Free Republic

And you are committing the fallacy of begging the question. If "Natural Law" means one thing under English Common Law and another under American law, what is its value?

Tu quoque, right off the bat! And you are mistaken, i'm not begging the question, i'm pointing out that there are two different systems. To Americans, the English System of "natural" law is valueless, our very existence is a rejection of it. Regarding the English, our system has slowly encroached theirs, making ours the superior of the two.

So to answer your question, the American philosophy of natural law has great value to Americans. Indeed, it was the key to our freedom and independence. What do you suppose that was worth?

How can you appeal to natural law as if it pre-exists and underlies the existing law, how can you treat it as God's law, when it is contingent on the human laws of a given place and time?

Because it isn't. "Natural Law" as defined by a Monarch and his supporters is not the most objective source. It necessarily favors the status quo for those at the top of the social structure. It is subjective.

What the founders learned was objective natural law, something which remains true regardless of ones position in the social structure. They realized that individuals were basically equal and had inherent rights, not derived from a King. Among them the right of Expatriation, the Right to pursue happiness, Freedom from persecution for their beliefs, elimination of class barriers, and so on.

When these ideas were first realized, and when we realized that we should insist on them, every other government but one (Switzerland) was a Monarchy. Since then, Monarchy after Monarchy has fallen, to be replaced by systems more closely resembling ours. Today, Monarchy is an endangered form of government, and that is assuming if you are going to argue that it still exists at all.

As Aristotle's understanding gave way to Newton's, I would say that evolutionary forces had demonstrated our comprehension of "natural law" to be superior to that of the Old English version.

I’m afraid you’re mistaken. I have tried to find details.

Perhaps now, but this story was a year ago. Stuff gets harder to find.

What I came up with was the following quotation from Miriam Goderich, the woman responsible for editing the piece:

“You’re undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me — an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”

Why am I not surprised that you are looking for information from his defenders instead of his enemies? Yeah, she said that AFTER she got caught. She said something different BEFORE she got caught. How about you check with what his ENEMIES are saying about this story? Or perhaps you fit in better with his allies?

Now, do I know for sure that she is being truthful? Of course not.

Gee, ya think?

A sensible person would compare her statement to the evidence that the source was Obama himself.

And if you would stop looking for favorably biased information, you might be able to get somewhere with this.

I continue to wait for you to provide even a scintilla of such evidence. Until you do, the totality of the evidence is on the other side.

Anyone have any evidence?

"Anyone at all?"

"Anything?"

"I guess there just isn't any."

"Move along people! Nothing to see here."

Yeah, that's it.

It's certainly a lot simpler of an explanation than that you have a point. I see you are curiously sparse in the reasoning and fact department, but full up in the ad hominem pantry.

1. A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii"

And this says nothing regarding the provenance of such a record. Amended documents would allow for the exact same statement.

"I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of this vital event."

Again, says nothing regarding the provenance of such a record. An Amended document would allow for the exact same statement.

Got it? There's nothing about anything being a copy of anything else.

There is no requirement for them to DIVULGE anything else, even if such exists. Got it?

It's a statement about information, about "facts," and the letter verifies that, according to the record on file with the DoH, Obama was born in Hawaii.

You're really not very good at logic or legal thinking. No, it verifies that there is SOME SORT OF RECORD which "SAYS" Obama was born in Hawaii. We do not know if it is based on an affidavit of "unattended birth" or an actual hospital record. We do not know if it is an Amended document such as a foreign adoption, or birth at sea, or anything.

You are accepting as "FACT" something which has not been demonstrated to be a FACT. I have no doubt that Hawaii has some records that says such things. Do they have others which say other things, but are now sealed by court order? I don't know, and they WILL NOT say. Judging by his fakey looking birth certificate, I would say it's a good bet though.

It bears a seal and a signature. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is self-authenticating, and the Full Faith and Credit clause applies.

The Federal Rules of evidence are immaterial to the point at hand. If Obama posses a replacement birth certificate due to an adoption or some other legal action, the information submitted so far is not proof of anything. It is well understood by people familiar with adoptions that birth certificates will say what Judges order to be placed on them.

As I said earlier, prima facie evidence can be challenged, and we're still waiting for you to come up with admissible evidence that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii.

Let me explain this to you once more. It is not the job of I nor any other citizen to PROVE he wasn't born in Hawaii. It is the Responsibility of 50 State Election officials to MAKE HIM PROVE HE WAS!

Now here you are, Explaining that Nancy Pelosi Lying is fine, Election Official Incompetence is fine, because it really wasn't their job anyway, and all the obfuscation from Obama doesn't mean anything, and all the weasel words and dodges of the Issue from Hawaii, well that's just fine too. And your Pièce de résistance is the argument that ordinary citizens should have to prove he's unqualified! YOUR DEFAULT POSITION IS UNQUALIFIED IS OKEY DOKEY!

Now you are going to go away from this message smug in the assurance that you are right, and no amount of my attempting to reason with you is going to convey this one salient point. Your position injures the Nation.

Nixon wasn’t impeached.

Fine. How about you respond to the REST of the message though? Of the entire thing, THAT is what you considered important?

Congress was aware, and the opposing parties looked into the issue - and decided there was nothing there.

Congress hasn't been competent for over half a century. More like the opposing parties struck a devil's bargain. Both Obama and McCain had eligibility issues, and since both were in Glass houses, they most likely agreed not to throw stones.

What the F**K does Nancy Pelosi know about where Barack Obama was born, and to whom? Because of what she read in his book? Upon THIS you consider him eligible?

"Hello America! I am the one who decided Your President's Eligibility!"

That the Parties didn't object is likewise explainable by the fact that BOTH SIDES had eligibility issues, and I find it not at all difficult to believe that they agreed not to bring it up.

That the Electoral College didn't object? The institution has become a Joke. Obama could have been a Jeffery Dahmer style Serial Killer born in Egypt, and the Democrat electors would not have noticed anything wrong with him. You *DO* have a clue how politics work nowadays, don't you?

And, of course, Congress has the power to remove the President (a remedy, so to speak).

Nixon was THREATENED WITH impeachment for far less than what this dictator has done. Look not in that direction for relief.

Under the US Constitution, this matter rests with the voters and Congress.

