Posted on 02/23/2010 8:02:16 AM PST by butterdezillion
TYPO: I have BEEN ruthlessly attacked etc etc.
parsy, who is laid up in bed today typing this stuff
“Mommy! Johnny had his eyes open during the Blessing!”
parsy, who says Think about it.....
Oh?
The U.S. is a common law country. In all states except Louisiana (which is based on the French civil code), the common law of England was adopted as the general law of the state, EXCEPT when a statute provides otherwise. Common law has no statutory basis; judges establish common law through written opinions that are binding on future decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction. Broad areas of the law, most notably relating to property, contracts and torts are traditionally part of the common law. These areas of the law are mostly within the jurisdiction of the states and thus state courts are the primary source of common law. Thus, 'common law' is used to fill in gaps. Common law changes over time, and at this time, each state has its own common law on many topics. The area of federal common law is primarily limited to federal issues that have not been addressed by a statute.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c070.htm
Maybe you likes that French law better.
The founding fathers, though not nearly as bad as leftists try to portray them, certainly were susceptible to all vices plaguing mankind since the beginning.
But they are fully deserving of the credit we conservatives give them, because (briefly stated) they figured out the best way to run a country that has ever been figured, before or since.
IQ tests should be rewritten to include a section for measuring the ability to grasp this concept.
(parsy, who would probably agree to take the updated version of the test)
The point is that those posts are yours. It shows your contempt for the Founders and what they created. It explains why you are arguing against NBC and it's meaning.
And your "parsyisms" are meant to disarm so that people don't see your contempt.
Me too.
You have no idea how mean these birthers have been to me over the last few days. When all I have tried to do is help them with their problems. I have pulled out legal cases for them and tried to explain things in a very neutral way, and all they have done is call me bad names and throw monkey pictures at me. I have cried myself to sleep the last two nights and today I can’t even get out of bed. They have no compassion.
parsy, the sensitive freeper who has been nothing but nice to them
Maybe you can’t be honest about your agenda because you’re not confident in it.
Typical darn birther. Never let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy. I am amazed at all this stuff you guys just get in your mind, and it just sticks and sticks and sticks...
parsy, who is amazed, in a neutral fashion, at you guy’s psychic powers.....
You don’t know what I have had to endure at their hands! It has been inhuman. And yes, I have been honest, as I always am, and no matter how nice I am, and how meek, they just fling abuse at me. Snide comments and false accusations. Pictures of trolls. Ugly, hurtful things.
parsy, the pure and innocent.....
Your words are there for anyone to read. Your contempt is clearly stated.
The US Constitution says only a “natural born citizen” can be president.
Vattel talks about citizens, Blackstone talks about subjects.
Vattel wrote his works in swiss french, translated into english the phrase “natural born citizen” appears in “The Law of Nations.”
Trying to pretend the framers were following the Blackstone subject model is nonsense.
I am a subject of the British Crown, you are a US Citizen. The rules for being subject are not the same as those for being a US citizen, or indeed a natural born citizen.
Reception statutes only exist until superceded by US laws and the *US Constitution.*
Vattel defines a Natural born citizen as a person born in a country to parents who are citizens.
Frankly I think that article II is pure genius, the founders seemed to have predicted someone of divided loyalties would attempt Usurpation of the Presidency and CINC of US armed forces.
Its as if the founding fathers were attempting to defend the constitutional republic from their very graves, reaching out to tweak the ears of the Usurper, Barack Obama.
Chalk up one more entry in the Birther Database of False Doo Doo. Along with the 39 social security numbers. The fake Kenyan birth certificates. The perjured affidavits. Orly Taitz at the U N.....etc...etc...etc....
parsy, who assures you are WRONG! (Yet again...)
“Trying to pretend the framers were following the Blackstone subject model is nonsense.”
You are right about this, but by accident. But, how come Wong has all that Old Engkish stuff in it? Am I just imagining things? And the Indiana case? Is my fevered psyche seeing things that aren’t there. Please....Help me....go to those cases and read them and tell me I am just imagining it, I beseech thee!
“Reception statutes only exist until superceded by US laws and the *US Constitution.*”
ALARM and SIREN sounds...But I thought you said the U S had no common law....
parsy, who says you need to, like bp2, get more precise on your Blackstone
Again, you did not deny the thoughts were yours until I pointed out that the posts showed your contempt for the Founders and that they explained your NBC reasoning. I posted them and you gave nonanswers, you didn’t recall, ?????? and the little “parsy” things were missing. Never ONCE did you state that you disagreed with what was said. You still haven’t done so.
What part of the process that took place after the ratification wherein ALL state laws had to come into compliance with the US Constitution don't you drones not understand?
There is no doubt that there is common law in place in the states, That is where it resides. It does not resides. Ask any SCOTUS justice & they will tell you the same thing.
When you all talk common law, you are referring to local laws prior to the Constitution. Get the picture? Your argument is falls flat on its face when you try and use local laws to interpret Federal laws.
I done told you-—you ain’t putting words in my mouth.
parsy, who although wounded to the quick, still has some dignity
Still not denying the sentiment of those posts. When have you said you disagree with them? Never.
From Patlin v. United States:
When you all talk common law, you are referring to local laws prior to the Constitution. Get the picture? Your argument is falls flat on its face when you try and use local laws to interpret Federal laws.
From Wong:
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
parsy, who says COLD BUSTED BY A DRONE! bzzz.....bzzzz.....
Yeah I understand that your only objective is to cause chaos and/or to ruffle people's feathers. It's why you drop so many arguments and resort to ad hominem fallacies like "I can't play with you anymore." I'm laughing at your 6-point list which is basically an overwrought excuse for dropping the argument. You have no refutation. You've been shown wrong. Admit you're wrong and you'll feel better. No one wants a game, just an honest discussion. Silly me for expecting better from people like yourself.
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.