I am just
pointing out that we in fact do have more then that even if 2
dominate. It's just like saying we only have two brands of cola in
America. Coke and Pepsi.
> > It's just that dem and rep are by a long
> > shot the largest which probably over 90% of people identify with. Only
> > slightly better I guess is the british system where probably what 80%
> > of people are either Labour or Conservative?
>
> This shows you how weird your thinking is. People aren't Labour or
> Conservative (with a big C), they may vote that way, but they're rarely
> defined by it.
Hmm. So people don't define themselves as Torries? (sp?) Interesting.
> Also, you're leaving out the Liberal Democrats who are in the...<snip>
I thought I said something like 80% of people voted Labour or
Conservative.
That leaves 20%. The last and only election figure I have ever heard
for Liberal Democrates was a recent election where they gathered like
10% of the vote. Yes I know about them but it was not relevent to the
point I was making that the british system is not much better then the
U.S. If you can call us a 2 party system then you can call Britain
also since 2 parties clearly dominate.
Sorted magAZine
"Dakota Monroe" <dakot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8b15372.04021...@posting.google.com...
> >
the
> > law.
> >
> A Green, Reform or Libertarian candidate can by law become president.
> It's not beyond reason or law to say a candiate like a Ross Perot
> could one day win as a candidate from a smaller party if his campaign
> "catches fire" at the right time. How much more meaningful do you
> want? Your original post implied that we only had 2 parties. I am just
> pointing out that we in fact do have more then that even if 2
> dominate. It's just like saying we only have two brands of cola in
> America. Coke and Pepsi.
No, I said you had a two-party system, which is different to only having two
parties. The current (and previous) Irish governments were Fianna Fáil in
coalition with the Progressive Democrats and independents, before that was
Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left. And the reason I was making the point
was that, not only is the political system two-party, but the US mentality is
heavily two-party and the average swing in ideologies is very narrow. Judging
by many discussions I've had online, most Americans regard things as socialist
that most Europeans regard as centre-right. In fact, "liberal" is centrist in
Europe, while seen as left-wing in the US.
> >
> > This shows you how weird your thinking is. People aren't Labour or
> > Conservative (with a big C), they may vote that way, but they're rarely
> > defined by it.
>
> Hmm. So people don't define themselves as Torries? (sp?) Interesting.
Not quite, people do define themselves as Tory voters, it's a subtle
difference that distinguishes what you do from what you are. Ironically, the
name Tory comes from the Irish word for pirates or thieves.
>
> > Also, you're leaving out the Liberal Democrats who are in the...<snip>
>
>
> I thought I said something like 80% of people voted Labour or
> Conservative.
Correction: Around 80% [sic - 73%] of people who vote vote for Labour or the
Conservatives. Very different thing when turnout is around 40%.
> That leaves 20%. The last and only election figure I have ever heard
> for Liberal Democrates was a recent election where they gathered like
> 10% of the vote. Yes I know about them but it was not relevent to the
> point I was making that the british system is not much better then the
> U.S.
> If you can call us a 2 party system then you can call Britain
> also since 2 parties clearly dominate.
Not denying that, but it's not as stark in the UK as it is in the States, is
it? Anyway, the results in 2001 were - Labour 41%, Tory 32%, Lib Dems 18% and
Others 10% - that's a 28% non-Tory/Labour vote.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election2001/stateofparties/0,10167,495820,00.h
tml
D.
Sorted magAZine
But, judging from this discussion, there is a seriously high level of
identification of people with one or other party.
D.
Kevin Robinson
Clell is making sense. Even in the US, who their parents vote for is
still the best indicator of the party ID of new voters.
More digression here. [1]
What a character's politics should depend on several factors.
Take a look at the early Superman. He's a do-gooder social
reformer, taking on wife beaters, crooked pols, saving the innocent
from unjust execution, and stopping arms dealers and dictators
who were the cause of wars. Of course, he was being written and
drawn by two Jewish kids from poor, immigrant families at the
depths of the Depression, so sympathy with a New Deal/Progressive
view of the economy, and the type of goo-goo pacifism that
gave us the Kellogg-Briand Pact makes perfect sense. As Hitler
rises, he's opposing thinly-veiled versions on the battlefields
of Europe. After Poland is invaded, there is the famous 2-page
spread in a 1940 Look magazine, where... Well, read it yourselves:
http://superman.ws/tales2/endsthewar/
After Pearl, Supes is, like every superhero, a non-political
Dr. Win-The-War. After the war, as Siegel and Shuster are
shown the door, he becomes essentially non-political, which
some see as conservative. DC had no trouble using Supes,
especially as Superboy, in PSA pages promoting tolerance among
the races and religions. There's also that great anti-prejudice
story in All-Star Comics #16, "The Justice Society Fights For a
United America!" featuring the Junior JSA, during the war.
It prefigures JLA #57's " Man, Thy Name Is Brother!"
Post-war Supes is perfectly in tune with the middle-of-the
road Eisenhower administration, and again with Kennedy's New
Frontier. He even trusted JFK with his secret ID!
Party and philosophy don't stay stable, either. If Steve
(Captain America) Rogers were a New Dealer patriot in the
1940's, when he emerged in the 1960's, Democrats such as
Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-Wash.), a pro-defense, pro-labor
man would sound good to him. Cap would have socially
conservative values vis-a-vis the sexual revolution,
violent protest and other 60's themes, while being right
behind the peaceful Civil Rights movement. Steve Engelhart
shook him up good with the "Presidential Suicide" stories
and his Nomad period, and Roger Stern summarized that and
more in his "Cap For President" in CA #250. That former
FDR Democrat, Ronald Reagan, used to say, "I didn't leave
the party, it left me."
Easy ones:
Barry (Flash) Allan: Midwestern police scientist -
a law-n'-order conservative,
probably a Republican
Hal (Green Lantern) Jordan: former Air Force, jet jockey
maybe a John McCain Republican?
Dinah (Black Canary) Lance: JSA years, cop's kid, WWII-era
heroine, probably a big city Dem of
the reforming type.
The retconned BCII (Dinah, Junior) would be more of a
modern liberal Democrat.
Ray (The Atom) Palmer is a college professor. Outside
of the business and engineering departments,
Republican professors are as rare as hen's teeth.
Democrat.
Azrael, Jim (The Spectre) Corrigan, Zauriel: theocrats
Probably happy with Brent Bozell III.
Eel (Plastic Man) O'Brien: Early in his career he can't vote,
`cause the Eel is a convicted felon. After
working as Plas with the FBI, he eventually
earned a full pardon. FBI'ers and Republicans
go together like #1 G-men and frilly dresses,
so that's a cinch. Woozy Winks must belong
to the Monster Raving Loony Party.
Ambush Bug: "Papoon For President!"
and so on...
Kevin
[1] Actually, only 60% of the electorate, 30% for the D's, 30% for the R's,
are identified with the 2 major parties. Pew Research Ctr. has the numbers:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750
Mind, only half of us vote, maybe 60% in a presidential general
election, as little as the high 30's in the "off-year" tilts.
Still, independents are of several types. The first is the type
political scientists used to dismiss as "dummy independents," who
rarely voted, had no clue which about the candidate's platforms,
and only a vague idea of the main themes of each party. Next,
there are voters who always vote one way, but, though one party or
another would represent their opinion accurately, just don't like
the idea of declaring loyalty to a group. In several U.S. states
one has declare a preference when registering to vote, and those
who choose "independent" may be barred from voting in a primary
election. In states where one party dominates, and the primaries
are closed to non-members, registering with the dominant party
is the only way to effectively cast a vote for mayor or city
council. If this sounds unfair, realize that on Tuesday, George
W. Bush's name will be on the Wisconsin primary ballot, opposed
by NOBODY! I can choose between 2 Libertarians, if I care to,
or "cross over" to the Dem primary, and cast a mischief vote,
one that provides "confusion to the enemy." Oh, and taxes pay
for all this. Parties don't have to raise funds to run their
primaries. Only serious partisans send in a check and become
dues-paying members of a party. I haven't done so in about
10 years. Most never do.
Some other independents are "leaners." They usually vote Dem,
but happen to like a particular Republican candidate for one
office or another, or vice versa. Some are pure independents,
who have no particular ideology, unless it is pragmatism.
"I vote the man, not the party," is their slogan. These are
the folks who make swing districts swing.
Sometimes history welds a group to one or another party. From
emancipation to the Great Depression, black Americans were
solidly Republican, even if they were prevented from voting.
The states of the defeated Confederacy were solidly Democratic,
with more competition coming from third parties such as
the Populists than from the Republicans. The Johnson/Goldwater
election in 1964 saw a realignment, with those black Republicans
who hadn't left the party of Lincoln to support Roosevelt & Truman
almost all backing the Democrat, and the beginning of the exit of
conservative Democrats from their political home, with most lining
up with the GOP.
ArizonaTeach
I have seen, the vast number of comic writers seem to be rather liberal.
Hawkman went rather left in the Hawkworld series (although that was certainly a
different Katar Hol). The current Hawkman doesn't seem to be conservative so
much as proactive. And then he feels guilty about it.
I remember during Cosmic Odyssey Superman saying he "doesn't think he likes
this new administration" in reference to Bush 41.
ville terminale
> Dakota Monroe wrote:
>
> > . Wonder woman? Your call is as good as mine.
>
> Wonder Woman isn't a US citizen, so she isn't Democrat or Republican; but
> she apparently has taken some strong environmentalist and pro-abortion
> stances in her current book, which makes her well on the liberal side
> AFAICT.
nah, she'll always be an old fashioned gal unless she wears a prole
hankie over head and dons a pair of overalls for her shapely bod.
wonder womyn.
Kevin Robinson
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films,rec.arts.comics.misc,rec.arts.comics.dc.universe,rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe
Subject: Re: superheroes politics?
References: <d8e25435.04021...@posting.google.com>
<d8b15372.0402...@posting.google.com>
<9k2011hvok2ia7uil...@4ax.com>
<102t1mf...@corp.supernews.com>
<fe2t2051qpr1lups5...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.73.177.177
Clell Harmon <clellh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<fe2t2051qpr1lups5...@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 14:43:47 -0600, fleeing his large male nurses,
> "Jay and Diane Rudin" <ru...@ev1.net> wrote:
> >Ummm. I cannot find any justification for "the boy scout in Clark wouldn't
> >let him register". The Boy Scouts teach that you *must* do your duty, and
> >the merit badges include "Citizenship in the Community" and "Citizenship in
> >the Nation".
>
> And the first thing a Scout learns is what makes a citizen.
> Clark would never register to vote knowing he isn't eligible to.
>
> Of course Clark never was a scout, by his own admission.
>
> >
> >Clark is a foundling, found within the U.S. borders, adopted as an infant by
> >American parents. He's a citizen.
True, prior to MOS #1.
> Clark is (in current continuity) an undocumented Alien,
not necessarily. Quoting our earlier posts, I wrote:
"Technically, Kal wasn't "born" until the gestation chamber
opened up, after landing on Earth. Hence, a case can be made
that Clark Kent was born in the USA. The only hitch here is
that the Kents passed the boy as their biological child,
rather than as an adoptee."
and Clell responded:
> A rather large, and for big Blue, inhibiting hitch. Even if
> you assume that US law would accept the gestation matrix as a womb
> (given the level of hysteria cloning engenders, unlikely),
by the law of the El's home planet, it was.
> the fact
> remains he was 'born' on a Krypton registered vessel
actually, the vessel wasn't registered. Jor-El was breaking
Kryptonian law by even launching a starship/capsule. The Science
Council forbade his experimentation with space travel.
>(sorta like being
> born on a foreign flagged ship in US waters doesn't make you a US
> citizen) and stepped (or was lifted) into the US as an illegal
> emigrant.
I say it is more like the woman who enters the U.S. without a visa
and then gives birth on U.S. soil. The kid's a citizen, even if
mama is otherwise subject to deportation. He took his first breath
on American soil.
I wonder if Bob Ingersoll has written this one up?
> Yes, the Kents passed him off as their natural biological
> child, but he isn't and he knows it.
"The sins of the fathers" are not visited on the children in cases
like this.
> One has to wonder how much perjury Clark has committed on
> official government forms that ask for citizenship data...
Quoting:
http://cobrands.public.findlaw.com/immigration/uscitizen/nolo/ency/C7F58E18-EAD7-46C6-AF91BF26CCEE4D60.html
"If you were born on U.S. soil and there is a record of your birth,
a standard U.S. birth certificate issued by a state government
is your primary proof of U.S. citizenship."
The county Smallville, KS is part of issued him a valid birth
certificate. Presenting that document in order to, say, get a
passport might be a violation of law if the holder knew it had been
obtained fraudulently, but if he BELIEVED he has a right to it -
and no court case has ever yielded "controlling legal authority"
to say that he hasn't, it would be novel for a U.S. attorney to
charge him with perjury or misrepresentation, at the least.
> adopted sans paperwork or official notification, and passed off as the
> natural born child of the Kents. He is not a citizen.
