Posted on 04/12/2013 8:22:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
L.A. County Cites 16 ‘Maternity Hotels’ Serving Asian Visitors
LA Times reports the following:
Following a flurry of complaints, Los Angeles County inspectors have cited 16 “maternity hotel” owners for illegally operating boardinghouses in residential zones.No major health or safety issues were found at the hotels, where women from Asia stay to give birth to U.S. citizen babies. But some of the facilities, which were in Rowland Heights or Hacienda Heights, were cited for building and fire code violations, according to a report released Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
AND YOU ARE STILL DOING IT!!! The SALIENT ASPECT of the quote Is:
"born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens."
PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,
PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,
PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS,PARENTS, PARENTS!
THE ENTIRE F****** ARGUMENT IS ABOUT PARENTAL ALLEGIANCE!!!!
It has ALWAYS been about Parental ALLEGIANCE. YOUR argument has always been "IT doesn't matter!" The Point in contention was whether or not Bingham supported YOUR interpretation that it doesn't matter at all, or whether Bingham insisted that the Parents owe no allegiance to anyone else.
Bingham SPECIFICALLY, and EXPLICITLY informed us that the ALLEGIANCE OF THE PARENTS does matter, Meaning his understanding is with US, not with you.
Here are your exact words again. First you quote Bingham.
“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens.”
Bingham clearly states that natural born citizens are those who are CITIZENS BY BIRTH.
And here is the rest of the quote which completely rebukes your claim regarding what Bingham meant.
There is no such word as white in your constitution. Citizenship, therefore does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and compliance with their provisions become naturalized, and are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.
You Quoted a piece of what Bingham said while claiming it supported you, but you KNEW that the rest of the quote completely disproved your claim, yet you did it anyway thinking no one would check on you.
You demonstrated intellectual dishonesty (actually I would say it is a hallmark of your arguing style) and you demonstrated to everyone that you cannot be trusted to tell the truth. If you deceived about this, what else could you have deceived about? (In my opinion, pretty much everything.)
You are STILL attempting to hide the fact that Bingham IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE!
How about you just admit it? Here is some suggested words.
"Bingham is not on my side."
Here's a variation. "Bingham agrees with you, not me. "
"Bingham has stabbed my theory in the back." Also works.
Face it Jeff, Losing Bingham is a Mortal blow to your argument, and you just can't stand it. You tried to finesse his words into supporting your argument, but you couldn't do it without cutting off his clarification. And you were caught attempting to do it!
Okay. Of Parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.
I gave the full quote, in any event.
YOUR argument has always been "IT doesn't matter!" The Point in contention was whether or not Bingham supported YOUR interpretation that it doesn't matter at all, or whether Bingham insisted that the Parents owe no allegiance to anyone else.
No. My "argument," as you call it (although it's really only an ACCURATE representation of the history) has always been that since Bingham didn't give a definition or explain exactly what he meant by "PARENTS owing allegiance to no other sovereignty," we should look to see what ELSE he and the other Representatives and Senators said during the course of the debate in order to understand who that did and did not include.
And I made clear that neither Wilson (who was very EXPLICITLY AGAINST YOUR BS CLAIMS), nor Bingham (who was in the room while Wilson was speaking and made no objection whatsoever), nor Cook (who also was ABSOLUTELY EXPLICIT AGAINST YOUR BS CLAIMS) support the idea that anyone ever meant to include resident aliens as people who "had allegiance to some other sovereignty."
In fact, the words of both Wilson and Cook are absolutely, EXPLICITLY AGAINST SUCH A CLAIM.
Anyone who wishes the details can see posts 139 and 143.
That's why your claim is absolute BS.
As for your idiotic accusation of "intellectual dishonesty" on my part, while giving yourself a complete pass for a far worse offense, well, we've been over than already. A couple of times at least.
How many times do you want to go over it?
The DIFFERENCE, is the stuff I didn't bother posting (because it was too long and irrelevant) does not CHANGE THE MEANING of what was quoted. It is an elaboration of what Madison had already said, but not contextually different.
What JEFF attempted to do was to change the understanding of Bingham's position completely, and not by Accident or laziness. By DELIBERATE intent to deceive us into believing that merely "birth in the republic" was all that was necessary, when the rest of the quote explicitly clarified that it was not.
I didn't really think he was trying to deceive, but if you're going to make a huge issue out of someone else's treatment of quotes, you better damn sight make sure you treat them properly yourself--a Caesar's wife kind of thing. The violence of his reaction now makes me wonder if he knew full well what he was doing.
The Issue was never about leaving out some of a quote. Many quotes are too long anyways, the issue is leaving out THE section of a quote which COMPLETELY changes it's meaning. What Jeff intentionally left out rebukes his argument. What I left out was immaterial elaboration on what Madison had already said, and it did not add anything appreciable to it's meaning.
And then you come along and say the one thing is exactly like the other, And then you grab the rest of the text and stick it back in while highlighting it as if it was some great revelation? The omitted text was trivial and irrelevant, but you acted like it completely reversed the meaning. I could only interpret this as behaving like a Pr*ck. I'm fed up with dealing with these sorts of misdirections. I waste time enough arguing with Jeff.
From the courts, pretty much.
Why, just look at King James' son, when he took over. HE certainly didn't have any problems in getting whatever he wanted.
It's safe to say, by this point in his life, he wasn't King anymore. Furthermore, his opponent wasn't the Courts, it was Oliver Cromwell.
Once he assumed power, the courts belonged to him.
"Execute the King? Sure, whatever you say Lord Protector Cromwell. Would you like fries with that?"
.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It's always some excuse with you, isn't it? There was nothing wrong with the ruling in Calvin's Case. It was a reasonable ruling, and it allowed a small boy to inherit the estate that his relative had left him. It also allowed the two countries, Scotland and England, that now shared a King, to begin to move their peoples closer together in a relationship that would end with them becoming a single country.
So you are now arguing that laws should be "outcome based"? Are you sure you're not a Liberal? My understanding of Law is that it should not be modified/manipulated to suit whatever beneficial result can be wrung out of it today. Usually this only causes bigger problems tomorrow.
The consequences of a ruling either good or bad for some particular plaintiff or defendant, should not enter in to the consideration of how the law should be interpreted. It is presumed that the creators of the Law, (in most cases Legislators) had already weighed the consequences, and decided that the law they created would do more good than ill. It is THEIR right to create the law, and it is the Judges responsibility to see that it is carried out consistent with their intentions.
And anyone in history, no matter how UNauthoritative (like David Ramsay and Samuel Roberts), who said something that even SOUNDS like it might support your idiotic BS... why, THEY'RE freakin' geniuses.
I'm beginning to suspect you are a clever teenager. Too often do you veer into these logic-less pronouncements, that while emotionally satisfying to you, are indicative of a lack of understanding of the overall situation. "Geniuses" either pro or con, is irrelevant to the point. What they said and wrote is what it is, and they are what they are. By today's standards, ALL OF THEM were Freakin' Geniuses, including the people you are fond of citing.
Sorry, but you've been called on your BS. Your response has been to push it harder and harder. And every time you push it, anyone watching gets to see once again just what a load of BS you're peddling.
And more whistling past the graveyard from you.
I guess you never heard of this Chap.
Seems like he has dealt with this sort of thing before. More than once, in fact.
.
.
You'll be wanting this back now, I think. :)
Okay, I’ll grant that England had faced a couple of SOMEWHAT situations before.
It’s very a minor point anyway, and it really doesn’t change your shipload of FAIL.
My point was that there was nothing wrong with the Calvin’s Case decision.
Fact is, there is a boatload - never mind that, there is a CRUISELINER-load of legal authorities, REAL legal authorities throughout history, that say you’re full of it.
And you, some guy on the internet, are supposedly smarter than all the assembled judges of England, all of the Supreme Court, and virtually every REAL legal authority in history.
If you’re so damn smart, why aren’t you on the Supreme Court?
Because you say so, right? (I think it provided important context.) And that's the problem--you can't see anything outside your own head. A court disagrees with you? It couldn't possibly be that they know as much as or more than you do about the issue and came to a reasoned, honest conclusion. No, they must have been compromised or doing someone else's bidding or had a political axe to grind. Somebody else truncates a quote? They're a font+5 liar. You truncate a quote? "It was irrelevant." It all comes down to "reality is what I say it is." Sorry if I'm a pr*ck for pointing that out.