It does AFTER the FACT. Prior to the Fact it rested with state election officials who neither had the knowledge nor the will to DO THEIR D@MNED JOBS!

The courts have no authority on the basic issue

So why didn't they simply rule that instead of "Plaintiff lacks standing?" They simply don't want to touch it.

They can determine if a SecState has a legal obligation to investigate. And the court in Alabama said the answer is no.

And that is a nonsensical ruling, the sort of which I have come to expect from that peculiar religion.

State law governs presidential elections, not federal law.

Constitutional law is above Federal statute. *IT* trumps all other law.

There’s no deceit, you’re just confused and ignorant of the facts. In the 2008 election cycle, a number of lawsuits were indeed dismissed on standing grounds

It is my presumption that you counted these among your list of the cases about which you are so fond of mentioning the numbers. Are you informing me that you specifically excised the cases lost from "Standing" dismissals from the others?

...There was a “trial on the merits” in Georgia with testimony and witnesses and a judge’s ruling;

Bullshit. The Malihi ruling was a farce. I remember the discussion of it at the time. People were incredulous that such idiocy would be taken seriously, but nowadays people have become long accustomed to accepting crap excreted from the mouths of Judges. The Entire Malihi hearing was an exercise in posturing, and not an effort to determine the truth. It was a Pretend trial, and it was just a put up job to make the issue go away. If I recall properly, Obama's defense didn't even show up! That should have been a default verdict for the plaintiff! And you're citing this as an example?

It's an example all right. It's an example of why people in the legal system need to be chased down with torches and pitchforks.

Sarah Palin had no eligibility issue, she could have been a named plaintiff with standing and great name recognition.

I'll give you this. You sure got chutzpah. You aren't even pretending to be objective with this one, you're just throwing sh*t out there now. Naturally, McCain, as the top of the ticket wouldn't have anything at all to say about this, would he? I bet you were laughing when you typed that one.

This is a loser issue for conservatives that makes us look petty, vindictive and like sore losers.

They were saying that BEFORE the election too. That, and that we were RACISTS for even mentioning it. As for Vindictive? Really, after this piece of shit has sicced the IRS, and every other alphabet organization on us? God help us if we upset the media, for it is they who really run the elections in this nation.

Just yesterday, consecutive legal defeat number 202 was registered: Grinolds v Electoral College:

202 eh? And none of those were "standing" issues? Because, you see, if any of that 202 were "standing" issues, then your continuous usage of those numbers without specifically enumerating that those "standing" issues were not loses, is deceitful. So answer straight up, are you being deceitful or not?

I have no problem at all with wrapping up the six or so remaining eligibility challenges that are still to be adjudicated and also waiting for whatever the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse comes up with. But if none of those actions yield anything new, I think this issue deserves to die a peaceful death.

Peaceful? From my perspective, it has been continuously stabbed in the back from the very beginning, and most of the people with Knives were Republicans.

The Courts are just "Wong"ing us to death with their utter stupidity, and because the issue was decided a century ago, (as far as they are concerned) they have no interest in a correct or fair understanding. They just want this nuisance to go away.

Again, our court system should be regarded with mockery and contempt, and it's decisions and rulings should be undermined by any means at our disposal.

The only thing worse than a collection of unthinking Legal robots is their cheering squad who constantly sing "All Hail the Wisdom of the Court" when in fact it isn't wisdom at all. It's just their own personal preferences procedured up to appear as if they were arrived at by rational means.

Isn't Natural Law supposed to be eternal and unchanging? If "natural law" varies with place, time, and public opinion, what differentiates it from any other man-made construct? What is the value of appealing to it?

You are committing the fallacy of substitution. You are equating the usage of the term under English Common law, to the meaning of the term under the American law.

English Law is Monarchical based. The foundational premise is that the King Rules by Divine right, and it is in accordance with nature that all his subjects should bear perpetual allegiance to him. It's philosophical authorities are people like Bracton, Coke, Hale, Foster, and Blackstone.

American Law is based on a different concept featuring the inherent rights of man as outlined in the reasoning of Philosophers such as Locke, Puffendorf, Vattel, Grotius, Rousseau and so on. Indeed, without our founders becoming aware of their ideas, we likely never would have broke away.

Both groups regard their own version of "natural philosophy" as correct and eternal. (Well, the English HAVE given up Jus Soli and Perpetual allegiance, so I guess it wasn't so eternal after all. ) It's just that we in this country picked a different basis for our conception of what is "natural."

Rights of a King v Rights of man. Here is how it was regarded by one man (Alexander Mcleod)in 1814.

England grabs people by any pretext, and makes of them "Subjects." This is why we fought the war of 1812. They were still counting Americans as THEIR SUBJECTS.

Yes, I understand your argument.

That I greatly doubt.

And once again I point out that you continue to supply absolutely no evidence.

Here you are being unclear. I mentioned four points. The evidence for some of them is self evident. The evidence for the others is apparent to those of us who have been looking at this issue for the last five years. But let's ponder the "evidence" needed to establish my points.

1. Office of President ought to require/justify more than ordinary legal scrutiny.

What sort of "Evidence" do you need to prove that this is true? I put this in the category of "Self Freakin Evident".

2. Behavior of both the Candidate and Officials raises suspicion of their veracity.

Again, where the F**k have you been for the last four years to be unaware of any "evidence" as regards to this?

3. *THIS* state allows for unusual deviations from the normal standards accepted for birth certificates. Ditto on this question? Is this your first rodeo or something? The Weirdity of Hawaiian birth certificate laws has been beaten into the ground on Free Republic, but apparently you've missed all that, so if anyone desires your input on this, we've got to start from the beginning and educate you or something?

I generally presume that anyone popping off in a discussion, has some f**king clue what they are talking about, but I find I am constantly overestimating the competence of people whom become involved in these various discussions.

4. State officials will not certify anything with certainty.

Need I explain the meaning of the words "Or Abstract thereof"? How about all the delay and weasel wording of the letter they sent to Arizona Sec State Bennett? Why all the negotiation for language rather than just supplying the D@MNED document as Hawaiian law says they are able to do?

You seem unable to comprehend that your impressions of things you've read or heard are not evidence. Neither are your opinions.

You seem unable to comprehend that you are discussing a subject of which you have apparently little understanding. *I* didn't create the impression that Obama was born in Kenya. Obama did that. *I* didn't obfuscate efforts to acquire some proof that Obama was actually born in Hawaii, Obama did that too. We aren't discussing *MY* opinions, (of course you want to make it about me, it's easier than answering the facts.)

Oh, really? And how do you know that? Are you really trying to convince us that you are a competent witness to provide us with that information?

If you'd follow the d@mned story, you would understand that already, but apparently you would just rather dismiss it than to find out any details. It's not like anything important ever hinged on the truth of it.

Unless you are, it remains hearsay on top of hearsay. Your continued insistence that your own unproven assertions are evidence is simply astounding.

They aren't *MY* assertions. They are *OBAMA'S* assertions, and you are trying to divert the point. The Lady which compiled all the biographies in that book has said that she printed what she was told by the Authors. Other Authors have come forward and said they were told to write their own biographies and submit them.

But you know what? WHY the F**K am I even bothering to try to educate you on this? It's clear you do not give a F**K whether it is true or not, as far as YOU are concerned, it WILL NOT be anything more than an "unproven assertion", and that is notwithstanding the fact that this is just one more piece in an ongoing saga.

What is "astounding" is that there is anyone left in the Nation who doesn't remember how many times we were told he was from "Kenya", and of course we are all just supposed to pretend that it never happened. Down the Memory hole Mr. Orwell!

What is astonishing is how a purported Republican can even suggest this is "unproven." The Fish do not jump in the boat more strongly than this!

I think you’ll have to admit that the documents shown and the statements made by state officials would normally be sufficient to quell the doubts of pretty much anybody. By ordinary legal standards, this is a closed case.

Yes. I agree. But they have ruined the presumption of veracity by all of their peculiar actions taken together.

You are making the argument that special scrutiny is needed beyond what would normally be required, based on a distrust of Obama and Hawaii. But I think you will have to understand that a demand for further investigation has to be backed up by real — not speculative or hearsay — evidence rather than a general feeling of distrust.

I believe sufficient evidence has been produced to meet the necessary standard. Beyond that, why are we using normal court standards and procedures for the Office of the Presidency? In *THIS* particular case, there should have been no question that adherence to Constitutional intent should have rendered irrelevant the USUAL process and methodology.

Obama is not just Joe Citizen. He is a man that has been given access to awesome powers of destruction both civil and military, and I think it is utterly ridiculous that he should be permitted to hide behind procedures while failing to produce true and correct evidence that he is in fact in compliance with the intent of Article II. (A Higher Law, IMO)

For the sake of our Nation's future, Ordinary rules should have been suspended in the pursuit of due diligence regarding the discovery of a President's loyalty. The scale should always be tipped towards extreme skepticism when it comes to such a dangerous office.

Simple example: The Full Faith and Credit clause. I would expect you, as a strong proponent of Constitutional law, to recognize that in that clause is a rare example of the Founding Fathers telling us specifically that a certain type of evidence is to be trusted — namely, that which is found in the official records of the States.

Accepting the record would be fine if they would stop stamping it with that "Or Abstract thereof" making it useless as proof. As Reagan said of the "mental health" exemption for abortion, it was a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

Those three words makes any information contained thereon subject to whatever manipulation that the state or court of Hawaii may have seen fit to do subsequently. It completely destroys the purpose of wanting to see it in the first place, because "an abstract thereof" allows it to be a copy of information PUT into the record, after the fact. It renders it of no evidentiary value.

By that logic, Obama has been proved to have been born in Hawaii by purely Constitutional standards.

Not getting into "Constitutional standards", I disagree. Unless the statement by the state official attests to it being a copy of the "ORIGINAL DOCUMENT", period. Full Stop! It doesn't even prove he was born in Hawaii.

Further given Hawaii's law explicitly stating that anyone born while in Transit to Hawaii may claim their port of Entry as their birth place, even such an original record doesn't establish with certainty that someone was actually born *IN* Hawaii. Hawaii has unusual birth certificate laws.

But what we have here is a situation where Hawaiian state officials won't say a d@mn thing without putting some sort of qualifier on it that allows them to avoid any consequences if the information they "certified" turns out to be untrue. It stinks, and it never should have been tolerated.

If you think the Constitution should not apply here, I’d expect you to have a very strong, evidence-based argument to that effect.

My argument above Quickly summed up.
1. Office of President ought to require/justify more than ordinary legal scrutiny.
2. Behavior of both the Candidate and Officials raises suspicion of their veracity.
3. *THIS* state allows for unusual deviations from the normal standards accepted for birth certificates.
4. State officials will not certify anything with certainty.

I have further arguments/evidence regarding this, but no matter how correct/accurate they are, we all know that there is no legal will to examine them. Ergo a moot point.

Surely you’re joking. In what sense is that evidence?

In the sense that it establishes something as true. You do know what is evidence, don't you?

Who wrote that, someone with personal knowledge of where Obama was born?

You are apparently unfamiliar with the provenance of that biography, and of course you feel as though you're competent to discuss this issue anyway. How about you read the article associated with it for starters?

Suffice it to say, that biography is not the only piece of evidence that Obama had, for year, been telling people he was born in Kenya, it is just one of the oldest and most obvious pieces of evidence that he had been doing so.

All you have provided is anonymous hearsay, and anonymous hearsay is not evidence.

It is not anonymous hearsay, Obama submitted the information and had to approve the finished result before it was published. It further dovetails with other evidence that he had been telling people for years he was "born in Kenya." (Of course it was a lie.)

You want to see some Hearsay? Here is some Hearsay. It was on the basis of THIS bit of Hearsay that our incompetent Election officials F**ked the Nation.

"Hello America,I am the one who decided Your President's Eligibility!"

" And I don't know what the F**K i'm talking about, but I just don't care!"

Yeah but I missed the part that says "DiogenesLamp Law trumps everything."

That's because you want to make this about me rather than the truth. I'm just the messenger, dude.

Shining a little light of truth on incompetence only bothers those people who like the decisions reached by the incompetent officials. To those of us who believe in having a government which does it's job properly, the offense is that we have had to put up with these fools.

Yes. You and I agree. The people issuing those documents, birth certificates or letters of verification, are doing it in their capacity as state employees. None of them claim to have any personal knowledge of when and where Barack Obama was born.

All they can do is attest to what is in the official records of the State of Hawaii.

Unless the original documents are sealed by court order, then by Hawaiian law, they cannot. They will then attest to what the replacement documents say, and they will very likely use weasel words like "Or an abstract thereof."

I feel as if i'm getting through slightly, but you are seemingly missing the broader point here. Without some definitive statement, we don't even have the WORD of those officials. We have assurances, not actual attestations.

Now, where to go from here? My claim would be that, under the Full Faith and Credit clause, the statement that Obama was born in Hawaii according to that state’s official records is mighty powerful evidence.

Had it been submitted back in 2008 without any fuss, it would likely have stifled any further interest. As it has been laboriously dragged out of him with much effort and mockery, and as it has incomprehensible anomalies about it, it has become in and of itself, pretty good evidence that some sort of deceit is being played.

Hawaii and Obama has given the nation very good reasons not to trust their words or their documents. It is long past time that someone should have cut through this crap and demanded an accurate and original document with attestations that it is nothing other than an accurate copy of an original 1961 birth certificate, and that no other such documents exist regarding him in the State's records.

I would accept the "full faith and credit" argument if Hawaii would just certify it with something CERTAIN, and leave off the Weasel Words.

If you think you can counter that, I’d love to know what kind of evidence you have to support a claim that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii.

I have some circumstantial evidence which indicates he was born in NW Washington State, or Canada, but I know of no evidence which supports a birth in Kenya. I believe he made that up. I likewise do not discount that he may very well have been born in Hawaii, i'm just saying I haven't yet seen a trustworthy document attesting to this.

The Larger point is that we never should have had to wonder about this. Our state officials should have required good proof before letting him on the ballot.

Lord, are you really this dense? You list some things that you say happened, but you provide not a single shred of evidence to back them up, and then you insist that you’ve produced evidence?

Pardon me. I didn't realize you were so unencumbered by a higher thinking process such that you didn't bother to follow the link I submitted. In lieu of you straining yourself to keep up, i'll simply post the image here for you to see.

That’s so nonsensical I just have to let it speak for itself.

Well, you're pretty nonsensical, and certainly speaking for yourself. Of course we are all seeing how well that is turning out.

The federal judge ( a George W. Bush appointee) who issued that statement also sanctioned Orly Taitz $20,000 for filing a frivolous lawsuit. She appealed to the Supreme Court and they refused to issue a stay and Ms. Taitz paid the fine.

Orly Taitz has demonstrated herself to not only be a soldier with poor shooting skills, but one which discharges her weapon recklessly and repeatedly in a manner which endangers her allies more so than the enemy.

A referral to her doings is not really germane to the question of how any of this ongoing occupancy of Obama in the White House is serving the public interest?

As long as the state of Hawaii stands by its vital records and in five and a half years, no one has filed a criminal complaint for forgery, document tampering or fraud, I suspect that this issue will continue to be the source of Internet debates and little else.

Who would file such a complaint? The beneficiaries of such corruption, or perhaps the corrupt officials? Why should anyone with access to proof want to file a complaint? Again, you misdirect. The point is not that anyone has filed a complaint regarding Hawaii's records, it is that demonstrable proof of the accuracy of those records has not been forthcoming from those who's moral and legal obligation it is to provide it.

On April 27, 2011, he put his long form birth certificate on the Internet for the whole wide world to see.

And you consider that PDF with it's Layers and such as legal evidence or proof? I've got a fake one too, and i'll show it to individuals, but i'm not posting it on the internet.

Additionally, he has offered a legal defense of his eligibility 20 times.

And it always begins with "No, I won't let you see any proof." And again with the numbers? As if "I won't let you see proof" means something more significant after the 19th time you've said it.

Congress was aware, and the opposing parties looked into the issue - and decided there was nothing there.

Congress hasn't been competent for over half a century. More like the opposing parties struck a devil's bargain. Both Obama and McCain had eligibility issues, and since both were in Glass houses, they most likely agreed not to throw stones.

At the time of the counting of Electoral votes, it would only take 1 Senator and 1 Congressman - 1 of 100, and 1 of 435 - to force Congress to meet and consider the issue. There was no objection raised.

That "There was no objection raised" is not the same as saying "there are no legitimate objections!" There are SCADS of legitimate objections. What the F**K does Nancy Pelosi know about where Barack Obama was born, and to whom? Because of what she read in his book? Upon THIS you consider him eligible?

"Hello America! I am the one who decided Your President's Eligibility!"

That the Parties didn't object is likewise explainable by the fact that BOTH SIDES had eligibility issues, and I find it not at all difficult to believe that they agreed not to bring it up.

That the Electoral College didn't object? The institution has become a Joke. Obama could have been a Jeffery Dahmer style Serial Killer born in Egypt, and the Democrat electors would not have noticed anything wrong with him. You *DO* have a clue how politics work nowadays, don't you?

And, of course, Congress has the power to remove the President (a remedy, so to speak).

Nixon was impeached for far less than what this dictator has done. Look not in that direction for relief.

Under the US Constitution, this matter rests with the voters and Congress.

It does AFTER the FACT. Prior to the Fact it rested with state election officials who neither had the knowledge nor the will to DO THEIR D@MNED JOBS!

The courts have no authority on the basic issue

So why didn't they simply rule that instead of "Plaintiff lacks standing?" They simply don't want to touch it.

They can determine if a SecState has a legal obligation to investigate. And the court in Alabama said the answer is no.

And that is a nonsensical ruling, the sort of which I have come to expect from that peculiar religion.

And what the LoVs say is that the stated birthdate and birthplace of Barack Obama are correct information.

They say that that is the information contained in their records, which is not the same thing as saying it is TRUE AND CORRECT.

Again, *I* have information in *MY* records which is false, but to which the State authorities will attest is "true."

Normally everyone just accepts birth certificate lies because normally they don't hurt anyone, but in *THIS* case, whether Obama's birth certificate is true or false, the fate of the nation has been dependent.

And all the while the nation burns, we have people who seem to think legal technicalities are of some sort of higher importance.

What more evidence? You've got to be kidding. Anything is more than zero. Your completely unsupported assertions of purported fact have an evidentiary value of exactly zippo, and I have to think you know that. At least I hope you know that.

Obama's own admissions have zero evidentiary value? You are incorrect on this, but it's beside the point anyway. It is the responsibility of the CANDIDATE to PROVE he's qualified, not the responsibility of the PUBLIC to PROVE he's Not.

