Posted on 09/29/2011 8:43:31 AM PDT by Politics4US
Mark Levin says Rubio is a natural born citizen, and threatens to ban birthers on his social sites.
You must have the one, before you can have the other. The requirement of conception is axiomatic, and therefore need not be specifically mentioned.
To be a U.S. citizen one must either be BORN a citizen or be naturalized as a citizen. There is no law for naturalizing anyone in utero.
There is no law because there is no need. Other than exercising the right to life, no other rights need be asserted. A person's citizenship is an integral part of the person. It is like eyes or hair color, an innate component of their existence.
My pleasure. I have found that in discussions, often times you must sneak your argument up on them. Separated from an understanding of the ramifications, many people will to agree to things, and even declare them "obvious." Once you've got them to admit to the point, you then show them how the one thing is very like the other. At this point, they will either agree, or suffer a cognitive dissonance. (Some of them do anyway. :) )
Right on suzyque, amazing how so many here are willing to fall in line with the commies on the NBC issue.
No he doesn't. Having defined natural-born citizen as one born in the country he does not contradict it anywhere. You build in a definition of 'birthright' that Madison obviously didn't use.
Madison defined “Born Citizen” as something more than dirt under the birth mess.
In this case you discovered/uncovered a poster who doesn’t know when life begins and won’t confide whether he/she thinks RU486 is good or bad. I’d call that a very good day’s work.
What’s next? Ask him/her if the repeal of DADT was a good or bad thing?
;)
You have to borrow a brain to understand something? I think i'm beginning to see the problem here.
1. Congratulations, Perry Mason!!! You just gave case law which supports the holding in Wong Kim Ark relating to allegiance and jurisdiction.
Just because a stream connects to an ocean doesn't make it suitable for sailing.
2. People like you are why they dont let people without law licenses practice law. Or let chimpanzees play with loaded guns.(OH Tee Hee!!!, Fabia is a bigger b&tch than I am!!!)
Lawyers are so full of themselves. Most legislators are NOT lawyers. They are just ordinary people, yet we are meant to believe in the need for "experts" to tell us what the Amateurs meant when they created the law? R-i-g-h-t.
3. Venus is NOT a citizenship case. It is about a SHIP. (Oh, I am ROTFLMAO!!!)
Wong Kim Ark was not a Presidential eligibility case. You can start Rolling on the floor again when the relationship to your point finally dawns on you. :)
4. If you were a first year law student, you would have gotten an F on this masterpiece because you failed to apply the sited law to the facts of the instant case. (???)
Were the intent to apply the facts to the case, I would have done so. The intent was to acquaint an idiot with knowledge, which she apparently still does not comprehend.
5. To the extent citizenship is implicated at all, it is only to the extent of rights and obligations related to temporary residence, and has nothing to do natural born citizens. In fact, a NBC doing business with the belligerent, would have found themselves in the same straights.
It has to do with the fact that a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from an Era which overlapped the founder's specifically cites VATTEL as the best legal authority on the meaning of what constitutes a citizen. The fish do not jump any higher into the boat than this, and you seemingly still cannot catch one.
6. She said go to this place and cut and paste this:
If a citizen of the United States establishes his domicile in a foreign country between which and the United States hostilities afterwards break out, any property shipped by such citizen before knowledge of the war and captured by an American cruiser after the declaration of war must be condemned as lawful prize.
You may have missed it, but the case itself was decided years ago, and no further beating of that dead horse is necessary. If we should ever have need of trying to convince dead judges with facts and arguments about other dead people and property, i'm sure we will find you and your friend's advice useful, but as the point is to demonstrate what was the resources and thinking of these long dead judges regarding qualifications of citizenship, we have no need to worry about swaying their opinions at this late date. Something tells me that in their present state, they are even now likely more reasonable than are you.
She also said if you intend to continue attempting to practice law without a license, you should at least have some sort of idea what the case is about. She also said the first seven words (If a citizen of the United States) should have been your clue that this case was NOT was your friend.
I really shouldn't pick on your friend. God only knows what kind of crap you explained to her, and being your friend, she might likely support you even when you are acting like a kook. I personally don't give a crap about the fate of "The Venus", likely as not it is currently releasing methane in a rotting stratum of soil somewhere. Somehow you have gotten the notion that the disposition of the case is still in doubt and that someone should file an Amicus brief regarding it. No, the point of referring to it was an attempt to demonstrate to you that Vattel was a significant presence in law at this time of the nation's history, but I suspect nudging you into competence is a futile endeavor.
7. If you think it takes two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, then that helps explain your 6 previous errors. (Ouch, she can be sooo castrating!!!)
There were no errors on my part but one; Assuming you had powers of comprehension beyond those you actually posses. The alleged errors to which you refer are all on your part for not comprehending the purpose of citing the case. Again, we aren't trying to argue the case before the court, we are simply trying to shove a little knowledge down the throat of a child. Unfortunately, the child spat it back up in a much more disgusting form as children are wont to do.
Oh, Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
And then it laughed, as a child is also wont to do after having soiled itself.
She hates this kind of stuff, says that I owe her, and I have to help her on a brief this weekend. But that is kind of fun to me.
Hopefully it's not a case about citizenship, you two would, without a doubt, insist on talking about ships. God help her client if you are assisting her. Few situations are improved by adding a moron.
That fat is she? You shouldn't talk about your friends that way. Well, at least you both probably have something in common. :)
In deciding whether a person has obtained the right of an acquired domicile, it is not to be expected that much if any assistance should be derived from mere elementary writers on the law of nations. They can only lay down the general principles of law, and it becomes the duty of courts to establish rules for the proper application of those principles.
Obviously. Like the bible, people can't read it for themselves and understand what it means. They need an "expert" to explain it to them. :)
MERE ELEMENTARY WRITERS ON THE LAW OF NATIONS. . .
Oh, sure. That is good. Oh, I bet you are still having trouble sitting down after Fabia tore you a new one!!! I am still laughing about Perry Mason and chimpanzees...Oh Tee Hee! And the ship thingy!!! OH MY!!!
I'm actually starting to find it pretty funny myself! Never before have a I encountered someone radiating so massively in the spectrum of extreme "dumb." If you have a point, I'm sure I missed it, but it has been entertaining anyway.
I've posted examples. Your mind might have slipped a gear and forgot them. It would explain a lot.
And all of your examples except two come AFTER February 2007, DURING his Presidential campaign.
Ah, so you DO remember them. Thanks. Proved my point. You are lying. No further questions your honor.
If your argument is that a presence inside a border is all that is necessary, you do not invoke birthright and family.
Whats next? Ask him/her if the repeal of DADT was a good or bad thing?
;)
Yes. That might work pretty well too! :)
I don’t look for Troll to be very forthcoming from here on out. Something tells me he/she’s had a crash course on ozone, lightning and Viking Kitties. ;)
Part of this is because you are reading 1814 cases (Oh, that is the year of the Battle of New Orleans!!! like the song in my Internet Article--Vattle Birthers Should Just STFU!!! from 2010) anyway---perhaps you should try reading Wong or even Minor and see how many times Vattel is quoted??? That way you can show how real live courts believe you. Right???
Or, you could just read my two latest Internet Articles to figure out where you are going wrong and repent:
Translators??? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Translators!!! (Unlike Vattle Birthers)
“ineligible” bump
Why not? Natural-born citizenship is a birthright, bestowed upon people born in this country. What is so odd about that?
He defined natural-born citizen as one who is born in this country regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents.
And you can tell your BFF Fabia that Obama’s minions used a freedom of religious speech case to support their claims the US adopted feudal subjectship law as the definition of a free & soverreign citizen.
As I stated earlier, the change from S. 2678 to S. Res. 511, a resolution [R]ecognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen] moved curiously swiftly.
I will also not go into all the whereas, as I have already covered this. You can read them here, along with my commentary. What I will do is pick a couple of them apart that pertain to Olson & Tribes analysis, as well as the testimony/analysis of Olson & Tribe. I will also place special emphasis on Tribe who is on record as officially endorsing Obama as well as a current member of Obamas domestic policy team well before S. Res. 511 was introduced. I do believe Olsons part, for the most part, was pure decoration for the benefit of the GOP to get them to go along with the scheme. Ill let you judge for yourself by reading this article from the World Socialist Website. There could be no better cover-up, than to put a so called conservative constitutional lawyer who is loathed by the liberal left, but also happens to be a closet liberal civil rights activist in bed with a progressive one.
First lets begin with the written analysis/testimony that was permanently recorded in the congressional record on April 30, 2008 but was officially sent to the Senate on April 8th through the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
The analysis which begins by citing that the Constitution does not define natural born citizen & that Congress has never given a definition either can be argued against. Some argue otherwise, however the best place to find the definition would be in the 39th Congress records of 1866 when the 14th Amendment was being drafted. They then go on to cite Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 which is a 1983 Supreme Court case on freedom of religious speech. While this had me baffled for a day or so, it suddenly hit me. Maybe they were not using the deciding opinion of the case. Maybe they went to the dissenting opinion. BINGO! Justice Brennan dissenting wrote:
Finally, and most importantly, the argument tendered by the court is misguided because the Constitution is not a static document whose every meaning on every detail is fixed for all time by the life experience of the Framers. We have recognized in a variety of constitutional contexts that the practices that were in place at the time any particular guarantee was enacted in to the Constitution do not necessarily fix forever the meaning of that guarantee
So basically what they did was take Brennans dissenting opinion and use it as precedent to usurp our guarantee, our national security protection under the Rule of Law that the person attaining to the highest office of land, the Commander of our military forces would have no foreign influences or intrigues. But let us not stop there with this opinion, Brennan goes on to write:
Our primary task must be to translate the majestic generalities of the Bill of Rights, conceived as part of the pattern of liberal government in the eighteenth century
And there we have it, that big its my constitutional right to be president some day analogy thrown right in our faces. Framers be damned!
Who's the dumbass now? All the dirty details of the cover-u can be read here: http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/the-congressional-natural-born-citizen-part-iii-mccain-s-res-511-were-meant-to-sanitize-obamas-ineligibility-to-be-president/
“screwed by a corrupt judge accepting a promotion from Obama in exchange for throwing a case through fraud”
Do you think it helps one’s case to be such a sore loser as to make up accusations against the Court?
“What court case did he cite after Minor v Happersett - at which point the court clearly stated that the issue was NOT settled?”
Again, listen to YouTube clip. Levin simply will not entertain this nonsense.
The most important case has been pointed out to you many, many times. Questions do not remain unsettled simply because you refuse to learn the answers.
Do you ever post on anything besides eligibility threads? Do you have a link to a comment youve (previously) made that’s harshly critical of Obama? If so, could you post the link. Thank you in advance.
Also, if its not too much trouble, could you point me to your most spirited defense or promotion of conservatism and/or most scathing indictment of liberalism? Thanks.
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.