The more interesting question would be, is Kal-El disqualified for
citizenship because he isn't Homo Sapiens? Is treating Homo
Kryptonis as a citizen equivalent to naturalizing a cow? Perhaps
not in the DCU, where a "Great Humanoid Diaspora" took place
circa 5 million B.C.E., acccounting for the various interfertile
"aliens" of the United Planets in the Legion's future, and such
contemporaries of Superman as the Daxamites, Rannians, Thanagarians,
Alderans, etc. If you are a human brain in a can, you can be
considered a legal human. See Star-Spangled Comics #15's "The
Trial of Robotman." (Dec. 1942) So, a thinking brain that happens
to be wrapped in DNA that is a bit different, but still close
enough to breed with Terrans, ought to be considered legal people,
right? At least, that's what I'd hope Jean Loring would argue
before the Supreme Court.
Now J'onn J'onnz is a different case. Erdel's machine grabbed him.
He didn't come voluntarily, but remains a refugee in both space
and time. The shape-shifting Martians seem noticeably less human
then the Kryptonians, and J'onn stayed hidden until it became
public knowledge that the country's greatest hero, Superman, was
also an alien.
Here's a tough one. Is it illegal for a U.S. citizen to be a Green
Lantern? The Constiturion, Article I, Section 9, says:
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.
So if you are a government employee, such as a member of the Air
Force Reserve, or maybe a public school teacher, accepting the
Office and Title of GL from the sovereigns of OA might not be
kosher. If one is considered a private citizen, one might still
have to register as a foreign agent. The GL's used an oath, and
if U.S. authotities looked on that as an oath of allegiance to a
foreign power, and especially if they considered the GLC to be a
military rather than or in addition to being a police force, an
American GL might be in danger of losing his citizenship!
Belonging to the Justice League of AMERICA would be wise, as evidence
that said GL did not intend to give up his U.S. citizenship.
That mask Hal wore, when other GLs didn't bother to keep their
ID's secret, had its uses.
Needless to say, both Orin/Arthur Curry and Princess Diana would
have to abdicate before they could apply for U.S. citizenship.
Kevin
(IANAL: if you are having INS trouble, hire a lawyer!)
dmer...@email.toast.net
> I think it boils down to who writes the characters, doesn't it? And from what
> I have seen, the vast number of comic writers seem to be rather liberal.
> I remember during Cosmic Odyssey Superman saying he "doesn't think he likes
> this new administration" in reference to Bush 41.
Bad example. Even though that issue came out after the election, it was
written before the election, at a time when nobody knew who would win.
Superman's line (which was more about government/superhero relations
than real-world politics) wasn't written as an attack on Bush, since it
was just as likely that Dukakis would be the butt of the joke.
Eric Kibler
"ville terminale" <termin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8e25435.04021...@posting.google.com...
> are they all republicans because of their patriotism and law and order
stance?
If they could be defined by such simple labels, I doubt they'd be
vigilantes.
Here are my guesses:
Tony Stark: long ago, he was disillusioned by the military-industrial
complex and stopped being a weapons dealer. I think he'd be suspicious of
easy rationalizations for war.
Superman: In his first ten years, he fought against political corruption and
greedy capitalists, usually siding with the weak over the powerful.
Captain America: Easy. Democrat. F.D.R. was his boss. He grew up in the
depression. He's seen what unchecked capitalism leads to, and he lived
through F.D.R. saving the economy through government programs. Although it's
true that today most military people are Republicans, it was the opposite
for Captain America's generation.
Guy Gardner: Republican
U.S. Agent: Republican
Thor: Monarchist
Batman: Deeply distrustful of politicians or any political ideology.
Punisher: Far-right-wing militia nut.
Judge Dredd: Republican
Spider-Man: Not political
Ben Grimm: "I vote for the person, not the party"
Reed Richards: Very logical. Will probably vote for the candidate who
promises the best results for long-term threats to the environment,
alternatives to the current fuel supply, and population control.
The Watcher: Just shakes his head sadly.
Clell Harmon
Among those who are seriously into the process, sure. By and
large, not so much.
Clell Harmon
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson) wrote:
Which would be good if he had been 'born' there. He wasn't.
>
>> the fact
>> remains he was 'born' on a Krypton registered vessel
>
>actually, the vessel wasn't registered. Jor-El was breaking
>Kryptonian law by even launching a starship/capsule. The Science
>Council forbade his experimentation with space travel.
>
>>(sorta like being
>> born on a foreign flagged ship in US waters doesn't make you a US
>> citizen) and stepped (or was lifted) into the US as an illegal
>> emigrant.
>
>I say it is more like the woman who enters the U.S. without a visa
>and then gives birth on U.S. soil. The kid's a citizen, even if
>mama is otherwise subject to deportation. He took his first breath
>on American soil.
>
>I wonder if Bob Ingersoll has written this one up?
Excepting of course, there was no woman involved. Can a
machine give birth?
>
>> Yes, the Kents passed him off as their natural biological
>> child, but he isn't and he knows it.
>
>"The sins of the fathers" are not visited on the children in cases
>like this.
>
>> One has to wonder how much perjury Clark has committed on
>> official government forms that ask for citizenship data...
>
>Quoting:
>http://cobrands.public.findlaw.com/immigration/uscitizen/nolo/ency/C7F58E18-EAD7-46C6-AF91BF26CCEE4D60.html
>"If you were born on U.S. soil and there is a record of your birth,
>a standard U.S. birth certificate issued by a state government
>is your primary proof of U.S. citizenship."
>The county Smallville, KS is part of issued him a valid birth
>certificate. Presenting that document in order to, say, get a
>passport might be a violation of law if the holder knew it had been
>obtained fraudulently, but if he BELIEVED he has a right to it -
>and no court case has ever yielded "controlling legal authority"
>to say that he hasn't, it would be novel for a U.S. attorney to
>charge him with perjury or misrepresentation, at the least.
His birth certificate was fraudulent. At least is was if like
my own, there were spaces where the Birth mother and Father should
have been listed. If those spaces are filled with the names Martha
and Jonathon Kent, a fraud was committed.
>
>> adopted sans paperwork or official notification, and passed off as the
>> natural born child of the Kents. He is not a citizen.
>
>The more interesting question would be, is Kal-El disqualified for
>citizenship because he isn't Homo Sapiens? Is treating Homo
>Kryptonis as a citizen equivalent to naturalizing a cow? Perhaps
Pretty much.
>not in the DCU, where a "Great Humanoid Diaspora" took place
>circa 5 million B.C.E., acccounting for the various interfertile
>"aliens" of the United Planets in the Legion's future, and such
>contemporaries of Superman as the Daxamites, Rannians, Thanagarians,
>Alderans, etc. If you are a human brain in a can, you can be
>considered a legal human. See Star-Spangled Comics #15's "The
>Trial of Robotman." (Dec. 1942) So, a thinking brain that happens
>to be wrapped in DNA that is a bit different, but still close
>enough to breed with Terrans, ought to be considered legal people,
>right? At least, that's what I'd hope Jean Loring would argue
>before the Supreme Court.
Under current continuity there is no evidence that Terrans and
Kryptonians can breed... Other of course than the current Luther/Clark
silliness in the Superboy books. And that isn't really breeding is
it?
>
>Now J'onn J'onnz is a different case. Erdel's machine grabbed him.
>He didn't come voluntarily, but remains a refugee in both space
>and time. The shape-shifting Martians seem noticeably less human
>then the Kryptonians, and J'onn stayed hidden until it became
>public knowledge that the country's greatest hero, Superman, was
>also an alien.
>
>Here's a tough one. Is it illegal for a U.S. citizen to be a Green
>Lantern? The Constiturion, Article I, Section 9, says:
>
> 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.
>
>So if you are a government employee, such as a member of the Air
>Force Reserve, or maybe a public school teacher, accepting the
>Office and Title of GL from the sovereigns of OA might not be
>kosher. If one is considered a private citizen, one might still
I don't think the Constitution was refering to a job
description such as GL. Count and Duke and other such medivial
silliness was more the object. If GL is forbiden, then surely other
such job descriptions as 'programmer' or 'engineer' would be as well.
>have to register as a foreign agent. The GL's used an oath, and
>if U.S. authotities looked on that as an oath of allegiance to a
>foreign power, and especially if they considered the GLC to be a
>military rather than or in addition to being a police force, an
>American GL might be in danger of losing his citizenship!
Was not the Oath ("Brightest day, darkest night...") simply a
device invented by Hal Jordan as a way of marking the time it took to
fully recharge the ring? As I recall other Lanterns adopted it for
the same reason. It isn't an Oath ot Oa.
niteowlned
"ville terminale" <termin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8e25435.04021...@posting.google.com...
> are they all republicans because of their patriotism and law and order
stance?
Being a vigilante, taking the law into your own hands, breaking local
laws & rights the courts say are guaranteed by the Constitution on a regular
basis doesn't put most heroes on the right side of the 'law & order stance'.
Solving problems outside the rule of government sounds libertarian or
anarchist. :-}
Seeing that comics are produced by artists and most artistic types tend
to lean to the left I would think most of the heroes would be portrayed that
way. Except for a few instances when it is shown as a character flaw (JLA
Hawkman, US Agent) you rarely see a good-guy take a conservative stance on
anything. Captain America espousing earlier day values is always tempered
with a open, liberal view of people and society.
I don't think there are any heroes that can be called right-wing, have
political ideals that are very conservative.
ArizonaTeach
I wasn't drawing a direct link between the two comments, anyway, just throwing
my two cents in on where Superman stands. Regardless of who won the White
House, Superman complained about the administration, which was Bush. Now, if
someone wants to make the case that Bush wasn't the DCU President at that
point, considering the timeline compression, that maybe it was Clinton,
perhaps? Or someone else entirely? But all I was trying to say that in Cosmic
Odyssey, at the time it was printed, Superman, in the context of the comic, was
assuredly not pro-Bush.
Kevin Robinson
> On 14 Feb 2004 23:07:35 -0800, fleeing his large male nurses,
> kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson) wrote:
> >by the law of the El's home planet, it was.
>
> Which would be good if he had been 'born' there. He wasn't.
>
> >
> >> the fact
> >> remains he was 'born' on a Krypton registered vessel
> >
> >actually, the vessel wasn't registered. Jor-El was breaking
> >Kryptonian law by even launching a starship/capsule. The Science
> >Council forbade his experimentation with space travel.
> >
> >>(sorta like being
> >> born on a foreign flagged ship in US waters doesn't make you a US
> >> citizen) and stepped (or was lifted) into the US as an illegal
> >> emigrant.
> >
> >I say it is more like the woman who enters the U.S. without a visa
> >and then gives birth on U.S. soil. The kid's a citizen, even if
> >mama is otherwise subject to deportation. He took his first breath
> >on American soil.
> >
> >I wonder if Bob Ingersoll has written this one up?
>
> Excepting of course, there was no woman involved. Can a
> machine give birth?
Well, that's the question, isn't it? Currently, U.S. law doesn't
consider you "born" until you leave your mom's body. In in vitro
fertilization, the fertilized eggs in the lab, prior to their
implantation in the Mother's womb, aren't considered to be persons.
They have to be implanted, and grow there until one or more is
delivered, however prematurely. Under Byrne's version, Kal-El was
created in the lab from his parents' contributions, but never spent
any time in Lara. The situation is so novel that a judge trying to
decide where l'il Clarkie was born is going to have to make things
up as he goes along. Deciding that a person grown outside of the
womb is born sometime before he leaves the apparatus substituting
for his mother would cause a giant hairball. Pro-life/anti-abortion
groups would be in court instantly, arguing that there is no logical
difference between an unimplanted embryo and baby Kal, and demanding
charges against anyone who destroys, actively or through neglect,
such embryos.
> >> Yes, the Kents passed him off as their natural biological
> >> child, but he isn't and he knows it.
> >
> >"The sins of the fathers" are not visited on the children in cases
> >like this.
> >
> >> One has to wonder how much perjury Clark has committed on
> >> official government forms that ask for citizenship data...
> >
> >Quoting:
> >http://cobrands.public.findlaw.com/immigration/uscitizen/nolo/ency/C7F58E18-EAD7-46C6-AF91BF26CCEE4D60.html
> >"If you were born on U.S. soil and there is a record of your birth,
> >a standard U.S. birth certificate issued by a state government
> >is your primary proof of U.S. citizenship."
> >The county Smallville, KS is part of issued him a valid birth
> >certificate. Presenting that document in order to, say, get a
> >passport might be a violation of law if the holder knew it had been
> >obtained fraudulently, but if he BELIEVED he has a right to it -
> >and no court case has ever yielded "controlling legal authority"
> >to say that he hasn't, it would be novel for a U.S. attorney to
> >charge him with perjury or misrepresentation, at the least.
>
> His birth certificate was fraudulent. At least is was if like
> my own, there were spaces where the Birth mother and Father should
> have been listed. If those spaces are filled with the names Martha
> and Jonathon Kent, a fraud was committed.
Not by Pa Kent, anyway. The law does not care whether "Dad's" DNA was
involved in creating the child, or not. Merely accepting paternity
will subject you to the legal obligation to support the child. See:
http://reason.com/0211/co.cy.dad.shtml Cathy Young wrote:
"The law basically presumes, as in ancient Rome, that a woman's
husband is the father of any child born during the marriage. ...
Rulings in PA, NY, NH, RI, and CA have also held that if the husband
acknowledged the children as his for the duration of the marriage, he
cannot deny paternity afterward."
"Men's rights" activists are trying to get the courts to use DNA
testing for paternity as a matter of course, but the article
points out how that plan is faring.
> >The more interesting question would be, is Kal-El disqualified for
> > Is treating Homo
> >Kryptonis as a citizen equivalent to naturalizing a cow? Perhaps
>
> Pretty much.
More complicated than that, I'd think. Now, if one of those "cows"
that used to be Skrulls that were in an early issue of "Fantastic
Four" walked into the Federal Courthouse asking for asylum,
that would be interesting!
> >not in the DCU, where a "Great Humanoid Diaspora" took place
> >circa 5 million B.C.E., acccounting for the various interfertile
> >"aliens" of the United Planets in the Legion's future, ...
> Under current continuity there is no evidence that Terrans and
> Kryptonians can breed... Other of course than the current Luther/Clark
> silliness in the Superboy books. And that isn't really breeding is
> it?
There are no longer descendants of Superman (such as Laurel Kent)
in Legion continuity? Or the 1,000,000 books?
> >Here's a tough one. Is it illegal for a U.S. citizen to be a Green
> >Lantern? The Constitution, Article I, Section 9, says: >
>
> > No Person holding any Office of ... Trust under them,
> > shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any
> > present ... Office, or Title, of any kind whatever,
> > from any King, Prince or foreign State.
> >
> >
> > accepting the Office and Title of GL from the sovereigns of OA might not be
> > kosher.
> I don't think the Constitution was refering to a job
> description such as GL. Count and Duke and other such medieval
> silliness was more the object.
Have you ever noticed that when the British Monarch puts an American
citizen on the annual honors list, he only takes an honorary
knighthood? Bill Gates or George H. W. Bush will not
be going by "Sir" anytime soon.
> If GL is forbidden, then surely other
> such job descriptions as 'programmer' or 'engineer' would be as well.
Signing on as a military officer or law enforcement officer with a
foreign power could require Congressional approval, though. Mere
civilian employment would not be covered.
> Was not the Oath ("Brightest day, darkest night...") simply a
> device invented by Hal Jordan as a way of marking the time it took to
> fully recharge the ring? As I recall other Lanterns adopted it for
> the same reason. It isn't an Oath ot Oa.
That first bit sounds right. I doubt any disinterested observer
witnessing 3600 GLs charging their rings in unison at the Oan
Central Power Battery, led by the honor guard of senior Lanterns
attending the Guardians, would dismiss the Green Lantern Oath
as other than a stirring display of esprit de corps. It would
give one pause.
Kevin
(IAStillNAL)
Jay and Diane Rudin
> His birth certificate was fraudulent. At least is was if like
> my own, there were spaces where the Birth mother and Father should
> have been listed. If those spaces are filled with the names Martha
> and Jonathon Kent, a fraud was committed.
Immaterial. The names of fathers are often wrong on birth certificates, but
that has no legal effect on the validity of the certificate.
The determining factor of whether he is a citizen is birth location, not
parentage. If Clark in good faith believes that he was born in Kansas, then
he is committing no fraud or criminal activity when he votes.
He was born here, as explained every time it's mentioned. He has a legal
document proclaiming him a citizen. He therefore has the legal right to
vote until some government official invalidates his birth certificate. Then
he will have the legal right to vote, but no document to show it (a birth
certificate is not a requirement, and many frontier and rural Americans
never had one) until somebody "proves" in court that he was not born here,
and should have his citizenship revoked. At that point, and only at that
point, your questions about whether a fetus still being fed through an
umbilical cord has been "born" will become legally relevant. And that's not
a simple question to answer, so your contention that Clark "knows" he has no
right to vote is not true. Certainly if he was not born in Kansas, then he
was never born, since he was never inside a female womb.
If the court then determines that he was not "born" here, that court will
then have to decide whether that fact affects his citizenship. This isn't
as automatic as you think it is. Many foreign babies have been adopted by
U.S. parents, and become U.S. citizens. I don't know what the process is,
so I can't comment, but I know that my grandfather, who came over at one
years old, automatically became a citizen when his parents became
nationalized Americans. A court would have a sticky issue if it wanted to
invalidate Clark's citizenship. Imagine the protests if a court were known
to be attacking Superman. And even then, his citizenship can be revoked,
not annulled, and he will still have had the right to vote up until that
legal action takes places.
Similarly, a convicted felon can lose the right to vote, but only after it's
proven in a court of law.
Jay Rudin
Clell Harmon
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson) wrote:
Especially since we aren't talking about today, but 30 (or so)
years ago (Yeesh, Supes wasn't born (hatched?) when man first walked
on the moon!)
Which Clark was not (born during the marriage)
>Rulings in PA, NY, NH, RI, and CA have also held that if the husband
>acknowledged the children as his for the duration of the marriage, he
>cannot deny paternity afterward."
>
>"Men's rights" activists are trying to get the courts to use DNA
>testing for paternity as a matter of course, but the article
>points out how that plan is faring.
>
>> >The more interesting question would be, is Kal-El disqualified for
>> > Is treating Homo
>> >Kryptonis as a citizen equivalent to naturalizing a cow? Perhaps
>>
>> Pretty much.
>
>More complicated than that, I'd think. Now, if one of those "cows"
>that used to be Skrulls that were in an early issue of "Fantastic
>Four" walked into the Federal Courthouse asking for asylum,
>that would be interesting!
I could see Reed getting in a heap of legal troubles over that
one.
>
>> >not in the DCU, where a "Great Humanoid Diaspora" took place
>> >circa 5 million B.C.E., acccounting for the various interfertile
>> >"aliens" of the United Planets in the Legion's future, ...
>
>> Under current continuity there is no evidence that Terrans and
>> Kryptonians can breed... Other of course than the current Luther/Clark
>> silliness in the Superboy books. And that isn't really breeding is
>> it?
>
>There are no longer descendants of Superman (such as Laurel Kent)
>in Legion continuity? Or the 1,000,000 books?
Not that I've seen.
>
>> >Here's a tough one. Is it illegal for a U.S. citizen to be a Green
>> >Lantern? The Constitution, Article I, Section 9, says: >
>>
>> > No Person holding any Office of ... Trust under them,
>> > shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any
>> > present ... Office, or Title, of any kind whatever,
>> > from any King, Prince or foreign State.
>> >
>> >
>> > accepting the Office and Title of GL from the sovereigns of OA might not be
>> > kosher.
>> I don't think the Constitution was refering to a job
>> description such as GL. Count and Duke and other such medieval
>> silliness was more the object.
>
>Have you ever noticed that when the British Monarch puts an American
>citizen on the annual honors list, he only takes an honorary
>knighthood? Bill Gates or George H. W. Bush will not
>be going by "Sir" anytime soon.
>
>> If GL is forbidden, then surely other
>> such job descriptions as 'programmer' or 'engineer' would be as well.
>
>Signing on as a military officer or law enforcement officer with a
>foreign power could require Congressional approval, though. Mere
>civilian employment would not be covered.
I checked on this today. (aint' email great?) My Cousin works
for InterPol as a forensic technician, carries an ID identifying her
as an 'agent'. She says she never applied to congress or anyone else
before taking the job.
Clell Harmon
"Jay and Diane Rudin" <ru...@ev1.net> wrote:
>"Clell Harmon" wrote:
>
>> His birth certificate was fraudulent. At least is was if like
>> my own, there were spaces where the Birth mother and Father should
>> have been listed. If those spaces are filled with the names Martha
>> and Jonathon Kent, a fraud was committed.
>
>Immaterial. The names of fathers are often wrong on birth certificates, but
>that has no legal effect on the validity of the certificate.
Birth mothers on the other hand....
>
>The determining factor of whether he is a citizen is birth location, not
>parentage. If Clark in good faith believes that he was born in Kansas, then
>he is committing no fraud or criminal activity when he votes.
Which again returns us to the question of can a machine give
birth. Can it? Was he born (certainly not of woman) or was he
'decanted'?
>
>He was born here, as explained every time it's mentioned. He has a legal
>document proclaiming him a citizen. He therefore has the legal right to
He has a fraudlent birth certificate.
>vote until some government official invalidates his birth certificate. Then
>he will have the legal right to vote, but no document to show it (a birth
>certificate is not a requirement, and many frontier and rural Americans
>never had one) until somebody "proves" in court that he was not born here,
Certainly many frontier births were not documented. But not
in Kansas in the 1970s.
>and should have his citizenship revoked. At that point, and only at that
>point, your questions about whether a fetus still being fed through an
>umbilical cord has been "born" will become legally relevant. And that's not
>a simple question to answer, so your contention that Clark "knows" he has no
>right to vote is not true. Certainly if he was not born in Kansas, then he
>was never born, since he was never inside a female womb.
Like I said, decanted.
>
>If the court then determines that he was not "born" here, that court will
>then have to decide whether that fact affects his citizenship. This isn't
>as automatic as you think it is. Many foreign babies have been adopted by
>U.S. parents, and become U.S. citizens. I don't know what the process is,
foreign HUMAN babies, born of woman...
>so I can't comment, but I know that my grandfather, who came over at one
>years old, automatically became a citizen when his parents became
>nationalized Americans. A court would have a sticky issue if it wanted to
>invalidate Clark's citizenship. Imagine the protests if a court were known
>to be attacking Superman. And even then, his citizenship can be revoked,
>not annulled, and he will still have had the right to vote up until that
>legal action takes places.
Lets be blunt here. Superman could NEVER vote. He could not
meet the identification requirements. He has a Secret Identity. He
has told people he has one. (easily the most mind numbingly stupid
thing any character in comics has ever done.) Clark on the otherhand
could if he decided to, and probably get away with it. But has he?
No one knows, it has (to my knowledge) never been shown in the
comix (not even in the "President Luthor" arc). The only way this
will ever be solved is if he at some time casts a vote in the comic,
or explains why he can't.
>
>Similarly, a convicted felon can lose the right to vote, but only after it's
>proven in a court of law.
Can one be a convicted felon before it's proven in a court of
law?
Kevin Robinson
> On 16 Feb 2004 11:12:12 -0800,
>
> >> >I say it is more like the woman who enters the U.S. without a visa
> >> >and then gives birth on U.S. soil. The kid's a citizen, even if
> >> >mama is otherwise subject to deportation. He took his first breath
> >> >on American soil.
> >> >
> >> >I wonder if Bob Ingersoll has written this one up?
> >>
> >> Excepting of course, there was no woman involved. Can a
> >> machine give birth?
> >
> >Well, that's the question, isn't it? Currently, U.S. law doesn't
> > ........................................... Pro-life/anti-abortion
> >groups would be in court instantly, arguing that there is no logical
> >difference between an unimplanted embryo and baby Kal, and demanding
> >charges against anyone who destroys, actively or through neglect,
> >such embryos.
>
> Especially since we aren't talking about today, but 30 (or so)
> years ago (Yeesh, Supes wasn't born (hatched?)
Hank William's "You'll Never Get Of This World Alive" has started
running through my mind. :)
> when man first walked on the moon!)
Yeah, but after Roe v. Wade. Any challenge to CK's citizenship
wouldn't hit the courts until his unique situation became known.
Perhaps the first time he had to fillout some application that
required him to declare whether he was a citizen or not. I'm
trying to remember if college scholarship contests held by the
American Legion or the VFW wanted to know that info. Certainly
college and university apps or registration forms did. The case
law built up since the first "test tube" babies and late-term
abortion decisions would be relevant.
> >http://reason.com/0211/co.cy.dad.shtml Cathy Young wrote:
> >
> >"The law basically presumes, as in ancient Rome, that a woman's
> >husband is the father of any child born during the marriage. ...
>
> Which Clark was not (born during the marriage)
To quote the Pythons,
"That isn't argument, it's just contradiction!"
> >There are no longer descendants of Superman (such as Laurel Kent)
> >in Legion continuity? Or the 1,000,000 books?
>
> Not that I've seen.
There's a Superman Dynasty in the 1,000,000 series.
> >Signing on as a military officer or law enforcement officer with a
> >foreign power could require Congressional approval, though. Mere
> >civilian employment would not be covered.
>
> I checked on this today. (aint' email great?) My Cousin works
> for InterPol as a forensic technician, carries an ID identifying her
> as an 'agent'. She says she never applied to congress or anyone else
> before taking the job.
That could be because the U.S. is a member state of Interpol.
It isn't a foreign power, it's an international organization,
like the World Health Organization or the World Bank.
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Icpo/Members/default.asp
(aren't search engines wonderful?)
Kevin
(IAStillNAL)
Selaboc
> c64...@hotmail.com (Selaboc) wrote:
>
> > Actually, a better phrasing would be are they all conservatives
> > because of their patriotism and law and order stance?
>
> lies McCarthy and our country right or wrong thinking.
And that's worse/different than questioning the patriotism of
Democrats (as the origianl poster phrased the question) how?
