I'd have more (or at least, some) respect. . .
Posted on 02/14/2012 3:17:10 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome
I just showed you what they argued. Go back and read the post. You're not being honest. The judges in Ankeny lied about the plaintiffs argument. The judges in Ankeny contradicted themselves and I showed it to you verbatim. Why do you have such a hard time admitting the truth when it is right in front of your face?? Go back and read the post.
I'd have more (or at least, some) respect. . .
“I just showed you what they argued. “
You are a habitual liar. Provide evidence that they argued Obama was born out of the USA. Provide evidence that the judge lied about what they argued. Show where they appealed based on the judge lying about their argument. I want a link to a court filing, not your posting...because you LIE all the time.
You are a pathetic, habitual LIAR.
Again, YOU wrote:
“That’s what Gray meant when he said the Supreme Court was “committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.””
Here is what they ACTUALLY wrote:
“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court,...”
LIAR.
Are you really THIS stupid?? Go back and read post 156. It gives the plaintiffs argument. Read it. (Althogh it may not do any good, since you are so dishonest and you've proven you can't read with your oblivious misunderstanding of the WKA quote).
“Are you really THIS stupid?? Go back and read post 156. It gives the plaintiffs argument. “
No, it doesn’t. It gives what YOU claim is their argument, in direct contradiction to what the court said their argument was.
You are a known and proven liar. You have, as I have documented, repeatedly lied about what people have written.
I have asked for a link, to show that what you claim about their argument is true, and you have provided nothing. Since you are a known liar, and since you offer no evidence, and since the court directly contradicts you, and since no one has appealed or complained since the decision that the judge ignored their case, I have no choice but to believe you are lying again.
If you have evidence, show it. Otherwise, I’ll trust the court documents - published, and never contradicted by the plaintiffs, showing the opposite of what you wrote.
I did find one case where that argument appeared, almost word for word, but it was in Alabama and was thrown out. It had nothing to do with Ankeny.
So post some evidence. Provide a link, showing the plaintiffs complained or appealed based on the judge making false statements about their argument. I don’t think you can, because you are a repeat liar.
It is a direct citation from the plaintiff's filing AND it jibes with the Ankeny's court's original admission that the plaintiffs argued that NEITHER Obama nor McCain were born in any of the 50 states. I've already explained that the Ankeny court contradicted itself and lied. This citation PROVES it. It's time you simply admit the truth. The sooner you own up to the fact that I'm correct, the better. It's okay to admit it. Repeat after me, "edge919 was right ... again."
“It is a direct citation from the plaintiff’s filing”
Prove it. I say you are lying, because the court decision says you are. Show me where the plaintiffs complained the judge reversed their actual complaint. Show me the appeal, based on the judge ignoring what their complaint was about. Or show me the court documents of their complaint.
You are a habitual liar, so I won’t take your word.
I already gave you the post number and cited each of the claims by number. It’s a direct citation from the plaintiffs filing. Quit whining like a baby; just say “You were right, edge919.” You’re embarrassing yourself with the delusional denial.
“I already gave you the post number and cited each of the claims by number.”
No. YOU gave me YOUR claim. But you have repeatedly FAILED to provide any evidence. No link to a court document. No link to the plaintiffs complaining the judge didn’t understand their complaint. No link showing they appealed based on the judge ignoring the gist of their complaint.
The court ruling flatly contradicts what you say, and you have repeatedly refused to provide ANY documentation.
Further, as I have documented, you have repeatedly posting half of a sentence from WKA and claimed it was what the court said - but the FULL sentence shows the court was REJECTING your opinion.
You are a repeat liar who refuses to give ANY evidence.
I can believe court documents, or you. I chose to believe the published court documents, particularly since the plaintiffs have never supported what you say.
Rogers, the Ankeny decision said point-blank that the plaintiffs argued that NEITHER Obama nor McCain were born in the 50 United States. You came up with a bunch of ridiculous spin, so I found the plaintiff’s filing and what they listed. Google is your friend, so you don’t have to rely on me to do your homework for you.
Your interpretation of the sentence in WKA is wrong. I’ve diagrammed the sentence in other threads and shown specifically how you and other Obots are wrong. Your baseless namecalling doesn’t change the facts. The context of the decision supports what I told you the sentence means. NBCs were excluded from the birth clause of the 14th amendment. That’s what the UNANIMOUS Minor decision said. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
“Rogers, the Ankeny decision said point-blank that the plaintiffs argued that NEITHER Obama nor McCain were born in the 50 United States.”
Again, since this has been pointed out to you - you LIE.
“As to President Obama’s status, the most common argument has been waged by
members of the so-called “birther” movement who suggest that the President was not
born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President’s
alleged refusal to disclose publicly an „official birth certificate that is satisfactory to [the
birthers].” ...
...The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on
constitutional interpretation.
Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction
between a „citizen of the United States and a „natural born Citizen, and the difference
involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”
Appellants Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that
because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is
constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.”
“The context of the decision supports what I told you the sentence means.”
No.
Again, YOU wrote:
“That’s what Gray meant when he said the Supreme Court was “committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.””
Here is what they ACTUALLY wrote:
“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court,...”
LIAR.
Here it is again in plain English directly from the Ankeny decision:
(B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .” Appellants‟ Appendix at 11-12, 16-18.
And now from the plaintiff's filing:
26. Barrack Obama has not certified, or presented certification, containing information that can be verified, that he was born naturally within the legislative, executive, and judicial borders of an Article IV State of the 50 United States of America.
There you go Rogers. Plain English. The IAC lied when they claimed in the part you quoted that the plaintiffs were not making this argument. Read it and weep.
And the full citation from WKA means that the Supreme Court was committed to the view that NBCs and children born of aliens were EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment. The full citation proves me right AND the context from WKA and the full decision of Minor prove me right. That you don't understand it is manifest from the multiple times you paste the full quote only to have it explained again and again by me.
“And now from the plaintiff’s filing: “
Prove it. I’m not interested in your CLAIMS, because you are a proven liar.
“(B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .” Appellants’ Appendix at 11-12, 16-18.”
Yes, and they argued John McCain didn’t qualify because he was born in Panama, and Obama because his father wasn’t a US citizen, and thus he was not a natural born.
“The IAC lied when they claimed in the part you quoted that the plaintiffs were not making this argument.”
That would be gross misconduct. Odd then, that I can find no indication the plaintiffs agree that the court deliberately lied about their charge.
You make the claim - back it up. Why in the hell can you not back it up? Why do you just keep saying ‘believe my post’ when you know I do not? Why can you not show your source?
Because it doesn’t exist. You are lying again...
“And the full citation from WKA means that the Supreme Court was committed to the view that NBCs and children born of aliens were EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment.”
Again, for any who doubt you are a liar:
YOU wrote:
“That’s what Gray meant when he said the Supreme Court was “committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.””
Here is what they ACTUALLY wrote:
“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court,...”
It's not "odd" at all. You're deliberately dishonest, lazy and whiny. I gave you the exact quotes from the plaintiff's filing. All you've done is try to spin your way out of a losing argument, make stupid excuses and call names. Any one can do that. It's time you simply admit you're wrong. This is NOT a winning argument for you.
Yes, read it. It means EXACTLY what I said it means. The court was COMMITTED to the view that NBCs and children born of aliens were EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment. The justices who voted unanimously for this exclusion dealt with a different issue in the Slaughterhouse case. That's Gray's point. He said Slaughterhouse was not comprehensive because those justices could not know they were going to deal with a different aspect of the 14th amendment two years later. The Slaughterhouse exclusions were based ONLY on the subject clause. The Minor and Elk exclusions are based on the birth clause, NOT the subject clause. The court was committed to those exclusions which is MANIFEST (which means "made clear") by a UNANIMOUS decision in Minor. Read it. Learn it. UNDERSTAND IT. You can do it. Don't give up on yourself.
“Yes, read it. It means EXACTLY what I said it means. The court was COMMITTED to the view that NBCs and children born of aliens were EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment.”
Here is what they ACTUALLY wrote:
“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court,...”
You are the perfect birther. You cannot read even a single sentence and understand it. No birther can match your stupidity.
“You’re deliberately dishonest, lazy and whiny. I gave you the exact quotes from the plaintiff’s filing. All you’ve done is try to spin your way out of a losing argument...”
No. You have typed stuff and CLAIMED it is something. But you are a proven liar, and the court directly contradicts you - and the plaintiffs have NEVER claimed the court did not understand what they were saying.
In the face of repeated demands for some evidence your claim is real, you have provided - nothing. To be expected.
There is no reason for this to go on. You make lies & baseless claims, and want people to believe your lies.
In both cases, the clear statement of the court is that you are lying.
That’s a lot of words without actually saying anything rogers. Don’t be such a dishonest whiner. Repeat after me “edge 919 was right again.”
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.