When asked for evidence you instead provide an embarrassing example of your total lack of evidence. You shouldn't be at all surprised that birtherism has gotten absolutely nowhere.

No, I produced evidence, you simply dismissed it and claimed it wasn't. It is a form of deceit, to which I have become long accustomed when arguing with Obama enablers.

You aren't defending the nation, you aren't defending anyone's rights, you are simply arguing/obfuscating to protect a corrupt/incompetent system which has produced a corrupt and scandal ridden monster.

They are expected to follow the law.

Which is exactly commensurate with "DO THEIR D#MNED JOB!" You did see the part about "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TRUMPS ALL OTHER LAW!" ?

I am under no illusion that I could influence you.

It isn't influence as regards to me to which I was referring, it was influence on the outcome of the court decision. You do know what an "Academic" discussion is, do you not?

Nor have you done the same for me.

You are part of a herd. I expect you to behave no differently. The intent is not to persuade you, but to counter you. In this game, i'm playing the role of cowboy.

Your posts, while numerous and wordy, are just the same old, same old.

I also find it boring when people talk above my level of comprehension. Usually it's on a subject about which I do not care.

It's been going on for 5 years now.

So has the farce. I don't hear you objecting to *it* though.

In a majority of states the law says that the major political parties are responsible for vetting their own candidates and state election officials have no say in and no responsibility for vetting candidates.

I recall no mention of political parties being specifically granted this privileged anywhere in our governing document. As it obviously undermines the requirements of constitutional law, it is not plausible to accept any such law as complying with the constitutional mandate implicit in Article II. Such state laws are in conflict with our Foundational law.

It is as sensible as allowing inmates pronouncing their own verdicts upon themselves. No, the constitution axiomatically requires this to be done by a non-interested third party with the authority to make decisions regarding ballot access. If the Constitution mandates a boat, we must comprehend that water is needed to float it.

If citizens didn’t like Nancy Pelosi or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz doing the Democrat’s vetting, they had four years between 2008 and 2012 to advocate for changes to state statutes.

Most of us are under the common law assumption that government officials are required to do jobs which are only within the reasonable authority of government officials. The notion that private parties can make inaccurate rulings in their own self interest is too alien to American principles to believe that anyone should have ever countenanced it.

Beyond that, most people also made the mistaken assumption that among the civilian population, it was primarily John McCain and the Republican Party's responsibility to spear head any such effort. Not only would they not make any such effort, they viciously attacked anyone who suggested it.

Average citizens had the right to file ballot challenges to Obama’s eligibility, which they did, but they lost every time.

And here your deceit shows through. The VAST MAJORITY weren't allowed to file because of ongoing usage of a bit of legal con-dodge called "Standing." Cases were thrown out because of the ridiculous notion that no individual could have suffered a severe enough injury from having an unqualified President so as to constitute a cause of action. In other words, Legal Bullshit, the sort of which the country has suffered far too long. You call it a "loss" when it was a "Not allowed to challenge."

Most importantly, not one of the national candidates from other political parties challenged Barack Obama’s eligibility.

The most prominent one (John McCain) had his own eligibility issue, and a challenge would have done more political damage to him, than it would have to Obama. After the election, a challenge wouldn't have been timely, (another legal dodge) and it would have simply resulted in a humiliation for John McCain.

There were other concerns amongst the players, which they considered of greater importance than adhering to constitutional law.

You have your version of truth, and then there are the actual rulings under our system of jurisprudence. You are convinced that your version is right but I prefer the version uncovered by actual Triers of Fact in adversarial proceedings.

You think those little scale thingies they have actually weigh truth? You are a guppy.

Morelike I perceive you favor them because they support the conclusions you want, not because they are correct.

After all, “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”

How is the claim Frivolous when Obama himself has made it? Should he be taken seriously only when he says things you want to hear?

Again, the question is, WHY SHOULD *WE* have to prove anything? Why is not the requirement upon the seeker of office to walk back his previous lie and demonstrate proof of his eligibility?

I don’t want the public’s interest disserved.

Your direction of argument leads no where else. From my perspective it is a small matter. The Onus is on the seeker of an office to establish his credentials, and likewise it is on those tasked with protecting access to the ballot to insure that office seekers do this very thing.

How is the public interest served when a document signed by the craziest bedbug in San Fransisco all the evidence provided to establish eligibility?

I wouldn't accept Nancy Pelosi's word that a government run healthcare system is in my best interest! Let alone that she knows what the F**K she is talking about regarding eligibility, or even that she has any proof herself of which to attest!

IN WHAT POSSIBLE FREAKING MANNER DO YOU SEE ANY OF WHAT HAPPENED AS SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST?

Absolute nonsense. You obviously have no idea what prima facie means.

"On the face of it." Now here's one for you.

Nemo potest exuere Patriam

You have no idea that alluding to such as evidence is just a dodge of the salient question; Are birth certificates evidence when every state cranks out thousands of fake ones every year?

*I* am not INTERESTED in legal trickery or crockery, as the case may be. *I* am INTERESTED in what is TRUTH.

The validity of prima facie evidence is challenged all the time. Of course, it takes evidence to do it.

What more evidence is necessary to challenge the legitimacy of a man who had claimed for years to have been born in Kenya, was very likely adopted, and refuses to cooperate in the verification of his credentials?

And that is not even addressing the historic and ongoing birth certificate lying which every state does routinely every year.

Who does the Constitution give the authority to for determining the propriety of a Presidential election, or for removal from office?

Apparently no one. Those who should have prevented the problem in the first place were simply too ignorant of the requirements and of their responsibility to enforce them.

I credit the Democrat run School systems.

The fact before the court is whether it is regarded as a matter of Alabama law.

A distinction without a difference. Even under Alabama law, a man hired as a public official is expected to DO THEIR D@MNED JOB! God only knows the level of utter stupidity to which this nation has sunk when it has to be litigated in court to force Governmental officials to do the most self evident aspect of their Jobs.

And you are doing a great job of furthering that cause. Really.

Your mockery notwithstanding, I think that the ship has already hit the iceberg, and it little matters what we do as individuals at this point. We are having an academic discussion, or are you having some misguided presumptions of influence?

So Klayman would like to make this. But to quote Paul Scofield's character in A Man For All Seasons; "The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law." Whether we all like it or not.

And both that and the law are a matter of opinion.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TRUMPS ALL OTHER LAW!

“I will not listen to any “reason” on this. There is no argument which will sway me from the truth of this statement...”

Written like a true birther!

Or a Constitutionalist.

Scr*w You. As usual, you have descended to childish nonsense of the sort unworthy of response.

There was no difference in states’ responses whether there was a letter of verification from Hawaii or an actual eligibility ballot challenge that was adjudicated. Every state’s Chief Elections Official cleared Obama for the state ballot, in 2008 and in 2012.

You and I have gone around and around about the substitution of "numbers" for "truth." We have also had this same conversation regarding the claim of "Authority" = "Truth." And you're still citing both fallacies. I would be embarrassed.

I have a long held, and simple explanation for this. We have reached a point in our Nation where our Election officials are incompetent. They do not understand the requirements, Nor do they understand their role in enforcing them.

Back to you.

Your opinion notwithstanding, they are legal documents certifying specific facts under the official seal of the Sate of Hawaii, and are prima facie evidence in any court in the land.

Legal bullshit of sort which this country tolerates far too much. You are arguing that "because we have made it customary to regard documents with these characteristics as "valid", we must not insist on determining the actual truth when presented with such documents."

Alexander the Great Cut the Gordian knot. Super Smart Genius intellectual types tried to untie it.

I have one basic principle regarding this issue, with which you may agree or disagree.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TRUMPS ALL OTHER LAW.

If it is a matter of Compliance with Constitutional law, especially in such a case affecting the lives and futures of so many millions of Americans, it is INSANE to let petty little state laws interfere with efforts to get to the actual truth.

Obama HAS NO RIGHT to keep his eligibility proof secret from "We the People." Those who say he does, as far as I am concerned are enemies of our nation. They aren't defending rights, they are subverting rules so as to obfuscate a potentially serious threat.

If that's not enough to satisfy you, you're entitled to your opinion. But, frankly, your opinion is of no legal consequence whatsoever.

Neither is the truth, and that is THE PROBLEM. It is long past time to take a scythe to our legal system, and then burn the stubble. The ONLY legal opinion which counts is that of the Judges. They are our own little pet Autocracy in this nation. It's long past time for that to change.

In this case the question is, was the circuit court correct in ruling that the Alabama Secretary of State is not required by Alabama law to independently verify the eligibility of presidential candidates prior to allowing their name to be placed on the ballot?

In point of fact, such requirement should be regarded as a matter of common law. It has always been expected by the populace that those responsible for approving ballot access have some responsibility to do it accurately and fairly. Such a question might as well be asked regarding a county Tax Assessor whether they should assess taxes fairly and accurately. It's a "Self Evident" part of their D@MNED JOB!

That being said, the larger question is one to which there is no legal remedy for the last election. It might have some benefit in the future, but for the past it is too late. As I said before, the best which can be hoped is to make an ugly legitimacy stink, and hope some of it reaches enough people to spur calls for defiance of the dictator and perhaps calls for removal if sufficient anger can be achieved.

Obama’s eligibility or lack thereof is not relevant to that question; one could just as easily file suit over her failure to check Romney’s qualifications as well. Zullo’s affidavit, imaginative and entertaining as it may be, is still irrelevant.

Let us not fool ourselves. Whatever is the "official" claim, it is simply intended to obscure the fact that it is most certainly about Obama and what he's managed to get away with due to State Election officials not doing their d@mned jobs properly.

The courts will assume the state government is telling the truth unless there is proof to the contrary.

There are over 100,000 pieces of proof every year that all states lie about birth certificates. Apparently our vaunted legal minds are seemingly oblivious to this fact.

Proof, not accusations. You cannot simply accuse Hawaii of lying and then gain access to records.

All that should be required to gain access to this specific record is the statement "This man is running for President. I have a right to see evidence that he is eligible."

That statement alone should have rendered any Statutory objections irrelevant, but because our Governmental and Judicial officials have become so ignorant and incompetent, they sit around with their thumbs up their a$$e$ instead of protecting the country by doing their jobs.

In this particular case, I don’t see where a birth certificate will ever emerge as a question, since it is not an issue before the court.

It is central to the entire issue, so obviously nobody should even consider looking at it. Another example of a court system which is ridiculous and deserving of contempt.

Well what can be expected of it? After all, it is a left over remnant of Monarchy.

I am going to repeat myself.

“On such a serious issue, roadblocks to official documents never should have been tolerated.”

If you disagree, I don't care. It is my belief that CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TRUMPS ALL OTHER LAW.

I am not going to debate this with you. I will not listen to any "reason" on this. There is no argument which will sway me from the truth of this statement, and rather than attempt it, you should merely recognize the truth in it for yourself.

What is the matter with us when we tolerate a petty state law interfering with verification of the credentials for the most powerful office in the world?

How have lesser courts dared to tamper with this principle? We need to burn down the existing court structure and rebuild it so that it is fit for a Free Republic.

Apparently Hawaii has been using the “true copy or abstract” stamp since 1995.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/342937/

And?

That doesn't speak to my objection regarding it. Adding those words makes it impossible to verify that it is true on the face of it. Those are weasel words which might as well say "may or may not be true."

What do you mean by this? All birth certificates are abstracts, in that they contain only some of the information required by NIHS standard Certificate of Live Birth form.

What do I mean by this? I mean that Hawaii has changed it's language of certification from something that was absolute and certain, "A True and Correct copy of the Original Record" to something which is not. "Or an abstract thereof."

Adding the words "or Abstract thereof" makes it possible to hide any and all sorts of manipulations which might have occurred to the original document.

For example, as I've said repeatedly, *I* am adopted. As Such I have an "original" birth certificate, and I also have a "replacement" birth certificate. All references to my birth certificate in any official correspondence deliberately hide the fact that my current "official" document is NOT MY ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

Now the ability of the state to lie and mislead in this manner is due to the understandable need to protect children from the circumstances of their adoption, because many of them are unaware of the fact. However, the fact that such legal tricks are permitted for adopted children, also makes them available for abuse in such cases as Obama. (Whom I believe to have been adopted by Lolo Soetoro back in 1965.)

So to sum it up, when you put that bit "*OR* abstract thereof", you have made it impossible to determine if it is fact an original birth certificate, or one that has been subsequently cobbled together by the State DOH to create a replacement document.

Does that clear things up?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Zullo’s evidence was convincing and unimpeachable what does any of that have to do with the case before the Alabama Supreme Court?

It is my observation that Judges don't really have to follow the law, they can pretty much do anything they want. (and do.) With that in mind, the affidavit can provide sufficient support to whatever it is the judge wants to do, and it will count because he says so.

On this particular issue, more can be accomplished by simply calling into question the legitimacy of the current dictatorship, and producing evidence that he is a lying con man, than any legal result which might come out of it.

A hearing which actually LOOKS at the truth, and concludes Obama stinks, will do more good than a dozen legal technicality rulings. The political damage is what we need right now. Any Legal remedy has long since passed it's expiration date.

Far from being what you mistakenly call "third-party letters of verification," the letters are official state documents with all the evidentiary force of a birth certificate regarding the data they contain.

And yet they are conspicuous by NOT being a birth certificate. So you're saying we should just all accept this game of three-card-Monty as being clean?

Don't think so chum. One doesn't do so many legal backflips if all is as it ought to be.

One would think that after a hundred cases or so, birthers would have figured out you can’t just go to court and demand to see anything you want to see...

Which is why the court system deserves contempt. On such a serious issue, roadblocks to official documents never should have been tolerated. The very effort stinks of some sort of game or corruption, and if the courts were competent, the very first one would have swept aside all efforts to legally block access to a record of VITAL IMPORTANCE to the nation.

Again, the legal system is contemptuous. It produces idiocy regularly, and the victims of it simply have to endure.

I get the feeling edge has never studied rules of evidence...

I get the feeling that if you are criticizing someone, most likely THEY are the one who is correct.

And the letters sent to the Secretaries of State were used in lieu of actual proof, and for the sole purpose of getting them out of the hot seat. None of them wanted to keep Obama off the ballot, because the searing focus of the massed media would FRY anyone who was so presumptuous as to have questioned the eligibility of their boyfriend.

The Letters gave them Cover to do what they desperately wanted to do anyway. Make this issue go away while pretending they did their job.

SOS Bennett was actually surprised when he couldn't get cooperation from Hawaii. He made his promise to require proof before he knew that Hawaii really didn't want to give him anything.

He smelled a rat, but he was far more afraid of bringing embarrassment and humiliation to himself than he was in pursuing it. It was another of those "Let this Cup pass before me" events in which he managed to get away from it.

Supreme Courts don’t do discovery.

God forbid that they should disrupt their chosen methodology for the sake of accuracy. One of the reasons I find the American court methodology contemptuous.

Also, there has never been a court ruling that the whitehouse.gov version of the birth certificate is forged so there is no risk to using it.

I like how "no ruling" is flipped into a "positive ruling". That is sophist.

The state of Hawaii has issued 3 Certified Letters of Verification in support of its authenticity.

But would they not send these same letters of Verification in support of the authenticity of a replacement birth certificate due to adoption?

The Alabama Democrats also submitted one of those Letters of Verification with their Amicus Brief for the Supreme Court.

A letter is not proof. Proof is more along the lines of an image with a certified statement and State Seal proclaiming a "true and correct copy of the original document" Without the "or abstract thereof" which totally renders it irrelevant as proof.

Even then, given Hawaii's peculiar laws, and apparent habit of issuing these things to people newly arrived off of boats and such, it's difficult to regard even Hawaii's best efforts to convince as above reproach at this juncture.

Much of their credibility was lost when they made such a stink of releasing the original document. Constitutional Requirements ought to trump state privacy laws in EVERY CASE.

There was NO legitimate reason to keep proof from the American people.

Black ones most certainly did.

Not exactly accurate. There were small numbers of Black citizens going all the way back to the Revolutionary era. The 14th amendment merely naturalized en masse, the ones that weren't. The first generation were NOT natural citizens, they were naturalized. (same as the founders) It was the second generation which were natural citizens.

But your point reinforces mine. I argue that we never used (Nationally) English Common law regarding our citizens. The 14th amendment would have been redundant if we were using English Common Law.

Neither Canada's nor the US's citizenship determinations take their authority from English common law. They are based on statutory law or, in cases covered by the 14th Amendment (and possibly some Canadian cases; I don't know their constitution), constitutional law.

Then you have a substantially different opinion on the issue than do your allies. Perhaps you should inform Jeff Winston of your opinion on this? Someone needs to wake him the F*** up.

The jus soli argument for the United States is based on the black-letter law of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 14th amendment is a conditional (subject to the jurisdiction thereof) Jus Soli law. I am perfectly aware of this, however virtually all of the people who take your side claim we adhered to Jus Soli BEFORE the 14th amendment. Apart from that, the 14th amendment does not create "natural" citizens. "Natural citizens" do not require the operation of the 14th amendment, just as Justice Waite pointed out in Minor.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you lack the first clue about how common law works;

I probably know more about it than do you, but I am constantly arguing with people on your side who do not. I am simply repeating to you what YOUR SIDE HAS LONG BEEN SAYING. That *YOU* alone hold a different view, I now recognize, but given that *YOUR* view is also inaccurate, (but in a different way) I can hardly be blamed for mistaking it for the other erroneous view.

it does not supersede statutory law.

Of that I am fully aware. That is axiomatic, and only someone new to this topic would even suggest that the people discussing it are unaware of this fact.

That’s why it takes at least five like minds to render an opinion that stands.

This doesn't actually solve anything. It just creates an "illusion" of having addressed something. For some people that is enough, but others want the truth.

The Truth is not subject to a majority.

Thanks. I aim to entertain while I educate. :)

Since we are both entrenched in our own perspectives of the issue, there does not seem to be any further agreement possible. Therefore we will have to agree to disagree.

If you won't debate your position, i'm fine with that. It's hard enough getting people to stop listening to "authorities" and start thinking for themselves.

Is that why you said early on in our conversation that if I could be taken out and shot, you would cheer?

Note I didn't say *I* would be doing the shooting, but I don't see why I should feel strongly about opposing it. :)

And anyone who actually looks at the facts can see that virtually all of the evidence is on one side, and it isn't your side.

Jeff, you don't get to make up "facts."

All significant early authorities - ALL of them - say you're full of it.