Jay and Diane Rudin
> Which again returns us to the question of can a machine give
> birth. Can it? Was he born (certainly not of woman) or was he
> 'decanted'?
The law has made it clear that, regardless of what technology was used in
the process, a living, breathing child is legally considered to have been
born. And at present, a non-viable fetus is legally considered to not yet
be a human being. It follows that:
A. a fetus was placed in the gestation chamber, which could not have
survived without it.
B. Several months later, a baby came out.
So when did the non-viable fetus bcome a human being? When it came out of
the womb-equivalent.
Assume that American doctors invented such a gestation chamber, and American
women started to use it. When would the baby be born, for legal purposes?
The most likely scenario is that it would be deemed to be born at the moment
in its development most equivalent to the birth of other babies. Now assume
a English woman uses such a machine in England, and that the machine is
transferred to an American hospital for some medical reason. When the baby
is "born" in an American hospital, it would become a citizen.
That's the most likely result of such a scenario I can find, applying the
legal principle of precedent.
I therefor econclude that, if it were ever questioned in court, and all the
facts came out, Clark would be deemed to have been born in Kansas.
But it has not been questioned in court, and Clark knows that he was born in
Kansas. Therefore he has a legal right to vote, and knows that he does.
JR> He was born here, as explained every time it's mentioned. He has a
legal
JR> document proclaiming him a citizen. He therefore has the legal right to
> He has a fraudlent birth certificate.
You keep saying this, as if it has some relevance. It doesn't. None.
My birth certificate isn't what gives me the right to vote. My citizenship
does. As long as the nation considers Clark Kent to be a citizen, he has
the right to vote. The government could theoretically decide to revoke his
citizenship, but until it does, he has the right to vote.
It is *not true* that a fraudulent birth certificate means he isn't a
citizen. Even if his citizenship is an accident, the fact that the
government has treated him as a citizen, and proclaimed him as a citizen,
makes him a citizen.
It might, perhaps, be shown that this was done in error, and his citizenship
revoked, But it would then be void, not null.
JR> vote until some government official invalidates his birth certificate.
Then
JR> he will have the legal right to vote, but no document to show it (a
birth
JR> certificate is not a requirement, and many frontier and rural Americans
JR> never had one) until somebody "proves" in court that he was not born
here,
> Certainly many frontier births were not documented. But not
> in Kansas in the 1970s.
A. This is untrue. Births still occur at home occasionally, and won't be
registered with the county unless someone makes the effort. Most states
still have the structure to issue a "delayed registry of birth" for just
such occurrences, and occasionally adults have to do so.
B. Even if your simplistic statement were true, it's still not legally
relevant. Long established precedent shows that a birth certificate is not
a requirement of birth, or of citizenship. Robert A. Heinlein discovered,
long after he had grown up, gone to college, served in the armed forces,
worked at several jobs, run for public office and even, yes, voted, that he
had never had a birth certificate.
> >and should have his citizenship revoked. At that point, and only at that
> >point, your questions about whether a fetus still being fed through an
> >umbilical cord has been "born" will become legally relevant. And that's
not
> >a simple question to answer, so your contention that Clark "knows" he has
no
> >right to vote is not true. Certainly if he was not born in Kansas, then
he
> >was never born, since he was never inside a female womb.
>
> Like I said, decanted.
If he was born at all, the only place it could have happened was in Kansas.
He might be declared to be a decanted non-living specimen, but if he is
considered by the law to be alive, then his birthplace was Kansas.
> >If the court then determines that he was not "born" here, that court will
> >then have to decide whether that fact affects his citizenship. This
isn't
> >as automatic as you think it is. Many foreign babies have been adopted
by
> >U.S. parents, and become U.S. citizens. I don't know what the process
is,
>
> foreign HUMAN babies, born of woman...
It is true that the law might try to proclaim him to not be a citizen, based
on not being the same species. I cannot imagine that this would stand up in
court after many non-human species have been shown to be sentient and
advanced. In any event, it has not been done, and his citizenship is real
until such a law is passed.
> >so I can't comment, but I know that my grandfather, who came over at one
> >years old, automatically became a citizen when his parents became
> >nationalized Americans. A court would have a sticky issue if it wanted
to
> >invalidate Clark's citizenship. Imagine the protests if a court were
known
> >to be attacking Superman. And even then, his citizenship can be revoked,
> >not annulled, and he will still have had the right to vote up until that
> >legal action takes places.
>
> Lets be blunt here. Superman could NEVER vote. He could not
> meet the identification requirements. He has a Secret Identity. He
> has told people he has one. (easily the most mind numbingly stupid
> thing any character in comics has ever done.)
OK -- let's be blunt. I pointed out that Clark can legally vote UNLESS the
government takes action against him, based on knowledge that he is
Kryptonian. That scenario must include the knowledge that he is Superman.
> Clark on the otherhand
> could if he decided to, and probably get away with it. But has he?
It's not "getting away with it". It's legal. Your continued claims to the
contrary have not included any precedent, any law, any legal thinking at
all.
> No one knows, it has (to my knowledge) never been shown in the
> comix (not even in the "President Luthor" arc). The only way this
> will ever be solved is if he at some time casts a vote in the comic,
> or explains why he can't.
... or if some of us have some knowledge of the law, and apply actual legal
principles.
> >Similarly, a convicted felon can lose the right to vote, but only after
it's
> >proven in a court of law.
>
> Can one be a convicted felon before it's proven in a court of
> law?
That is of course the point I was making. A felon has the legal right to
vote until it is revoked. So does Clark.
You can spout legal nonsense about birth certificates all you want, but:
A. If the government declares that you are a citizen, then that means you
are one, and
B. the government has declared Clark to be a citizen.
He remains a citizen until it is shown that he wasn't born here, ar that he
is otherwise ineligible.
Jay Rudin
Tue Sorensen
The majority of superheroes are anarchist vigilantes. Mark Gruenwald
called superheroing a "grand anarchic tradition".
- Tue
Glenn Simpson
> > He has a fraudlent birth certificate.
>
> You keep saying this, as if it has some relevance. It doesn't. None.
>
I should point out that my own birth certificate is a fraud. You see,
I was adopted. But nothing on my birth certificate indicates that. It
says that Sarah Simpson gave birth to me on April 12, 1970, and has
her signature, dated the 13th.
But this is, of course, untrue. They didn't even get me until I was 6
weeks old. But in order to provide them with the ability to hide my
adoption from me (I assume), my birth certificate was altered (or left
incomplete until my adoption). They did not hide this from me, but
they had the option.
Just pointing out that a birth certificate isn't the be-all end-all
many people think it to be.
Clell Harmon
"Jay and Diane Rudin" <ru...@ev1.net> wrote:
>Clell Harmon and I have exchanged:
>
>> Which again returns us to the question of can a machine give
>> birth. Can it? Was he born (certainly not of woman) or was he
>> 'decanted'?
>
>The law has made it clear that, regardless of what technology was used in
>the process, a living, breathing child is legally considered to have been
The law addresses living, breathing, HUMAN children. Not
Living, Breathing, Kryptonians, breathing our air, absorbing our solar
energy, poluting this paradise called Earth with his alien waste...
>born. And at present, a non-viable fetus is legally considered to not yet
>be a human being. It follows that:
And a viable Kryptonian cannot be considered a human being.
>A. a fetus was placed in the gestation chamber, which could not have
>survived without it.
>B. Several months later, a baby came out.
>So when did the non-viable fetus bcome a human being? When it came out of
>the womb-equivalent.
It NEVER bacame a human being. It became a Kryptonian. A
whole different specie. (hell a completely different genotype.)
>
>Assume that American doctors invented such a gestation chamber, and American
>women started to use it. When would the baby be born, for legal purposes?
Don't know. Depends on the Congresscritters of the time.
>The most likely scenario is that it would be deemed to be born at the moment
>in its development most equivalent to the birth of other babies. Now assume
>a English woman uses such a machine in England, and that the machine is
>transferred to an American hospital for some medical reason. When the baby
>is "born" in an American hospital, it would become a citizen.
Not until the law changes to reflect this proposed (and highly
unlikely) technology. I say unlikely because the old way works so
much better and is lots cheaper.
>
>That's the most likely result of such a scenario I can find, applying the
>legal principle of precedent.
>
>I therefor econclude that, if it were ever questioned in court, and all the
>facts came out, Clark would be deemed to have been born in Kansas.
>
>But it has not been questioned in court, and Clark knows that he was born in
>Kansas. Therefore he has a legal right to vote, and knows that he does.
>
>JR> He was born here, as explained every time it's mentioned. He has a
>legal
>JR> document proclaiming him a citizen. He therefore has the legal right to
>
>> He has a fraudlent birth certificate.
>
>You keep saying this, as if it has some relevance. It doesn't. None.
It has, lots. It is the paperwork that establishes your
citizenship. Try getting into the voting booth without the ability to
establish your ID.
>
>My birth certificate isn't what gives me the right to vote. My citizenship
>does. As long as the nation considers Clark Kent to be a citizen, he has
>the right to vote. The government could theoretically decide to revoke his
>citizenship, but until it does, he has the right to vote.
>
>It is *not true* that a fraudulent birth certificate means he isn't a
>citizen. Even if his citizenship is an accident, the fact that the
>government has treated him as a citizen, and proclaimed him as a citizen,
>makes him a citizen.
SO, by that logic a Canadian, without any id of any sort can
show up and 'pass' for a US citizen and vote... right?
>
>It might, perhaps, be shown that this was done in error, and his citizenship
>revoked, But it would then be void, not null.
>
>JR> vote until some government official invalidates his birth certificate.
>Then
>JR> he will have the legal right to vote, but no document to show it (a
>birth
>JR> certificate is not a requirement, and many frontier and rural Americans
>JR> never had one) until somebody "proves" in court that he was not born
>here,
>
>> Certainly many frontier births were not documented. But not
>> in Kansas in the 1970s.
>
>A. This is untrue. Births still occur at home occasionally, and won't be
>registered with the county unless someone makes the effort. Most states
>still have the structure to issue a "delayed registry of birth" for just
>such occurrences, and occasionally adults have to do so.
I just checked. Kansas has a 2 week reporting period. Then
Ma & Pa get fined.
>B. Even if your simplistic statement were true, it's still not legally
>relevant. Long established precedent shows that a birth certificate is not
>a requirement of birth, or of citizenship. Robert A. Heinlein discovered,
>long after he had grown up, gone to college, served in the armed forces,
>worked at several jobs, run for public office and even, yes, voted, that he
>had never had a birth certificate.
Are you seriously comparing a the societal documentation
requirements of a man born in 1907 with one (presumably) born circa
1970?
>
>> >and should have his citizenship revoked. At that point, and only at that
>> >point, your questions about whether a fetus still being fed through an
>> >umbilical cord has been "born" will become legally relevant. And that's
>not
>> >a simple question to answer, so your contention that Clark "knows" he has
>no
>> >right to vote is not true. Certainly if he was not born in Kansas, then
>he
>> >was never born, since he was never inside a female womb.
>>
>> Like I said, decanted.
>
>If he was born at all, the only place it could have happened was in Kansas.
>He might be declared to be a decanted non-living specimen, but if he is
>considered by the law to be alive, then his birthplace was Kansas.
But not a Human birth.
Until he is convicted he isn't a felon.
Peter Henrikson
All of this argument could be considered moot if Superman ( and by the fact
that he is the same person, Clark) was granted a rubber stamp citizen status
by edict of the president and/or the courts. If Clark's voting ever came up
in a story, they could say it was done off-panel and that not everything
that happens to Clark in recounted in a story.
Pete
Peter Henrikson
>
> The law addresses living, breathing, HUMAN children. Not
> Living, Breathing, Kryptonians, breathing our air, absorbing our solar
> energy, poluting this paradise called Earth with his alien waste...
>
relevant. In the real-world, there are no aliens (non-Earth beings) known to
exist. Therefore there are no laws prescribing their legal status. In the DC
universe, there are aliens and have been for quite some time. I would expect
that laws would have been passed that take this fact into account
Pete
Jayson Becker
(ie. red skull, baron zemo, hatemonger, etc.)
Sorted magAZine
"Tue Sorensen" <twoc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c50450f6.04021...@posting.google.com...
society without authority) are different things. IIRC, the only Marvelite who
comes close to anarchism is Flag-smasher (though there's a bit too much
nihilist in there as well). Elsewhere, the Authority seem to swerve from
anarchism to authoritarianism.
D.
Mathew Krull
>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:56:35 -0600, fleeing his large male nurses,
>"Jay and Diane Rudin" <ru...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Clell Harmon and I have exchanged:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Which again returns us to the question of can a machine give
>>>birth. Can it? Was he born (certainly not of woman) or was he
>>>'decanted'?
>>>
>>>
>>The law has made it clear that, regardless of what technology was used in
>>the process, a living, breathing child is legally considered to have been
>>
>>
>
> The law addresses living, breathing, HUMAN children. Not
>Living, Breathing, Kryptonians, breathing our air, absorbing our solar
>energy, poluting this paradise called Earth with his alien waste...
>
>
>
The law only says 'individuals', not human beings.
>>>He has a fraudlent birth certificate.
>>>
>>>
>>You keep saying this, as if it has some relevance. It doesn't. None.
>>
>>
>
> It has, lots. It is the paperwork that establishes your
>citizenship. Try getting into the voting booth without the ability to
>establish your ID.
>
>
>
I havee never once had to show ID to vote. Never. Ijust told them my
name, they checked the registry for my precinct, and then let me vote.
Only 24 states have any sort of requirements for showing ID's, and of
those 9 have voluntary requirements at the precinct levels (Precincts
can, if they want, require people to show ID), and 6 of them only
require ID at the polls under specific circumstances. I was even able
to register to vote without providing a birth certificate, and got a
state ID without one. You don't even need a birth certificate to get a
social security card.
>>My birth certificate isn't what gives me the right to vote. My citizenship
>>does. As long as the nation considers Clark Kent to be a citizen, he has
>>the right to vote. The government could theoretically decide to revoke his
>>citizenship, but until it does, he has the right to vote.
>>
>>It is *not true* that a fraudulent birth certificate means he isn't a
>>citizen. Even if his citizenship is an accident, the fact that the
>>government has treated him as a citizen, and proclaimed him as a citizen,
>>makes him a citizen.
>>
>>
>
> SO, by that logic a Canadian, without any id of any sort can
>show up and 'pass' for a US citizen and vote... right?
>
>
>
Depends on which state said Canadian tried to vote in.
>>B. Even if your simplistic statement were true, it's still not legally
>>relevant. Long established precedent shows that a birth certificate is not
>>a requirement of birth, or of citizenship. Robert A. Heinlein discovered,
>>long after he had grown up, gone to college, served in the armed forces,
>>worked at several jobs, run for public office and even, yes, voted, that he
>>had never had a birth certificate.
>>
>>
>
> Are you seriously comparing a the societal documentation
>requirements of a man born in 1907 with one (presumably) born circa
>1970?
>
>
I ws born in 1971, and was able to register to vote and recieve a valid
state issued ID without presenting a birth certificate.
--
My name is not misspelled.
Kevin Robinson
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:56:35 -0600, fleeing his large male nurses,
> "Jay and Diane Rudin" <ru...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> >Clell Harmon and I have exchanged:
> >
> >> Which again returns us to the question of can a machine give
> >> birth. Can it? Was he born (certainly not of woman) or was he
> >> 'decanted'?
> >
> >The law has made it clear that, regardless of what technology was used in
> >the process, a living, breathing child is legally considered to have been
>
> The law addresses living, breathing, HUMAN children. Not
> Living, Breathing, Kryptonians, breathing our air, absorbing our solar
> energy, poluting this paradise called Earth with his alien waste...
>
>
> >born. And at present, a non-viable fetus is legally considered to not yet
> >be a human being. It follows that:
>
> And a viable Kryptonian cannot be considered a human being.
>
> >A. a fetus was placed in the gestation chamber, which could not have
> >survived without it.
> >B. Several months later, a baby came out.
> >So when did the non-viable fetus bcome a human being? When it came out of
> >the womb-equivalent.
>
> It NEVER bacame a human being. It became a Kryptonian. A
> whole different specie. (hell a completely different genotype.)
The history of citizenship in the U.S. is one of an ever-expanding
definition of which PERSONS should be considered to possess the
full array of civil rights. The Constitution used to distinguish
between persons held to service (slaves), free people, and "Indians
not taxed." "Free" women were prevented from exercising the range
of rights that their brothers did, though unmarried widows sometimes
could. Children have often been treated much like property, though
today we recognize that they have rights, even if their guardians
act as trustees of some of those until they are of age. It would
not matter a whit if Kal-El isn't the same species as the humans
of Terra, if a court decided that he was a LEGAL PERSON. In law,
a corporation can be a legal person (Dartmouth v Woodward, 1819),
and it is only a concept, not a being. I don't think that real-
world simians or cetaceans have intellects that rise to human levels,
so that they are moral actors, but in many a prose or comics SF story
they are, and courts in those worlds might decide that they could
be treated as persons. The next time Grodd takes over Gorilla
City, would an Earth-DC State Department refuse to grant refugees
from that regime political asylum, on the grounds that "apes
ain't people!?"
> >Assume that American doctors invented such a gestation chamber, and American
> >women started to use it. When would the baby be born, for legal purposes?
>
> Don't know. Depends on the Congresscritters of the time.
Fat chance. The courts would overrule any law the Congress wrote,
should it not adhere to the judges' version of the Constitution,
whatever it happens to be that day.
> >The most likely scenario is that it would be deemed to be born at the moment
> >in its development most equivalent to the birth of other babies. Now assume
> >a English woman uses such a machine in England, and that the machine is
> >transferred to an American hospital for some medical reason. When the baby
> >is "born" in an American hospital, it would become a citizen.
>
> Not until the law changes to reflect this proposed (and highly
> unlikely) technology. I say unlikely because the old way works so
> much better and is lots cheaper.
There are still couples who would find this technology a great boon.
A pregnant woman who is not healthy enough to bring her child to
term, but doesn't want to abort, could use a GC. The same for a
mother who is too young. A GC might be a healthier environment
for a fetus whose Mom is HIV-positive, or an alcoholic, or
a cocaine addict. Jane Hishschooler could find out that she
was pregnant, have the fetus surgically removed and placed in a GC,
and let a childless couple adopt her "love child." JH gets a stern
lecture from her parentals about unprotected sex, and gets on
with her life. Just because the "old-fashioned" way is best
for most people doesn't mean that a new method couldn't be useful.
> >> He has a fraudlent birth certificate.
> >
> >You keep saying this, as if it has some relevance. It doesn't. None.
>
> It has, lots. It is the paperwork that establishes your
> citizenship. Try getting into the voting booth without the ability to
> establish your ID.
At this moment, in Wisconsin, thousands of people are registering
to vote with flimsy proof of residence - not even citizenship.
"For voters planning to register at the polls, a driver's license and
proof of residence will be required. If a voter doesn't have a
driver's license, the last four digits of his Social Security number
will suffice to complete the form. A driver's license with a current
address can serve as proof of residence. Otherwise, bring a recent
utility bill or other form with a name and address to prove
residency." From:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/feb04/208018.asp see also:
http://www.ci.mil.wi.us/citygov/election/register.htm
(OT: Yes, this is an invitation to massive voter fraud.)
> >My birth certificate isn't what gives me the right to vote. My citizenship
> >does. As long as the nation considers Clark Kent to be a citizen, he has
> >the right to vote. The government could theoretically decide to revoke his
> >citizenship, but until it does, he has the right to vote.
> >
> >It is *not true* that a fraudulent birth certificate means he isn't a
> >citizen. Even if his citizenship is an accident, the fact that the
> >government has treated him as a citizen, and proclaimed him as a citizen,
> >makes him a citizen.
>
> SO, by that logic a Canadian, without any id of any sort can
> show up and 'pass' for a US citizen and vote... right?
Well, in some states, yeah.
> > Births still occur at home occasionally, and won't be
> >registered with the county unless someone makes the effort. Most states
> >still have the structure to issue a "delayed registry of birth" for just
> >such occurrences, and occasionally adults have to do so.
>
> I just checked. Kansas has a 2 week reporting period. Then
> Ma & Pa get fined.
>
> >B. Even if your simplistic statement were true, it's still not legally
> >relevant. Long established precedent shows that a birth certificate is not
> >a requirement of birth, or of citizenship. Robert A. Heinlein discovered,
> >long after he had grown up, gone to college, served in the armed forces,
> >worked at several jobs, run for public office and even, yes, voted, that he
> >had never had a birth certificate.
>
> Are you seriously comparing a the societal documentation
> requirements of a man born in 1907 with one (presumably) born circa
> 1970?
Remember, the Kents were "snowed in" and couldn't get to town.
The bad weather had been exacerbated by agents of The Manhunters.
> >If he was born at all, the only place it could have happened was in Kansas.
> >He might be declared to be a decanted non-living specimen, but if he is
> >considered by the law to be alive, then his birthplace was Kansas.
>
> But not a Human birth.
But, perhaps, the birth of a person, in the legal sense of the word.
^^^^^^
> >> Lets be blunt here. Superman could NEVER vote. He could not
> >> meet the identification requirements. He has a Secret Identity. He
> >> has told people he has one. (easily the most mind numbingly stupid
> >> thing any character in comics has ever done.)
In post-Crisis continuity "Superman has a secret ID" is not initially
common knowledge. Lex Luthor considered it much more likely that
he would have many identities, a schtick LL used in Elliott Maggin's
novels, and more recently revealed as Martian Manhunter's MO.
> >You can spout legal nonsense about birth certificates
> > all you want,
To put it another way, if you seem to be a citizen, people will
assume that you are, and only if someone sees some reason to
challenge your access to some privilege or benefit restricted
to citizens will it ever become an issue. The first time this
would come up for Clark might be when he applies for a passport,
before he goes on his post-Smallville wanderjahr. If he believes
he isn't a citizen, he'd be perjuring himself by marking "citizen"
on his application, but intent is everything in the criminal law.
If, given his best knowledge, he is a citizen, he has committed
no crime.
Kevin
(JTGYK*)
(*Just this guy, y'know?)
Michael Pastor
> Clell Harmon wrote:
>
You don't even need a birth certificate to get
> a social security card.
Oh yeah you do! I had to wait 8 weeks to get my birth certificate from the
state of Rhode Island (at the outrageous cost of 15 bucks) before I could
get my SS card, *then* wait the time it took to get that sent to me, before
I could get my photo ID for the state of Pennsylvania, then wait the weeks
it took to make it (before they did the instant digital photo style). What
a pain in the caboose!
michael j pastor
Bryan J. Maloney
thusnews:m7p430dekfg8lvpdj...@4ax.com:
> The law addresses living, breathing, HUMAN children. Not
Quote, specifically, section and paragraph where pertinent law states that
it applies to "humans" and that "human" is defined as "Homo sapiens
originated upon the planet earth". "Person" does not qualify as
necessarily synonymous with "human" as far as the law is concerned. So,
either meet my challenge or accept that your complete stupidity and
ignorance regarding law is thoroughly exposed.
Bryan J. Maloney
thusnews:67380af5.04021...@posting.google.com:
> all superheroes are democrats and most supervillains are republicans
> (ie. red skull, baron zemo, hatemonger, etc.)
You've got it backwards. Liberal is just another flavor of fascist.
Clell Harmon
Only about 10 years or so (ignore everything you read before
that). There is no evidence that the Laws of DC prime have been
alterered in anyway to apply to the several dozen aliens on earth.
Have any of those aliens given birth yet?
Clell Harmon
Mathew Krull <mkr...@cfu.newt> wrote:
>Clell Harmon wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:56:35 -0600, fleeing his large male nurses,
>>"Jay and Diane Rudin" <ru...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Clell Harmon and I have exchanged:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Which again returns us to the question of can a machine give
>>>>birth. Can it? Was he born (certainly not of woman) or was he
>>>>'decanted'?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The law has made it clear that, regardless of what technology was used in
>>>the process, a living, breathing child is legally considered to have been
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The law addresses living, breathing, HUMAN children. Not
>>Living, Breathing, Kryptonians, breathing our air, absorbing our solar
>>energy, poluting this paradise called Earth with his alien waste...
>>
>>
>>
>The law only says 'individuals', not human beings.
I'm still not convinced that a non human has human rights.
Peta aside.
>
>>>>He has a fraudlent birth certificate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You keep saying this, as if it has some relevance. It doesn't. None.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It has, lots. It is the paperwork that establishes your
>>citizenship. Try getting into the voting booth without the ability to
>>establish your ID.
>>
>>
>>
>I havee never once had to show ID to vote. Never. Ijust told them my
>name, they checked the registry for my precinct, and then let me vote.
Wow. Does your state have a 'vote early and often' tradition?
> Only 24 states have any sort of requirements for showing ID's, and of
>those 9 have voluntary requirements at the precinct levels (Precincts
>can, if they want, require people to show ID), and 6 of them only
>require ID at the polls under specific circumstances. I was even able
>to register to vote without providing a birth certificate, and got a
>state ID without one. You don't even need a birth certificate to get a
>social security card.
How did you go about proving who you were? To play Little
League in California in the 1960s I had to present a certified copy of
my BC. To get my Social Security card in 1968, I had to submit a
registered copy of my BC. To get my California drivers licence in
1968, I had to present a certified copy of my BC. To register to vote
the first time in California I had to present a registered copy of my
BC. When I joined the Navy in 1970, I had to present a registered
copy of my BC. When I married in Toward Scotland in 1978 I had to
submit a registered copy of my BC. When my wife applied for her
resident VISA in 1978 I had to submit a registered copy of my BC.
When I retired from the Navy in 1996 and settled in Missouri, when
applying for a Missouri drivers license I had to submit a registerd
copy of my BC AND my DD214 to account for wanting to renew a drivers
license that had expired in 1974. Registering to vote in Missouri
required id that had been validated by my BC, and my ID is checked at
the polls every election cycle.
>
>>>My birth certificate isn't what gives me the right to vote. My citizenship
>>>does. As long as the nation considers Clark Kent to be a citizen, he has
>>>the right to vote. The government could theoretically decide to revoke his
>>>citizenship, but until it does, he has the right to vote.
>>>
>>>It is *not true* that a fraudulent birth certificate means he isn't a
>>>citizen. Even if his citizenship is an accident, the fact that the
>>>government has treated him as a citizen, and proclaimed him as a citizen,
>>>makes him a citizen.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> SO, by that logic a Canadian, without any id of any sort can
>>show up and 'pass' for a US citizen and vote... right?
>>
>>
>>
>Depends on which state said Canadian tried to vote in.
>
>>>B. Even if your simplistic statement were true, it's still not legally
>>>relevant. Long established precedent shows that a birth certificate is not
>>>a requirement of birth, or of citizenship. Robert A. Heinlein discovered,
>>>long after he had grown up, gone to college, served in the armed forces,
>>>worked at several jobs, run for public office and even, yes, voted, that he
>>>had never had a birth certificate.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Are you seriously comparing a the societal documentation
>>requirements of a man born in 1907 with one (presumably) born circa
>>1970?
>>
>>
>I ws born in 1971, and was able to register to vote and recieve a valid
>state issued ID without presenting a birth certificate.
And how did you establish who you are?
Clell Harmon
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson) wrote:
I agree whole heartedly with all of the above. Clark (in this
continuity he isn't REALLY Kal-El is he?) however has never given the
courts a chance to decide anything has he?
Hmm, a few million to develop the mechinism, vs a few thousand
to rent the womb of a willing woman...
>mother who is too young. A GC might be a healthier environment
>for a fetus whose Mom is HIV-positive, or an alcoholic, or
>a cocaine addict. Jane Hishschooler could find out that she
>was pregnant, have the fetus surgically removed and placed in a GC,
>and let a childless couple adopt her "love child." JH gets a stern
>lecture from her parentals about unprotected sex, and gets on
>with her life. Just because the "old-fashioned" way is best
>for most people doesn't mean that a new method couldn't be useful.
I agree. The old way will always win because it is CHEAPER.
Peter Henrikson
OK I'll grant the fact that DC tries to keep all of it's history crunched up
into a 10 year timeline. But although no evidence has been given showing
these laws exist, none has been given that they don't either. It's never
been pertinent to a story as far as I know. And as soon as it is, all they
have to do is say they do exist and "POOF", they do.
Bryan J. Maloney
> I'm still not convinced that a non human has human rights.
> Peta aside.
After your ignorant rants, I'm still not convinced you do your own reading
and writing. Point out SPECIFICALLY in pertinent law where "person" or
"individual" or other such terms are legally restricted to "human". Go
ahead. I challenge you. Put up or shut up. Show the evidence or be
revealed as monumentally ignorant.
Selaboc
> Wow. Does your state have a 'vote early and often' tradition?
>
> > Only 24 states have any sort of requirements for showing ID's, and of
> >those 9 have voluntary requirements at the precinct levels (Precincts
> >can, if they want, require people to show ID), and 6 of them only
> >require ID at the polls under specific circumstances. I was even able
> >to register to vote without providing a birth certificate, and got a
> >state ID without one. You don't even need a birth certificate to get a
> >social security card.
>
> How did you go about proving who you were?
In my state, all that is required to register to vote (or atleast at
the time I did so, don't know if the laws have changed since) is a
driver's license or other proof of state residence. At voting time, I
just tell them my name, they find me registration in a book (which
contains my signiture), I sign a slip of paper and I can vote. no BC
involved.
Dwight Williams
Right. We've had Gorilla Grodd locked up in Iron Heights for assorted
crimes. The INS once approached Kilowog, J'Onn J'Onzz et al. to have
them fill out legal paperwork re: their status as ETs residing within
the United States. There's the whole political mess with the Thanagarian
Hawks and the US State Department vis-a-vis diplomatic relations with
Thanagar's government at that time.
No evidence? I disagree.
--
Dwight Williams, Storyteller
Artist - _Evening Shift_ Comics for Arctic Star Studios
Clell Harmon
That time of the month Bryan? Have you ANY examples of a
legally recognized 'person' or 'individual' wasn't a human being?
Ok, I will present an individual for your examination. You
tell me. Born a contemporary of the current Superman incarnation in
1971, she has a tested IQ of between 70-95 (with of course 100 being
considered 'normal' (what ever that is)). She is incapable of speech,
but has learned American Sign language with a total vocabulary of over
1000 signs and understands over 2000 spoken words. She creates new
signs for complex concepts and teaches them to others. She loves and
is loved. She has had pets.
Is she a person? What 'human rights' does she have? (I mean
of course legally, not what she ought to have)
Feel free to answer Bryan. It shouldn't be hard to determine
who I am referring to. Tell me her legal status.
Clell Harmon
c64...@hotmail.com (Selaboc) wrote:
Is your BC required for your Drivers License? Seriously, I'm
not trying to yank your chain, this is totally alien to my experience.
Yours sounds like a state that would be very easy to create a false ID
in.
Clell Harmon
"Peter Henrikson" <peterhe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Clell Harmon" <clellh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:osn5305795qdooj1a...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:30:09 GMT, fleeing his large male nurses,
>> "Peter Henrikson" <peterhe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>
>> >I don't think applying real-world laws to the DC universe is really
>> >relevant. In the real-world, there are no aliens (non-Earth beings) known
>to
>> >exist. Therefore there are no laws prescribing their legal status. In the
>DC
>> >universe, there are aliens and have been for quite some time. I would
>expect
>> >that laws would have been passed that take this fact into account
>>
>> Only about 10 years or so (ignore everything you read before
>> that). There is no evidence that the Laws of DC prime have been
>> alterered in anyway to apply to the several dozen aliens on earth.
>> Have any of those aliens given birth yet?
>
>OK I'll grant the fact that DC tries to keep all of it's history crunched up
>into a 10 year timeline. But although no evidence has been given showing
>these laws exist, none has been given that they don't either. It's never
>been pertinent to a story as far as I know. And as soon as it is, all they
>have to do is say they do exist and "POOF", they do.
Oh I agree whole heartedly. My point is, the Writers/Editors
get to decide, not us plebes.
>
Clell Harmon
Very good points, I had forgotten them. Are you aware of any
alien citizens?
Tue Sorensen
The exact terminologies involved here could be debated forever. Nobody
fully agrees. I would say that a society with no authority at all is
anarchy, while anarchism is an ideology that actively tries to make
things (i.e. social organization) work, only without large-scale
leaders. Quoth one of the world's foremost anarchists, Noam Chomsky,
"Some authorities are justified." So some anarchists (the sane ones)
want leaderless order based on mutual agreements and cooperation, and
some anarchists (the insane ones) want chaos.
I'd say most superheroes are people who aren't content to let
society's established authorities be the be-all and end-all of justice
and goodness. Superheroes are people who find that an element of
heroism is lacking in the world. Hopefully, superhero readers are
people who agree. What superheroes do is fight for a better world.
This fight is non-specific, even pragmatic, rarely based on a
particular ideological vision. Strictly speaking, it isn't anarchism,
but anarchism is one of the things it might be. I'd be content to call
it radical and progressive. When superhero comics are done *well*,
that is.
One of the most obvious anarchist characters is DC's Anarky (mostly
described as a villain, but a complex one), written by Alan Grant. I
was pretty impressed with the character at first (the '97
mini-series), but on looking deeper into it I found that it wasn't
being true to anarchist politics (don't ask me exactly how, though; I
no longer remember), which kind of made it pointless (and besides, I
haven't been an anarchist since '98).
- Tue
Nathan Sanders
Clell Harmon <clellh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> considered 'normal' (what ever that is)). She is incapable of speech,
> but has learned American Sign language with a total vocabulary of over
> 1000 signs and understands over 2000 spoken words.
Point of order.
Koko hasn't "learned" ASL. She knows some signs, but she has no
conception of syntax (essentially tossing out signs in random order),
she meaninglessly repeats signs (apparently forgetting that she already
used them), she uses some signs that don't belong in her intended
meaning, she can't communicate complex relationships (even among
concrete objects), and she can't communicate important grammatical
features of language like tense, mood, aspect, dependence, etc.
Koko's "language" is limited to sentences like (1)-(4) (which all mean
the same thing to her, and are *not* acceptable sentences of ASL), and
she simply cannot express sentences like (5)-(8) (which can easily be
expressed in ASL; note especially the very subtle but very real
difference between (7) and (8), which Koko does not and will never
comprehend):
(1) banana give Koko
(2) Koko give banana give
(3) banana Koko banana give give Koko
(4) banana banana hair banana Koko wall love mirror banana
(5) give Koko banana John has, not banana Sue has
(6) give Koko banana (that) John gave Sue
(7) if give Koko banana, Koko love you
(8) if you love Koko, give Koko banana
Despite popular misconception, human languages are not simply
collections of words. Linguistic competence of the kind seen in human
beings has simply not been found in any other terrestrial animal, even
our closest relatives. And certainly not in Koko, who represents the
maximum capability modern non-human primates have for using human
language.
End point of order.
Nathan
--
To contact me, replace verizon.net with aol.com
Peter Henrikson
"Clell Harmon" <clellh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:h35730968cjiiddtt...@4ax.com...
Oh! OK. Then we agree completely. As Emily Latella (on SNL) used to say...
Nevermind.
Peter Henrikson
"Dwight Williams" <ad...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:40338E33...@ncf.ca...
But technically, is Gorilla Grodd an alien? I have to admit that due to my
poor memory these days, I don't recall a lot of these facts. One nice thing
about being an old fart with Alzheimer's, all the old stories are new when
you read them again. And you can hide your own Easter eggs. :^)
lord zog
Mmmmmmmmmm. Fascist flavoured icecream.
--
Jon
-----
Cats are the embodiment of angels here on Earth.
Jay and Diane Rudin
>> The law has made it clear that, regardless of what technology was used in
>> the process, a living, breathing child is legally considered to have been
> The law addresses living, breathing, HUMAN children. Not
> Living, Breathing, Kryptonians, breathing our air, absorbing our solar
> energy, poluting this paradise called Earth with his alien waste...
This is not true. The legal term is not "human being", it is "person".
This term is specifically not restricted to humans, as in some contexts (not
all) a corporation is a Person under the law. It addresses citizens, and
Persons. Neither term is defined. The question of whether Kryptoinians are
"Persons" might be open for debate, but here's a useful precedent:
Constitution, Amendment XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
"Aliens are "persons" within meaning of Fourteenth Amendment and are thus
protected by equal protection clause against discriminatory state action."
Folie v. Connelie, D.C.N.Y.
In a world that has dealt with Martians, Thanagarians, various races of
Green Lanterns, mermaids, talking gorillas, and others, there is undoubtedly
a law or precedent extending this definition of aliens to cover all advanced
sentient humanoids. Superman has been described as a metahuman in legal
contexts more than once, which implies that he's a human of a special
type -- in his case, he's a person of another race.
Constitution, Amendment XV. Section 1. The right of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by
any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Neither his race nor being locked in a gestation chamber can be lawfully
used to deny him the right to vote.
The term "human being" is not deemed an important enough term for legal
purposes to justify having an entry in Black's Law Dictionary.
Only persons can marry, too, and we know he's done that.
Finally, if he is deemed to be a person but not a citizen, then he must
leave the country. He's never applied for a green card.
It therefore follows that, based on precedent and observed fact, he is a
citizen of the U.S.
> >born. And at present, a non-viable fetus is legally considered to not
yet
> >be a human being. It follows that:
>
> And a viable Kryptonian cannot be considered a human being.
"Cannot"? That's a strong word, as many people in the DC Universe clearly
*do* consider him a human.
Please cite a source, or admit that you made this up without one. The DEO
clearly treats Superman, J'onn and Hawkman in the same class as Earth-born
metahumans.
> >Assume that American doctors invented such a gestation chamber, and
American
> >women started to use it. When would the baby be born, for legal
purposes?
>
> Don't know. Depends on the Congresscritters of the time.
Not usually. Our law is based on precedent. The Constitution and other
laws apply, unless specifically overruled. It's born when it comes out of
the womb, starts breathing. and is no longer supported by its umbilical
cord. There is no law stating the womb must be made of flesh, any more than
arms or legs must be made of flesh.
> >> He has a fraudlent birth certificate.
> >
> >You keep saying this, as if it has some relevance. It doesn't. None.
>
> It has, lots. It is the paperwork that establishes your
> citizenship. Try getting into the voting booth without the ability to
> establish your ID.
No, it's the most convenient of many possible pieces of paper that could
establish your *birth*. Your birth establishes your citizenship. And that
establishment is *not* invalidated if the parents names are incorrect on the
birth certificate.
> >It is *not true* that a fraudulent birth certificate means he isn't a
> >citizen. Even if his citizenship is an accident, the fact that the
> >government has treated him as a citizen, and proclaimed him as a citizen,
> >makes him a citizen.
>
> SO, by that logic a Canadian, without any id of any sort can
> show up and 'pass' for a US citizen and vote... right?
