NH Removes Presidential Candidate! (hypocrisy alert)

vanity ^ | Nov 23, 2011 | jd

[DiogenesLamp]

This is the sort of thing I do.

I know of few lawyers smart enough or knowledgeable enough to comprehend the immutable laws of God and Nature. Doubtlessly some exist because I have heard of such, but these are likely the ones that learned engineering first, and got a law degree as an afterthought.

The difference between the laws of man and the laws of God, is that the laws of God are consistent and make sense, while the laws of man are sophistry, whim and ritual. In Science and Engineering, sophistry, whim and ritual are nothing more than bad logic. We don't need a "court" to tell us when we have interpreted the laws of nature wrongly. Whatever we are attempting to accomplish simply will not work.

[GregNH]

Well said. That is why it starts out with “We The People” and why we have the original 13th amendment!

[DiogenesLamp]

The logic is pretty simple. If you want to argue that someone is not a natural-born citizen, a declaration that certain people are natural-born citizens is not what you need. That all A is B does not imply that all B is A. You simply get a big red X through your homework.

We have a ruling that a "born citizen" is not a "natural born citizen." Rogers v Bellei.
Therefore, if A > B then B != A.

[DiogenesLamp]

“Also, why no comment on this? (Ex Parte Reynolds. Circuit court for Arkansas: 5 Dillon 394-404. 1879)

Obviously overruled by U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, if not before.

You obviously didn't comprehend the ruling. The court ruled that Puryear WAS a U.S. Citizen. How would Wong Kim Ark overrule this? By declaring him NOT a Citizen? Perhaps this lawyering stuff is too complicated for you?

[DiogenesLamp]

Well said. That is why it starts out with “We The People” and why we have the original 13th amendment!

I recall someone making a very good argument that the preamble to the constitution clarifies Article II, starting with the use of the words "We the People" and going on to "Secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our POSTERITY!" (Descendants.)

These were the "natural born citizens" referred to in Article II. I believe Natural, Natal, Nativity, Native all share the same roots, which mean "born of."

[BladeBryan]

“We have a ruling that a “born citizen” is not a “natural born citizen.” Rogers v Bellei.”

To see how Rogers v Bellei played when a real court examined the Article II requirement, see Robinson v. Bowen. Quite different from when you try it in your imagination, isn’t it?
http://volokh.com/files/robinson.1.pdf

[DiogenesLamp]

To see how Rogers v Bellei played when a real court examined the Article II requirement, see Robinson v. Bowen. Quite different from when you try it in your imagination, isn’t it? http://volokh.com/files/robinson.1.pdf

I Only needed to read to line 1 of the second page to discover the judge is a moron. He said: "Article II left to Congress the role of defining citizenship, including citizenship by reason of birth. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1970)."

This statement is factually incorrect. Article II says nothing about congress defining citizenship. The only thing remotely close to this is in Article 1, Section 8 which states:

"The Congress shall have Power ... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

Congress DOES NOT HAVE the power to redefine constitutional terms. Only an IDIOT would argue that it does. Are you so arguing?

In any case, the Judge (WILLIAM ALSUP)is absolutely wrong on a major point of fact, and therefore I see no point in considering his opinion further. If you start out with a flawed premise as the basis of your argument, your argument is just crap. (Garbage in, Garbage out.) A bit of checking reveals that he was a Clinton Appointee, and that therefore explains why he is an idiot.

This man is, no doubt, representative of your preferred caliber of legal thinkers.

[BladeBryan]

“In any case, the Judge (WILLIAM ALSUP)is absolutely wrong on a major point of fact, and therefore I see no point in considering his opinion further.”

I could hardly ask for a better demo. I point out the vast difference between how your theory did in real court versus in your imagination, and you respond by playing judge-of-the-judge. The judge’s opinion matters in in reality. Your opinion of his opinion matters inside your own head.

[GregNH]

,i>I recall someone making a very good argument that the preamble to the constitution clarifies Article II, starting with the use of the words "We the People" and going on to "Secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our POSTERITY!" (Descendants.)

Yes, and in a recent thread, I read that...too much to remember and bookmark.

[DiogenesLamp]

I could hardly ask for a better demo. I point out the vast difference between how your theory did in real court versus in your imagination, and you respond by playing judge-of-the-judge. The judge’s opinion matters in in reality. Your opinion of his opinion matters inside your own head.

You are the one having trouble with reality. In REALITY, the Judge is WRONG. Rather than admit the judge is wrong, you point out that an Idiot with power can enforce his decisions, a philosophy more commonly known as "might makes right."

This is why Science is superior to Law. In Science, nobody respects a declaration just because it was made by someone in authority. It must stand on it's own feet, or it is invalid. This is known as "TRUTH."