Some of Jeff's Significant early authorities:

Jeff thinks they talk when he puts words in their mouths.

Virtually every argument you make is fallacious BS.Hopefully one of these days I'll get around to publishing them all in one place.

Yes, the world desperately needs a massive textual wall of garbage. It's not like Daily Kos has that covered or anything.

Even if I don't, I don't think it matters very much. If Cruz runs, you're not going to be able to hold back his candidacy.

Don't know if I can or not. I might not even want to. If they won't play by the rules, I don't feel obliged to do so either.

Again you are projecting. I never stated that British laws govern the US or Canada. In fact, what I said was that each nation is governed by it’s own laws.

The Argument put forth is that American law is based on English Common law. The laws of Canada are most certainly based on English Common Law. If the source of both nations is English Common Law, then you have a ridiculous situation where two nations, using the same source of authority, lay claim to the same man.

“Common Law” is a theory in jurisprudence where greater weight is given to precedence under the concept that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. It is one of the three forms of law; common law, statutory law and administrative law.

It is "unwritten law" that is established by long usage and habit rather than by legislative statute. The Jus Soli argument for the United States is based on the notion that we adopted English Common law as regards our citizens.

The British body of precedents (rulings) is different that the US body of precedence. A US court is expected to follow US common law and a British court is expected to follow British common law.

You appear to be somewhat new to this discussion. The Dominant argument on the Jeff Winston side of the issue is that US citizen Law = English Subject Law, except for the "perpetual allegiance" part. Why they keep trying to cut that part off, I do not know. Perhaps because it really bollocks' their argument?

Really, have you ever studied law?

For many years. Have you ever studied Engineering? It is a jarring transition to go from pseudo logic and reliance on previous "opinions" to accurate measurement and calculation. Of the two systems, one can continuously produce ridiculous and catastrophic results, and still be regarded as operating within acceptable margins by it's adherents.

If Buildings were Built in the manner that laws are adjudicated, the first woodpecker which came along would destroy civilization.

It does not matter how many books Vattel wrote or how many times he was quoted. Vattel did not make US law.

He is responsible for creating the nation. Had he not wrote his book, we likely would still be part of England. "American Independence was then and there born."- John Adams.

John Adams:

And what was it that had Motivated James Otis to take up this cause of Independence?

I agree that law does not change the Constitution but when the Constitution specifically enumerates the power of Congress to set the rules of naturalization, that is a direct exercise of Constitutional authority.

The "Rules of Naturalization" do not govern the status of "natural" citizens. They are already "natural citizens" and do not require naturalization.

The term “naturalization” has a meaning of granting the rights and privileges of a citizen to an alien. Congress is specifically empowered by Article 1 Section 8 to “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.

Exactly right, they have no effect on Citizens, so the obvious corollary to your statement is that the laws ONLY AFFECT ALIENS.

The RULES include who is and is not a citizen at birth.

But that is because Congress PUT that there.

A citizen at birth is a “naturally born” citizen as they have never needed nor required to be naturalized.

Then what do you call the law making them a citizen? A "Natural born" law? Again, it equates to congress redefining the term, which I think you will admit is not tolerable. That they have to fill out no paperwork of naturalization is immaterial. That they have no ceremony is immaterial.

This in no way alters the Constitutional requirements for President.

If Congress passes a law which CHANGES the requirements for the Presidency from what they were originally, to something different, then it is altering the constitution without going through the amendment process, and it is strictly forbidden.

Congress can pass a law "naturalizing" all the citizens of Belize. Will this make such citizens "natural" citizens? No. The idea is ridiculous. So is the Idea that Congress can "naturalize" others, at birth, or otherwise, by whatever criteria, and have them regarded as being "natural" citizens.

“Natural law” was cited in support of the divine right of monarchs.

Exactly my point. Please inform Jeff. The ENGLISH version of "natural law" is that everyone owes allegiance to the King. The AMERICAN version of "natural law" is "...and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

In other words, no man made laws.

As often as not, a claim based on national law is a fancied-up “because I say so.” The definition of pi can be mathematically and objectively determined; citizenship status cannot.

I disagree. 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 whole. Take some unknown child. You can tell who it's parents are, but can you tell where it was born? The Pro-Life movement counts a child as a Person from the moment of conception, it doesn't recognize "birth" as the criteria which makes someone a person.

"Birth" is a convenient boundary for recognizing a child, but it is a poor boundary for establishing the nature of the child. Just as a child inherits the characteristic of it's parents, so too does it inherit the National Character of it's parents. If the Parents love their country, then so too does the child. If the Parents love another country, then so to must the child.

Citizenship can be established by math, it's just a higher level of math.

Invoking “natural law” is fine as a philosophical construct, but laws enforced by humans should be limited to those written by humans.

Such as laws governing Slavery and Abortion? No, I would rather trust laws written by God. We cannot change them, but we can recognize them.

If such facts are proven, then Mr Cruz is and was a citizen at birth and was never in need of naturalization. As such, he would qualify as a natural born citizen.

He is a "citizen at birth" because CONGRESS passed a law naturalizing him a "citizen at birth".

CONDITIONAL N-A-T-U-R-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N.

Plessy v Ferguson stood, until it didn’t. There are many conservatives today who believe Brown v. Board led to affirmative action, racial quotas and forced busing; infringements on individual civil rights.

Plessy was wrong, but so was Brown, though for different reasons. Again, the Supreme court is often like a meat cleaver when it needs to operate more like a rapier. It went too far in Plessy, and it went too far in Brown. As a matter of fact, the hallmark of the Supreme court's landmark decisions is that they generally go too far.

Supreme Court decisions have everything to do with law.

In the manner that Actors represent Doctors on Television. As i've mentioned, often the Supreme Court decisions have little to do with law, and a lot to do with politics. Not even Liberal legal scholars try to defend Roe.

Different people can have very different opinions on legal issues.

But they can't all say they are correct. The one which is, must necessarily renders the rest incorrect.

Each nation state governs it’s own laws of citizenship and as such, Canadian laws govern Canadian citizenship (again, exclusively).

And apparently from your perspective, British law governs us both. What is a "British Common Law" advocate to do when two different countries follow the exact same Common law?

How is a third country supposed to figure out which British law has the better claim? Or is he up for grabs by anyone?