No, and I never said anything like this. A child born in America to
Canadian parents is a citizen of the U.S., whether there was a birth
certificate issued or not. He might have trouble proving his citizenship,
but the paper didn't make him a citizen; the birth did.
> >A. This is untrue. Births still occur at home occasionally, and won't
be
> >registered with the county unless someone makes the effort. Most states
> >still have the structure to issue a "delayed registry of birth" for just
> >such occurrences, and occasionally adults have to do so.
>
> I just checked. Kansas has a 2 week reporting period. Then
> Ma & Pa get fined.
Yup. If the authorities discover that a birth wasn't reported. But the
baby is a person even so.
> >B. Even if your simplistic statement were true, it's still not legally
> >relevant. Long established precedent shows that a birth certificate is
not
> >a requirement of birth, or of citizenship. Robert A. Heinlein
discovered,
> >long after he had grown up, gone to college, served in the armed forces,
> >worked at several jobs, run for public office and even, yes, voted, that
he
> >had never had a birth certificate.
>
> Are you seriously comparing a the societal documentation
> requirements of a man born in 1907 with one (presumably) born circa
> 1970?
No. I comparing the legal requirements of citizenship in 1907 when it was
defined by the Fourteenth Amendment with the legal requirements of
citizenship in 1970, when it was defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. I
know that bureaucratic rules about documentation change. But the
requirements for citizenship haven't, and they do NOT require a birth
certificate. The birth certificate is a useful and convenient tool, but the
Fourteenth Amendment makes it clear that facts, not paperwork, are the
determining factor. It was passed specifically to define citizenship for
persons of another race born in America with no papers -- decanted, as you
put it, out of the womb of a mother who was also not considered a citizen at
that time.
> >If he was born at all, the only place it could have happened was in
Kansas.
> >He might be declared to be a decanted non-living specimen, but if he is
> >considered by the law to be alive, then his birthplace was Kansas.
>
> But not a Human birth.
Yup. Just like the people who used to be considered property, not humans.
> >That is of course the point I was making. A felon has the legal right to
> >vote until it is revoked. So does Clark.
>
> Until he is convicted he isn't a felon.
Untrue. When he commits a felony, he is a felon, even if nobody ever finds
out.
"Felon: Person who commits or has commited a felony" (Black's Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition)
Do you ever get tired of making things up and having them shown to be
untrue?
Jay Rudin
Jay and Diane Rudin
> All of this argument could be considered moot if Superman ( and by the
fact
> that he is the same person, Clark) was granted a rubber stamp citizen
status
> by edict of the president and/or the courts. If Clark's voting ever came
up
> in a story, they could say it was done off-panel and that not everything
> that happens to Clark in recounted in a story.
It's already moot -- that's why we're discussing it.
Clark can legally vote, because he and the government both believe he's a
citizen -- which means he is. He can morally vote because he believes in
good faith that he was born here, and no court has revoked his citizenship.
Jay Rudin
Michael Pastor
>
> In a world that has dealt with Martians, Thanagarians, various races
> of Green Lanterns, mermaids, talking gorillas, and others, there is
> undoubtedly a law or precedent extending this definition of aliens to
> cover all advanced sentient humanoids. Superman has been described
> as a metahuman in legal contexts more than once, which implies that
> he's a human of a special
> type -- in his case, he's a person of another race.
>
> Constitution, Amendment XV. Section 1. The right of citizens of the
> United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
> States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous
> condition of servitude.
>
> Neither his race nor being locked in a gestation chamber can be
> lawfully used to deny him the right to vote.
I've loved your take on this whole debate thus far, but I must take issue
with your use of race in this matter. What race means to us humans and the
constitution is entirely different than what they mean in regards to
Kryptonians.
Race as it is stated in the constitution specifically refers to the
artificial classifications of Negro, White, Mongoloid, etc. It does not
address the concept of an alien, non-terrestrial race
Now the DC Universe Supreme Court may have ruled that it does *indeed*
address that concept, but we haven't seen any rulings published, I'm sure.
The reprecussions of the Supreme Court making a ruling like that leaves the
definition of what they mean by race in the constitution changed - and makes
me wonder how the DC Universe Americans thinks of 'green skins' and 'blue
skins' and, ultimately, 'black skins.'
I think showing how the Supreme Court addressing the issue would make a
great story though, especially if Superman or J'Onn were the people in
question.
J'Onzz vs. the Board of Elections anyone?
michael j pastor
Bryan J. Maloney
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:52:02 GMT, fleeing his large male nurses,
> "Bryan J. Maloney" <cavag...@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote:
>
>>Clell Harmon <clellh...@earthlink.net> nattered on
>>thusnews:91o5309ldrgtuo23t...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> I'm still not convinced that a non human has human rights.
>>> Peta aside.
>>
>>After your ignorant rants, I'm still not convinced you do your own
>>reading and writing. Point out SPECIFICALLY in pertinent law where
>>"person" or "individual" or other such terms are legally restricted to
>>"human". Go ahead. I challenge you. Put up or shut up. Show the
>>evidence or be revealed as monumentally ignorant.
>
> That time of the month Bryan? Have you ANY examples of a
> legally recognized 'person' or 'individual' wasn't a human being?
Ipalco.
Symantec.
Roche.
Eli Lilly.
Calbiochem.
Sysco.
Wabash National.
And lots of other corporations. They are legal "persons" for many
purposes, yet they are not human beings. Mind you, I think it's a stinky
misinterpretation of law, but it is the law. That's how corporations can
sue for "freedom of speech" violations. That's how it's legal for
corporations to give political donations.
> Ok, I will present an individual for your examination. You
> tell me. Born a contemporary of the current Superman incarnation in
> 1971, she has a tested IQ of between 70-95 (with of course 100 being
> considered 'normal' (what ever that is)). She is incapable of speech,
> but has learned American Sign language with a total vocabulary of over
> 1000 signs and understands over 2000 spoken words. She creates new
> signs for complex concepts and teaches them to others. She loves and
> is loved. She has had pets.
Koko.
Response:
"The history of the gradual extension of the concept of legal personality
to include all human beings, as well as a variety of nonhuman entities
like corporations, reminds us that the concept of legal personality is a
legal fiction, in the sense that it is an artificial construct of the law.
The law can 'choose which persons to create or recognise' just as it can
choose 'which rights or other relations to create or at least recognise'."
From SCU Law Review Volume 2 November 1998
Bryan J. Maloney
thusnews:c1146p$1dlfcs$1...@ID-174457.news.uni-berlin.de:
> I've loved your take on this whole debate thus far, but I must take
> issue with your use of race in this matter. What race means to us
> humans and the constitution is entirely different than what they mean
> in regards to Kryptonians.
>
> Race as it is stated in the constitution specifically refers to the
> artificial classifications of Negro, White, Mongoloid, etc. It does
> not address the concept of an alien, non-terrestrial race
No, it refers to a nebulous, ever-changing legal/social fiction.
> The reprecussions of the Supreme Court making a ruling like that
> leaves the definition of what they mean by race in the constitution
> changed - and makes me wonder how the DC Universe Americans thinks of
> 'green skins' and 'blue skins' and, ultimately, 'black skins.'
Depends on if DC is planning yet another GL/GA teamup series.
> J'Onzz vs. the Board of Elections anyone?
Actually, "he" would be the easiest to dismiss, since that character also
maintains identities in several other countries, too.
Mathew Krull
That is just one of the many forms you could have used. A baptismal
certificate would work just fine, provided you were baptized within 3
monthe of your birth.
> To get my California drivers licence in
>1968, I had to present a certified copy of my BC.
>
Or one of 20 other items.
> To register to vote
>the first time in California I had to present a registered copy of my
>BC.
>
Why? The form only asks for your driver's license number.
> When I joined the Navy in 1970, I had to present a registered
>copy of my BC. When I married in Toward Scotland in 1978 I had to
>submit a registered copy of my BC. When my wife applied for her
>resident VISA in 1978 I had to submit a registered copy of my BC.
>When I retired from the Navy in 1996 and settled in Missouri, when
>applying for a Missouri drivers license I had to submit a registerd
>copy of my BC AND my DD214 to account for wanting to renew a drivers
>license that had expired in 1974.
>
You could have used your Military ID and your marraige certificate.
> Registering to vote in Missouri
>required id that had been validated by my BC,
>
That's funny, no where on the Missouri Voter Registration form does it
ask for a BC. You could have used a photocopy of a bank statement if
you had wanted to.
> and my ID is checked at
>the polls every election cycle.
>
>
>
Missouri is one of the states that can ask for ID, but it's decided at
the precinct level. And even there, you can vote without an ID if you
are personally known by two election judges, one from each major
political party.
>>>
>>>
>>I ws born in 1971, and was able to register to vote and recieve a valid
>>state issued ID without presenting a birth certificate.
>>
>>
>
> And how did you establish who you are?
>
>
>
Social Security card and a Baptismal record.
--
My name is not misspelled.
Clell Harmon
I agree with all of the above (except maybe that she hasn't
'learned' ASL, she certainly knows more than I do.) The fact remains
that she can make her self understood in a human language. What human
rights does she have under the law, fulfilling Bryans request for
examples that laws don't apply to non humans.
There is a school of thought to move the great apes to genus
Homo... If we aren't being nice to our closest relatives, what makes
anyone think that we would treat an alien visiter any better?
>
>Nathan
Clell Harmon
"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavag...@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote:
>>>> I'm still not convinced that a non human has human rights.
>>>> Peta aside.
>>>
>>>After your ignorant rants, I'm still not convinced you do your own
>>>reading and writing. Point out SPECIFICALLY in pertinent law where
>>>"person" or "individual" or other such terms are legally restricted to
>>>"human". Go ahead. I challenge you. Put up or shut up. Show the
>>>evidence or be revealed as monumentally ignorant.
>>
>> That time of the month Bryan? Have you ANY examples of a
>> legally recognized 'person' or 'individual' wasn't a human being?
>
>Ipalco.
>Symantec.
>Roche.
>Eli Lilly.
>Calbiochem.
>Sysco.
>Wabash National.
>
>And lots of other corporations. They are legal "persons" for many
>purposes, yet they are not human beings. Mind you, I think it's a stinky
They are, however made up of human beings...
>misinterpretation of law, but it is the law. That's how corporations can
>sue for "freedom of speech" violations. That's how it's legal for
>corporations to give political donations.
>
>
>> Ok, I will present an individual for your examination. You
>> tell me. Born a contemporary of the current Superman incarnation in
>> 1971, she has a tested IQ of between 70-95 (with of course 100 being
>> considered 'normal' (what ever that is)). She is incapable of speech,
>> but has learned American Sign language with a total vocabulary of over
>> 1000 signs and understands over 2000 spoken words. She creates new
>> signs for complex concepts and teaches them to others. She loves and
>> is loved. She has had pets.
>
>Koko.
>
>Response:
>
>
>"The history of the gradual extension of the concept of legal personality
>to include all human beings, as well as a variety of nonhuman entities
>like corporations, reminds us that the concept of legal personality is a
>legal fiction, in the sense that it is an artificial construct of the law.
>The law can 'choose which persons to create or recognise' just as it can
>choose 'which rights or other relations to create or at least recognise'."
>
>From SCU Law Review Volume 2 November 1998
So basically, human people and organizations of human people
are recognized by law to be individuals and persons. Yet our closest
relatives are not, even those who can make themselves understood in a
human language. So the rational that a 'strange visiter from another
planet' would be is?
>
Kevin Robinson
>
> Clark can legally vote, because he and the government both believe he's a
> citizen -- which means he is. He can morally vote because he believes in
> good faith that he was born here, and no court has revoked his citizenship.
>
> Jay Rudin
If I were President of the USA in the DCU, and I heard that a case
was headed toward the Supreme Court that could possibly result in
a court ordering me, my AG and my USCIS Director to revoke Clark
Kent's/Kal-El's citizenship, I would do the following:
1.) Order my AG to declare Krypton to be a state
whose residents are eligible for Temporary Protected Status.
See: http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/tps_inter.htm#countries
"(1) In general.-The Attorney General, after consultation with
appropriate agencies of the Government, may designate any foreign
state (or any part of such foreign state) under this subsection only
if-...
B) the Attorney General finds that-
(i) there has been an earthquake, flood, drought, epidemic, or other
environmental disaster in the state resulting in a substantial, but
temporary, disruption of living conditions in the area affected,
[I'd say the planet having been turned into a pile of deadly
radioactive rocks qualifies as a natural disaster. Even Green K
must have a half-life, so it is temporary..]
(ii) the foreign state is unable, temporarily, to handle adequately
the return to the state of aliens who are nationals of the state, and
[since everyone there is DEAD, not counting Hypertime equivalents,
the non-existent Kryptonians aren't in any shape to handle
any returning refugees.]
2.) Inform the Justice League and Superman that Big Blue can
apply for an O-1 Visa, for "Aliens of extraordinary ability
or achievement." Get the Speaker of the House and the Majority
Leader of the Senate to ram through whatever amendments to the
Immigration And Nationality Act needed to specifically cover those
"with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men,"
who use said abilities to assist law enforcement, emergency
services, search & rescue, and our armed forces.
