Posted on 05/14/2010 3:21:18 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Hmm, I wonder who the sockpuppet is? I would assume a newer signup.
I have an idea who it might be, hmmm.
You should alert a ping list to this comment, people can keep their eyes open for said sockpuppet.
I had a TV for about 2 years all told, since I was 17. That was in the late 60s. I did have one for the Clinton impeachment, though! ;-)
Does drew 68 have a young son and was or is Drew in the Navy? I don’t feel like checking his past posts, anyone know? I’m going to assume it’s him but it’s pretty stupid to use the same name as he does on here unless he wanted milspecrob, parsifal and his other pals to know he was there.
It’s highly likely BS since they know we are looking at their postings. The post was made only 24 hours ago.
I think it’s hilarious. They have no clue that most of the research and things found are never posted here on FR and their “sock puppet” will never fool anyone.
Yes, Drew68 has said he has a young son and is in some branch of mil, can’t remember what kind. Didn’t pay attention.
Birfer Sock Puppet. Sounds almost cute.
ADMIRATION BUMP
|
> Don’t feed the trolls. Sorry. I just can't help it sometimes! I love the taste of their tears, especially when they WHINE about how "crazy" those of use who dare question Obama’s Eligibility are ... and then the Trolls have the nerve to CRY when they are pummeled by other Conservatives because they are GUILTY by Association with Obama!! "Waaahhh"
|
You’re feeding them what they need - good and hard!
|
Again, excellent find. It ties together Blackstone and Vattel's definitions in one fail swoop. The work done here contributes to the collective body of knowledge that fuels current and yet-to-be-filed Eligibility lawsuits that will eventually either vindicate (highly unlikely) or REMOVE from office Mr. Barack Hussein Obama — Mmmm, Mmmm, Mmmm! |
Since you pinged me, I guess it is OK for me to answer:
I kinda wanted to wait until AFTER you weighed in with your “esteemed” opinion of this alleged legal source. Has it ever occurred to any of you legal giants to go to the same dictionary and look up the word “citizen” and perhaps the term “naturalized citizen.”
I don’t have access to your version, although I do recall owning a copy, somewhere. Here is the 1892 version. Both volumes are online. You may find “citizen” at page 316, of Volume One. There you will find that “native citizens” unlike “naturalized citizens”, may be presidents and vice presidents, making the term the same as “Natural Born Citizen.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=YCRAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Once again-—I leave you alone for a few hours, and come home to find you stuck, head first, in the toilet. You see the real problem here is, one doesn’t use LEGAL DICTIONARIES
to TRUMP CASE LAW. That is why most legal dictionaries will reference cases in the applicable definitions.
Plus, by showing the definition of the “LAW OF NATIONS” above to the whole wide world, you have just gutted your premise that those words refer to the book by Vattel. Clearly, BY YOUR OWN SOURCE, it refers to international law.
parsy, who is shaking his head in wonderment. . .
sure hope someone is reading what we are posting..
All the prattling about allegiance and loyalty has nothing to do with thoughts in the mind of a President, that's for the electorate to winnow out, since the Founders could not possibly know what some putative, future candidate might or might not believe.
What they did do, however, is preclude future legal claims upon that Executive by any other nation. The only way to do that is to have an Executive who is born both in the country, to avoid any foreign jus soli claims, and of citizen parents, in order to avoid any foreign jus sanguinis claims.
I disagree with the latter part, but its not worth arguing about. I believe the law is clear. Wong Kim Ark lays out the foundation. Ankeny slam dunks it home. This Birfer NBC stuff ain’t going nowhere, legally speaking. My advice is, start getting your ducks in a row for an amendment. That’s the only chance you have.
parsy
Wong Kim Ark was declared a 14th Amendment citizen, and Ankeny was dismissed for failing to state a claim.
No foundation and no slam dunk.
You’re not speaking legally, so there is no legally speaking from the point of view you’re espousing. You’re taking dicta and running with it, to the exclusion of the decision of the case, not once but twice.
Wrong.
LOL. Swing and strike.
Read Ankeny again. In short, cases are decided on facts and the law. Regarding Obama, there was no dispute as to the facts. The 2 plaintiffs claimed he was born of a foreign father, and since such was openly admitted by Obama, there was dispute as to the facts. (Plus, it was one of those things which if taken as true, would not change the applicable law.)
So, the judge ruled on it as a matter of law, which he was entitled to do, and it was dismissed. Appeals court also addressed the issue and relying on guidance from Wong, found Obama an NBC.
Indiana Supreme Court had no problem with that holding. So, yes, the issue was heard and ruled on as a matter of law and the case was dismissed—in part, because Obama is an NBC. There’s like 5 pages devoted to it in the appellate decision.
parsy, who wishes it was earlier
Look up there by the number 10. See the stuff that reads “District of Columbia v. Heller”-—that’s a legal case. The judges may use dictionaries, ALRs, AmJurs, treatises, and other stuff. Those are not the LAW, and they don’t trump cases.
In Heller, it isn’t the DICTIONARY, as LAW, that makes the decision. It’s the Court. Because DICTIONARIES ain’t law. If you doubt that, read thru the LEGAL DICTIONARY and look at the thousands of things there that ARE NOT law. Ducking stools might be in there. Wergild (sp) perhaps, too.
parsy, who wishes you would just learn to listen once in a while.
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.
