Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Nero Germanicus
That’s your personal opinion but over the last 115 years, court after court has disagreed with your interpretation.

115 years? Let's see, 2013-115 = 1898. You are citing "Wong Kim Ark." The lynch pin of most subsequently incorrect understanding of Article II.

A 6 to 2 decisions pitting Mostly Northern Republicans against two Democrats, in which they ignore the Debates on the 14th amendment, and the Civil Rights act of 1866, as well as ignoring the Entire War of 1812, all to land in Calvin's court in a Nation who've very principles on Subjectship we rejected when we became a nation.

And of course you take it as a matter of faith that the court COULDN'T have got this wrong, and that the most Liberal interpretation of their ruling is the correct one.

That about sum it up?

I suppose if I thought the court system was infallible, I'd simply believe everything they said too.

183 posted on 05/07/2013 6:48:47 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

There’s been a lot of time to reverse Wong Kim Ark. It hasn’t happened and its been cited as “stare decisis” as recently as last year.

Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012

Yes, I know. Any court or judge who disagrees with you is stupid and corrupt. Save yourself the trouble of writing it again.


200 posted on 05/07/2013 11:02:26 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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