3.) Suggest to Superman that he apply for citizenship based on
his service in military conflict, as in "Our Worlds At War."
I will issue the relevant Executive Order, to add the War
Against Imperiex as an eligible conflict.
http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-21/slb-8854?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#slb-act329
Per: INA: ACT 329 - NATURALIZATION THROUGH ACTIVE-DUTY SERVICE IN
THE ARMED FORCES DURING WORLD WAR I, WORLD WAR II, THE KOREAN
HOSTILITIES, THE VIETNAM HOSTILITIES, OR IN OTHER PERIODS OF MILITARY
HOSTILITIES
4.) If need be, get the Speaker and the Leader to ram through a
private bill, naturalizing Supes.
Of course, if President Luthor is still in office, and he would
like to get Superman deported, he'd order his Solicitor General
to start the machinery going to get him revoked. Then he could
dangle a waiver under Supes' nose, in an attempt to get the
Kryptonian in his pocket.
Kevin
Kevin Robinson
> Clell Harmon <clellh...@earthlink.net> nattered on
> thusnews:o84730hmb7kc3jkm7...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:52:02 GMT, fleeing his large male nurses,
> > "Bryan J. Maloney" <cavag...@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote:
> >
>
> And lots of other corporations. They are legal "persons" for many
> purposes, yet they are not human beings. Mind you, I think it's a stinky
> misinterpretation of law, but it is the law. That's how corporations can
> sue for "freedom of speech" violations.
Mind you, the Justices have "found" an exception in the part of the
Constitution that is written in invisible ink that allows the
government to place restrictions on "commercial speech."
> That's how it's legal for corporations to give political donations.
Oh, and corporations have been forbidden from donating to political
candidates' campaigns, and similar political party funds.
These restrictions started in 1907, and have been revised over the
years.
Most of what is reported in the press as "corporate donations" are,
in fact, from individuals who have high-paying jobs with those firms,
or are the major investors. That's the famous "hard money." Its
cousin, "soft money" can come from a business, but can't fund advocacy
of the election or defeat of a candidate, and has been further
circumscribed by McCain-Feingold.
> > Ok, I will present an individual for your examination....
> > She loves and is loved. She has had pets.
>
> Koko.
>
> Response:
>
> "The history of the gradual extension of the concept of legal personality
> to include all human beings, as well as a variety of nonhuman entities
> like corporations, reminds us that the concept of legal personality is a
> legal fiction, in the sense that it is an artificial construct of the law.
> The law can 'choose which persons to create or recognise' just as it can
> choose 'which rights or other relations to create or at least recognise'."
>
> From SCU Law Review Volume 2 November 1998
Corporations are, after all, associations of persons who have invested
their money, and those persons have rights. Legal personality and
limited liability give them incentive to invest, and without it our
large firms would more likely be family firms. Still, a firm need
not have every right one of its owners has. It can't be a citizen.
Don't forget that many non-profits are, like Dartmouth College,
subject of the case that yielded this rule, "corporate persons."
Foundations, Universities and Hospitals, especially private ones,
would have a heck of a time operating without this logical patch.
Kevin
Selaboc
Nope (atleast at the time I got one).
> Yours sounds like a state that would be very easy to create a false ID
> in.
As a matter of fact, it is (though the legislature is looking to change that).
Selaboc
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:04:50 GMT, fleeing his large male nurses,
> "Bryan J. Maloney" <cavag...@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote:
>
>
> >>>> I'm still not convinced that a non human has human rights.
> >>>> Peta aside.
> >>>
> >>>After your ignorant rants, I'm still not convinced you do your own
> >>>reading and writing. Point out SPECIFICALLY in pertinent law where
> >>>"person" or "individual" or other such terms are legally restricted to
> >>>"human". Go ahead. I challenge you. Put up or shut up. Show the
> >>>evidence or be revealed as monumentally ignorant.
> >>
> >> That time of the month Bryan? Have you ANY examples of a
> >> legally recognized 'person' or 'individual' wasn't a human being?
> >
> >Ipalco.
> >Symantec.
> >Roche.
> >Eli Lilly.
> >Calbiochem.
> >Sysco.
> >Wabash National.
> >
> >And lots of other corporations. They are legal "persons" for many
> >purposes, yet they are not human beings. Mind you, I think it's a stinky
>
> They are, however made up of human beings...
Only because in the real world we don't have space aliens.
If J'onn J'onzz and/or Superman bought controlling interest in Wayne
Enterprises, would that corporation lose it's legal personhood? I
don't see anything in the law books that suggests that it would. So
please point out where in the laws it says it would.
Jay and Diane Rudin
That in every legal, political, moral and practical sense, this Kryptonian
human is no different from an Earth humans. (Note that nobody's suggesting
giving Krypto the vote.)
He is capable of higher thought. He makes moral choices. He is capable of
earning a living, and living on his own in society. He has functioned as a
human being so well that close friends believe he is. He is expected to
answer legal summonses. He has no "keeper". He is required to obey the
law. He can testify in court. We have every reason to believe he can
interbreed with Earth humans. None of this is true of Koko.
Therefore Kal-El is a person, in every relevant legal sense.
Why is this hard?
Jay Rudin
Jay and Diane Rudin
JR> In a world that has dealt with Martians, Thanagarians, various races
JR> of Green Lanterns, mermaids, talking gorillas, and others, there is
JR> undoubtedly a law or precedent extending this definition of aliens to
JR> cover all advanced sentient humanoids. Superman has been described
JR> as a metahuman in legal contexts more than once, which implies that
JR> he's a human of a special
JR> type -- in his case, he's a person of another race.
JR>
JR> Constitution, Amendment XV. Section 1. The right of citizens of the
JR> United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
JR> States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous
JR> condition of servitude.
JR>
JR> Neither his race nor being locked in a gestation chamber can be
JR> lawfully used to deny him the right to vote.
> I've loved your take on this whole debate thus far, but I must take issue
> with your use of race in this matter. What race means to us humans and
the
> constitution is entirely different than what they mean in regards to
> Kryptonians.
Agreed. As I stated, "In a world that has dealt with Martians,
Thanagarians, various races of Green Lanterns, mermaids, talking gorillas,
and others, there is undoubtedly a law or precedent extending this
definition of aliens to cover all advanced sentient humanoids." Rather than
belabor the point, I assumed it was clear that the extention of race would
also happen.
> Race as it is stated in the constitution specifically refers to the
> artificial classifications of Negro, White, Mongoloid, etc. It does not
> address the concept of an alien, non-terrestrial race
>
> Now the DC Universe Supreme Court may have ruled that it does *indeed*
> address that concept, but we haven't seen any rulings published, I'm sure.
No, but we've seen legal actions. Superman can be summoned into court, is
expected to obey the law, can be listed in a warrant for arrest, etc. He is
clearly treated as a person, although it's known that he's Kryptonian.
Law is determined in legislative chambers and modified and interpreted in
courtrooms, but it's seen in everyday life.
> The reprecussions of the Supreme Court making a ruling like that leaves
the
> definition of what they mean by race in the constitution changed - and
makes
> me wonder how the DC Universe Americans thinks of 'green skins' and 'blue
> skins' and, ultimately, 'black skins.'
Green Lantern #76, as I recall. But such a ruling doesn't significantly
change the definition of race; it extends it meaningfully and consistently
into a realm unknown when it was written. This is no different from
extending "freedom of the press" to cover television, which doesn't use
presses.
> I think showing how the Supreme Court addressing the issue would make a
> great story though, especially if Superman or J'Onn were the people in
> question.
>
> J'Onzz vs. the Board of Elections anyone?
It might be an interesting story at that. But Superman would be a fool to
pursue it, since he can already vote -- as Clark Kent. Either he'd be
voting twice (which is untruthful, unjust, and not the American way), or
either he or Clark would have to consistently not vote.
Jay Rudin
Clell Harmon
c64...@hotmail.com (Selaboc) wrote:
I have no idea what the laws would do... and neither do you.
If the Congresscritters got scared and decided that the Aliens were
taking over it might PDQ. And depending on the fear factor of the
Supreme Court, they might even up hold it.
Michael Pastor
I hear the Fear Factor episode with Scalia was hysterical. They put him in
a room full of gay men and the ACLU and told him to choose.
michael j pastor
Peter Bruells
> I have no idea what the laws would do... and neither do you. If the
> Congresscritters got scared and decided that the Aliens were taking
> over it might PDQ. And depending on the fear factor of the Supreme
> Court, they might even up hold it.
Well, the DC Universe has quite obvious diplomatic relations with a
variety of non-humans. Atlanteans, for example. Thanagarians. AFAIK,
the Green Lantern Corps is being recognized as a police force, etc.
Trying to declate an obvious intelligent alien as "non-person", will
cause two things:
1. An outcry by the ACLU
2. An exodus of powerful aliens to countries which grant them status
as persons. Superman might want to stay and fight with the ACLU,
but J'onn J'onnz and a host of other don't have the same attachment
to the USA.
Clell Harmon
Now you can't know that. You have no way of knowing how the
government might react to an honest to god alien creature, especially
one with 'powers far beyond that of mortal men' who refuse to be at
the governments beck and call... (assuming you don't believe like some
do that Truman collected a few back in Roswell). One has to ask if
instead of humanoid the former civilisation on Krypton had consisted
of 3 Meter long Snake like creatures with a penchant for mechnical
arms would the automatic assumption of 'personhood' be given so
freely?
>
>He is capable of higher thought. He makes moral choices. He is capable of
>earning a living, and living on his own in society. He has functioned as a
>human being so well that close friends believe he is. He is expected to
Like I said, a large snake with mechanical arms?
>answer legal summonses. He has no "keeper". He is required to obey the
Required? By whom? He choses to, due to the morality of his
upbringing.
>law. He can testify in court. We have every reason to believe he can
Can he? (testify?) I don't recall any instances of it, but
that doesn't mean it didn't happen. How does he identify himself?
What does he list as an occupation?
>interbreed with Earth humans. None of this is true of Koko.
I'm still not convinced about the breeding part. At least at
one point it was stated that Kryptonians had twice the chromosomes of
humans... this would NOT make for a natural child.
Someone said that there were superman decendants in the
1000000 books, but is that series in the current continuity? I mean
if so, all the drama is gone from the Superman line of books, because
he cannot die, cannot get hurt, and cannot loose his hero status for
several hundred thousand issues.
>Therefore Kal-El is a person, in every relevant legal sense.
You are probably right, but it still doesn't make any sense.
Clell Harmon
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevin Robinson) wrote:
>"Jay and Diane Rudin" <ru...@ev1.net> wrote in message news:<1037l61...@corp.supernews.com>...
>>
>> Clark can legally vote, because he and the government both believe he's a
>> citizen -- which means he is. He can morally vote because he believes in
>> good faith that he was born here, and no court has revoked his citizenship.
>>
>> Jay Rudin
>
>If I were President of the USA in the DCU, and I heard that a case
>was headed toward the Supreme Court that could possibly result in
>a court ordering me, my AG and my USCIS Director to revoke Clark
>Kent's/Kal-El's citizenship, I would do the following:
>
> 1.) Order my AG to declare Krypton to be a state
> whose residents are eligible for Temporary Protected Status.
>See: http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/tps_inter.htm#countries
Can something that no longer physically exists (as opposed to
a country absorbed by another) be declared anything? Or can it have
residents?
Kevin Robinson
> "Michael Pastor" <michael...@hotmail.com> nattered on
> thusnews:c1146p$1dlfcs$1...@ID-174457.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> > I've loved your take on this whole debate thus far, but I must take
> > issue with your use of race in this matter. What race means to us
> > humans and the constitution is entirely different than what they mean
> > in regards to Kryptonians.
> >
> > Race as it is stated in the constitution specifically refers to the
> > artificial classifications of Negro, White, Mongoloid, etc. It does
> > not address the concept of an alien, non-terrestrial race
>
> No, it refers to a nebulous, ever-changing legal/social fiction.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment15/
"Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
^^^^
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation."
This is the only place in the document where the word "race" appears.
Note that there is no glossary appended to the Constitution. What the
word "means" is spelled out in case law. Under section 2, the
Congress of earth-DCU could write enabling legislation to protect the
right of citizens of extra-terrestrial descent, assuming there were any,
to vote.
> > The reprecussions of the Supreme Court making a ruling like that
> > leaves the definition of what they mean by race in the constitution
> > changed - and makes me wonder how the DC Universe Americans thinks of
> > 'green skins' and 'blue skins' and, ultimately, 'black skins.'
>
> Depends on if DC is planning yet another GL/GA teamup series.
> > J'Onzz vs. the Board of Elections anyone?
>
> Actually, "he" would be the easiest to dismiss, since that character also
> maintains identities in several other countries, too.
An interesting conundrum, there. I believe applicants for residency
must disclose any aliases they may be known under, or it would be
difficult to do a proper background check on them. Consider people
who entered the U.S. after WWII under false names, who are later
found to have been Nazi party members or concentration camp guards
who are accused of atrocities. If J'onn has citizenship in any of
those other countries under those other IDs, he may have to foreswear
such.
Kevin