Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marco Rubio aka Water Boy
Vanity | 2/14/2013 | Vendome

Posted on 02/14/2013 5:50:35 PM PST by Vendome

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 last
To: rbmillerjr
Let the record reflect that she called me a 2 year old

LOL! No, I said arguing with someone who supplied no source for their assertion was LIKE arguing with a 2 year old.

Your inability to differentiate between the 2 concepts is not my problem.

-----

Legal precedent is not a “living” Constitution argument.

If you don't know what the legal definition of legal precedent, it is. You were provided that definition in post 75.

1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment.

Your 1884 case was not heard by an appeals court, thus no 'legal precedent' was set. Your attempt to behave as if there WAS one when by legal definition, there was not, illustrates your belief in a living Constitution.

-----

Oh, I see...Pink unicorns giving strawberry milk again eh?

Your lack of response to the Greisser case is quite telling. It was almost identical to the Look Tin one yet had totally desperate determinations.

Guess the slavish devotion to your federal masters has blinded you into giving a more rational, mature and insightful response.

-----

So tell me...what will you do when the federal government defines 'militia' only as law enforcement officers?

101 posted on 02/15/2013 1:47:29 PM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

“If you don’t know what the legal definition of legal precedent, it is. You were provided that definition in post 75.”

Not only do I understand legal precedent, I understand how it is applied, as you apparently don’t.

Did you comment on this?

Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”.

You Birthers are every bit as batty as the RonPaulians. I suspect some serious overlap.


102 posted on 02/15/2013 2:02:50 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government

Please show me the Constitutional definition of the federal government's jurisdiction.

103 posted on 02/15/2013 2:04:41 PM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

That’s called a shifting sands deflection.

You cannot be taken seriously any longer.

When did you last see the pink unicorn and where were you when you saw it.


104 posted on 02/15/2013 2:08:12 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
You cannot be taken seriously any longer.

I'll leave you to play with your unicorns since you seem to have such a fascination for them.

Have a nice day.

105 posted on 02/15/2013 2:42:13 PM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr; MamaTexan

Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition: 2009

First Edition: 1891

Vattel: 1759

Constitution:1787

Minor: 1874

Which is closer in time to the Constitution?

Yeah, I’ll go with Vattel. At least two copies were in the room when the Constitution was drafted.

Black’s was still 104 years away from being written.

Popular use does not supplant historical precedent. The whole phrase “ jurisdiction of a natural government” is a thread by itself.Obviuosly a person person in one country whose parents are citizens of another, is at best a dual citizen, if not directly a citizen of that other country.

And as far as construction of a legal document goes, if the Article II requirement is a specific requirement, and the 14th Amendment does not reference that requirement or its application in any way, which one stands?


106 posted on 02/15/2013 4:43:16 PM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
The citizenship of Arthur's father never factored in to anything. Why? Because the citizenship of one's parents has no bearing on their natural born status if they were born in the United State

Guess not. Chester burned all of his papers because he was a pyro. I get it now. Too bad John Jay and George Washington didn't. Poor James Madison had to rewrite that whole paragraph for nothing.

107 posted on 02/15/2013 4:46:54 PM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: exit82
At least two copies were in the room when the Constitution was drafted.

There were a lot more copies in the room shortly after.


Journal of the Senate of the United States of America / Monday / March 10, 1794 / Volume 2 / page 44
Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone's Commentaries, and Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=002/llsj002.db&recNum=42&itemLink=D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_LF5V::%230020043&linkText=1

108 posted on 02/16/2013 9:39:04 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

Courts must operate according to precedent, but the country does not. The law is what those who wrote the law meant by what they said. This is true of the Constitution and all other laws.

The evidence indicates that, in the minds of the authors of the Constitution, a NBC is one whose parents were both citizens at the time of his birth.


109 posted on 02/24/2013 12:45:00 PM PST by Arthur McGowan (If you're FOR sticking scissors in a female's neck and sucking out her brains, you are PRO-WOMAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Vendome
Since you posted that we have had the pleasure of Marco voting to confirm Kerry as Sec of State. I suppose we should just ignore that from good ol Marco?
110 posted on 03/19/2013 7:34:31 PM PDT by Captain7seas (Fire Jane Lubchenco and John Pistole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson