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

To: edge919
"You can't form your own opinion???"
__

LOL, read on. I clearly stated my opinion.

"It takes 12 citations from other cases, plus 100 overall so-called "birther" cases to show that a legal precedent from a Supreme Court case is "overwhelming"???"

And read more carefully, please. I didn't say that the precedent is overwhelming. I said that judicial interpretation of Wong Kim Ark overwhelmingly supports the jus soli point of view rather than the "heritage-based" one. I find your objection to that to be quite baffling, other than the fact that it upsets you that none of the judges agrees with you in the slightest.
47 posted on 05/07/2012 1:45:46 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: BigGuy22
LOL, read on. I clearly stated my opinion.

LOL, then someone has a hard time getting to the point.

I said that judicial interpretation of Wong Kim Ark overwhelmingly supports the jus soli point of view rather than the "heritage-based" one.

Only for citizenship through the 14th amendment. The Ark clearly said that natural-born citizenship isn't defined by the 14th amendment.

I find your objection to that to be quite baffling, other than the fact that it upsets you that none of the judges agrees with you in the slightest.

Then you aren't showing much in the way of reading skills. I said "another says it's in Minor, but only for defining NBC outside of the Constitution" in post 17 ... this is where a judge agrees with me "in the slightest" and I also said, "That latter court also admitted that there was a precedent in Minor" (the latter court is Ankney) ... which also agrees with me. They said Minor defined NBC, except they claimed that the court didn't consider scenarios when both parents are aliens (which they contradict themselves on anyway).

I understand your purpose is to try to deflect this issue, but you'll need to do a much better job.

50 posted on 05/07/2012 2:01:15 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: BigGuy22
And read more carefully, please. I didn't say that the precedent is overwhelming. I said that judicial interpretation of Wong Kim Ark overwhelmingly supports the jus soli point of view rather than the "heritage-based" one. I find your objection to that to be quite baffling, other than the fact that it upsets you that none of the judges agrees with you in the slightest.

That judges don't agree with me is a matter of reassurance from my perspective. I regard the legal system as having been corrupted by Liberal ideology due to the influence which Roosevelt and Truman exerted on it for 20 years, thereby transforming the Federal Judiciary from a careful deliberative body into a collection of activist loons.

This is a common belief among conservatives, and it is only people of liberal persuasion that finds this perspective disconcerting. Conservatives have come to respect the legal system very little. It has become a collection of ideologically corrupt idiots that among other things, permit the slaughter of innocent children because previous idiots in their profession told them to.

It is a system which is ill, and it needs to be healed. One way to heal it is by exposing it's fallacies and ridiculing it. And to that end you are assisting us.

51 posted on 05/07/2012 2:04:15 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | 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