[DiogenesLamp]

I should like to hear your opinion on this article:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/11/michelle-obamas-warning-to-gun-owners/

[BladeBryan]

DiogenesLamp wrote: “This is why Science is superior to Law. In Science, nobody respects a declaration just because it was made by someone in authority. It must stand on it’s own feet, or it is invalid.”

Unless you have some laboratory experiment to reproduce Article II section 1, the issue is law not science. Legal theories meet their test in court, and yours could hardly be doing worse.

[DiogenesLamp]

Unless you have some laboratory experiment to reproduce Article II section 1, the issue is law not science. Legal theories meet their test in court, and yours could hardly be doing worse.

My theory has never seen the inside of a competent court, so you are mistaken about this. As for the "test of the court", given it's record, one might just as well throw darts. I have yet to hear your opinion on that article I asked you to look at it.

You are a STRANGE conservative that does not accept the broad consensus among conservatives that the court system is dysfunctional. I do not know ANY conservatives that believes the court system functions properly.

Why don't you tell me what you think of that article I asked you to review?

[bluecat6]

Rogers v Bellei

That is one heck of ruling!

It is almost as significant as M v H.

Born a citizen, but if the individual does not meet a residency requirement they DO LOSE their US citizenship.

“Born a citizen = natural born Citizen” is blown out of the water with this ruling.

M v. H definition stands.

[DiogenesLamp]

Rogers v Bellei

That is one heck of ruling!

It is almost as significant as M v H.

Born a citizen, but if the individual does not meet a residency requirement they DO LOSE their US citizenship.

“Born a citizen = natural born Citizen” is blown out of the water with this ruling.

I agree, but for some reason the Obama defenders believe it somehow supports their argument. For a look at another interesting case, I advise you to look at: Ex Parte Reynolds. Circuit court for Arkansas: 5 Dillon 394-404. 1879

This case out and out says that a woman is a citizen because her Grandfather was a citizen, which made her father a citizen, which made HER a citizen.(Which made her Husband therefore a Non-Indian.) It also says that a child of a foreigner and a citizen should be handled in exactly the same way.

If I read this correctly, this court would have decided Obama was not even a citizen, let alone a "natural born citizen."

[bluecat6]

I have read in various places that citizenship can descend but never ascends. Meaning a child can never pass citizenship ‘up’ to their parent.

Indonesia is where there is a specific citizenship problem. The original furor from the Obama camp was not ‘the birth certificate’. It was charges of being Muslim while being Indonesia. And the blatant lying about the marriage dates of Lolo and SAD is an interesting data point. As if they know that if they were married before Obama turned 6 that it would be s serious problem.

[DiogenesLamp]

Indonesia is where there is a specific citizenship problem. The original furor from the Obama camp was not ‘the birth certificate’. It was charges of being Muslim while being Indonesia. And the blatant lying about the marriage dates of Lolo and SAD is an interesting data point. As if they know that if they were married before Obama turned 6 that it would be s serious problem.

I don't think so. I have repeatedly read that the United States does not recognize other country's citizenship laws regarding American Citizens, and that it is impossible for a parent to give up a child's American citizenship. Only the child can do so, and only then after having reached the age of maturity.

Indonesia very likely regards Obama as an Indonesian citizen, however, the United States does not, unless he has committed some demonstrable "affirmative act" of renunciation. Getting a foreign passport MIGHT qualify, but I think nowadays too many people are going to give this guy a break regardless of what he does.

Where Indonesia might cause him the biggest problem is if it resulted in a legal Hawaiian adoption, (which I suspect it did.) and the sealing of his original birth certificate. (I think we are seeing a replacement birth certificate which was created for an adopted child.)

[JohnnyP]

“(I think we are seeing a replacement birth certificate which was created for an adopted child.)”

The one they posted couldn’t have been created pre-photo shop.

[DiogenesLamp]

The one they posted couldn’t have been created pre-photo shop.

This is true. They just used more modern tools to do what they have always been doing.

I am an adopted child, I have a birth certificate which was created 6 years after I was born. It was fabricated using pre-photoshop technology, and it contains the same Doctor's signature as did my original.

A lot of people simply do not understand that seeing a birth certificate that is not sworn to be an "original" is not actual proof of birth. It is only proof that a state legally recognizes an individual per the document.

[bluecat6]

Very much agree on the last point. An adoption creates a ‘legal lie’ in that alters the legal truth from the actual truth.

The divorce seemed to be the original anchor action. There is still - to this day - a page missing from that set of documents. Quite possibly a redacted BC due to later adoption.

The affirmative action that may have happened would be to register as a foreign student at Oxy. The supposed 999-99-xxxx social security numbers that are usually used for foreign students is a red flag in that area.

But who knows. The unknowns still outweigh the knowns.