Posted on 08/25/2009 12:06:13 PM PDT by jzlouis
And I'd say that the Supreme Court isn't overly impressed with your University, given Donofrio's lack of success in Birther suits.
They also found the case Barry v. Mercein which suddenly just popped up in Apuzzo’s writings. Obviously he’s reading it too, he copied it.
nd 1842 New York Supreme Court decision that doesn't mention citizenship, natural-born or otherwise. Not too sure what they hope to prove with that, especially since it predates the 14th Amendment by over 55 years.
Has anyone else been doing this type of American Historical research? How does anyone know there aren’t legal scholars helping them? You don’t dig up stuff like that and not know what you’re doing.
I wouldn't be too sure of that.
The judge doesn't state that, the plaintiff, John Barry, said that in his arguements. The judge, in this case Chief Justice Taney (who had some odd ideas of his own on citizenship), dismissed the case due to lack of jurisdiction. The father's citizenship didn't enter into the situation, and the daughter's citizenship wasn't mentioned by the court. The reason for dismissing it was because it wasn't a property case. Barry v. Mercein
Just because another justice decided we followed English common law doesn’t make it true.
What other justices decided was that we followed the 14th Amendment. That amendment says that any person born in the U.S. is a citizen. That particular amendment wasn't around when Chief Justice Taney was on the bench.
That’s the point of the article, dummy.
It never ceases to amaze me how people who haven't a clue as to what they're talking about are always among the first to call other people stupid. Must be some sort of Freudian slip or something.
“It never ceases to amaze me how people who haven’t a clue as to what they’re talking about are always among the first to call other people stupid. Must be some sort of Freudian slip or something.”
****************
In Freudian terms, it’s not a Freudian slip, it’s called projection. (BTW, Freud is pure BS.)
In fallacies of argument, it’s called “Poisoning the Well”.
Exactly and he also cited common law of ENGLAND which has absolutely no bearing on American law. And he also cited what the dissent screamed about, the civil law, which was the children followed the condition of their father.
The fact is the 14th Amendment doesn't state that citizens are natural born citizens, nor does that case make an analogies to that clause. In fact, the case talks about two permanent resident aliens. Obama's father was not a permanent resident alien. He was a temporary resident alien.
Learn the law before you open your mouth because you ARE a dummy.
FYI, Barry v. Mercein states what the civil law and International law was in this country, so obviously it existed and was the intent of the framers. Not what you decide was their intent in the 14th Amendment, which has now been stretched so far as to include being eligible to the presidency.
Do us a favor and go move to England. You talk just like them. You espouse their laws as if they make any difference here. You'd fit right in. But you don't fit in here.
With that one firm, the one which did most of the burying and snatching from official records. IIRC, he has used three law firms since becoming Senator from IL.
I am starting to think that Obama is not the antichrist, but, George Sorros is, George Sorros has to much power.
And Vattel does?
At the end of the day, Justice Gray stated that Ark was a citizen from birth because of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act and other precedent, not just because of English Common Law.
The fact is the 14th Amendment doesn't state that citizens are natural born citizens, nor does that case make an analogies to that clause. In fact, the case talks about two permanent resident aliens. Obama's father was not a permanent resident alien. He was a temporary resident alien.
Why don't you actually read the decision some time? The overriding question is 'subject to the jurisdiction' as the 14th Amendment says. Justice Gray wrote, "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate..."
Learn the law before you open your mouth because you ARE a dummy.
Read the decision before you try and debate it because you only manage to look like an idiot.
FYI, Barry v. Mercein states what the civil law and International law was in this country, so obviously it existed and was the intent of the framers.
No it does not, as you would know if you would actually read the decision.
Do us a favor and go move to England. You talk just like them. You espouse their laws as if they make any difference here. You'd fit right in. But you don't fit in here.
Nah it far more fun hanging around here watching boobs like you.
All you did was just admit that Gray cited a foreign nation's law as if it had any bearing on his job. Vattel was the influence the framers of the Constitution contemplated while constructing the Constitution, stupid. That's taken straight from the debates.
Why don't you actually read the decision some time? The overriding question is 'subject to the jurisdiction' as the 14th Amendment says. Justice Gray wrote, "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate..."
I did read the decision, stupid. It's you who favors a common law view that isn't even American, let alone what Americans were practicing as their law at the time. That's what you don't get. Or, you probably do get it, you just decide that because a Justice makes BAD conclusions, it's ok. Go read the dissent. We didn't practice English common law and the 14th Amendment was a carryover of the legislation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to make sure it became permanent. If the framers of that amendment wanted to make all citizens born here able to run for potus, they would have used the terminology in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and they didn't. Neither does Gray make that analogy. Only people like you make that analogy so it applies to Obama and hug Wong Kim Ark like a teddy bear because you have nothing else.
Learn the law before you open your mouth because you ARE a dummy.
First you come in here and trash Universities for studying the issue and then you decide to call everyone else who finds sense in what Donofrio pulls out as dummies. You're just so much better than everyone else when the truth of the matter is, you're nothing but another internet arm chair critic who has nothing to back up his snide remarks. You've done zero research of your own. Your'e a loudmouth. No one likes you here and you've been reported so many times for your attitude that I doubt you'll be around much longer. Your boy won't ever be re-elected again. Your far left-wing views are plummeting in the polls and the people will oust you in the end. That annoys you so of course you have to flock to right-sided view forums where you think antagonizing people will break them or something.
Here's a hint. All you're doing is proving how shallow of a life you have. Go where you belong because you certainly don't belong here. There's nothing conservative about you. All you do is run around this place trying to tick off every conservative you can find and the moderators should have gotten rid of you a long time ago.
Quote please.
I did read the decision, stupid.
Obviously you did not. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such asinine statements.
Obvioulsy you're mad because history is coming back to bite you and you don't like it. Too bad. Deal with it. By the time this country is done revisting that case, its law review, and the rest of what the framers had to say, you're not going to like the "change" that is coming.
I'm glad this happened. It's been far too long your ilk has crapped all over the Constitution. I'm sure guys like Glenn Beck are your worst nightmare too, along with the Tea Parties, the socialized medicine protests and everything else that is ready to explode around here.
I hope they reinstitute forcing you to take an oath or find another place to live. I'd be all for that. Go find another nation to destroy. There's nothing about you that remotely compares with even the liberalist man that sat in the constitutional convention. You're that evil.
You liberals are done. Everyone hates you and democrat is now synonymous with socialist. Get used to your new label. You deserve all the fallout you're getting.
I think you are spot on!
And if you need a quote to find where the constitutional debates read from Locke, Rousseau, Vattel and others, you’re pathetic. Here you sit on your perch acting like a lawyer and you don’t even know the fundamentals of what took place during the construction of the constitution. That takes nerve to ask me where to find it. You’re laughable, Non-Sequitur and you’re no lawyer, you’re just an arm chair blowhorn.
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.