1. Letters Patent to Sir Humphrey Gilbert, 1578.
2. Sir Walter Raleigh’s Charter, 1584.
3. The Charter of Acadia, 1603.
4. Virginia Charter, 1606.
5. Virginia Charter, 1609.
6. Virginia Charter, 1611-1612.
7. Mayflower Compact, 1620.
8. New England Charter, 1620.
9. Ordinance for Virginia, 1621.
10. Charter, Dutch West India Company, 1621.
11. Grant of New Hampshire, 1629.
12. Massachusetts Charter, 1629.
13. Dutch Charter of Privileges to Patroons, 1629.
14. Charter of Plymouth to William Bradford, 1629.
15. Maryland Charter, 1632.
16. Cambridge Agreement, 1632. (Massachusetts)
17. Dorchester Agreement, 1633. (Massachusetts)
18. Salem “Agreement,” 1634. (Massachusetts)
19. Watertown Agreement, 1634. (Massachusetts)
20. Grant of New Hampshire, 1635.
21. Pilgrim “Code of Law,” 1636.
22. Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 1639.
23. New Haven Fundamentals, 1639.
24. Grant of Maine, 1639.
25. Government of Providence, 1639. (Rhode Island)
26. Government of Newport, 1639. (Rhode Island)
27. Government of Pocasset, 1639 (Portsmouth, Rhode Island)
28. Maryland Act, 1639.
29. Agreement of Settlers at Exeter, 1639. (New Hampshire)
30. Dover Combination, 1639. (New Hampshire)
31. Bradford’s surrender of his patent of Plymouth to the freemen,1640.
32. Agreement at Providence, 1640. (Rhode Island)
33. Massachusetts Body of Liberties, 1641.
34. Piscataqua River Government, 1641. (New Hampshire)
35. Government of Rhode Island, 1641.
36. New Haven “Fundamentals,” 1643. (revision of 1639)
37. Patent for Providence Plantations, 1643.
38. Acts and Orders of 1647 (Agreement between Providence,
Warwick, Portsmouth, and Newport in forming a common
assembly).
39. Wells, Gorgiana, and Piscataqua form independent governments, 1649. (Maine)
40. Puritan “Laws and Liberties,” 1658.
41. Connecticut Charter, 1662.
42. Charter of Carolina, 1663.
43. A Declaration and Proposals of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of Carolina, 1665.
44. Rhode Island Charter, 1663.
45. Grant to the Duke of York, 1664.
46. Concessions and Agreement (East Jersey), “Nova Caesarea,”1664.
47. Royal Grant to the Province of Maine, 1664.
48. Concessions of East Jersey, 1665.
49. Concessions and Agreements of the Lords Proprietors of the Province of Carolina, 1665.
50. Charter of Carolina, 1665.
51. Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, 1669.
52. Declaration of the Lords Proprietors (Jersey), 1672.
53. Grant to Sir George Carteret (New Jersey), 1674.
54. Grant to the Duke of York, 1674.
55. Royal Grant to the Province of Maine, 1674.
56. Privileges granted by Dutch to citizens of Delaware, 1673.
57. Charter of Fundamentals of West New Jersey, 1676.
58. Charles II’s grant of New England to the Duke of York, 1676.
59. Concessions of West Jersey, 1677.
60. Commission for New Hampshire, 1680. (Commission of John
Cutt)
61. Duke of York’s second grant to Penn and others, 1680.
62. Pennsylvania Charter, 1681.
63. “Fundamentals” of West New Jersey, 1681.
64. Concessions to the Province of Pennsylvania, 1681.
65. Pennsylvania Frame of 1682.
66. Penn’s Charter of Liberties, 1682. .
67. New York “Charter of Liberties and Privileges,” 1683.
68. Pennsylvania Frame, 1683 (Revision of 1682).
69. Fundamental Constitutions, East New Jersey, 1683.
70. Commission of Andros, 1688.
71. Massachusetts Charter, 1691.
72. New York “Charter and Privileges of the Majesty’s Subjects,1691.”
73. Pennsylvania Frame, 1696 (Revision of 1683).
74. Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges, 1701.
75. Charter of Delaware, 1701.
76. Explanatory Massachusetts Charter, 1725.
77. Georgia Charter, 1732
1. New England Confederation of 1643.
2. Commission of Council for Foreign Plantations, 1660.
3. William Penn’s Plan of Union, 1696.
4. Report of Board of Trade on union of New York with other
colonies, 1696.
5. D’Avenant Plan, 1698.
6. A Virginian’s Plan, in “An Essay on the Government of the
English Plantations on the Continent of America,” 1701.
7. Livingston Plan, 1701.
8. Earl of Stair’s Proposals, 1721.
9. Plan of the Lords of Trade, 1721.
10. Daniel Coxe’s Plan, in “A Description of the English province
of Carolina,” 1722.
11.Kennedy Plan, 1751.
12. Franklin Plan, 1754.
13. Richard Peter’s Plan, 1754.
14. Hutchinson Plan, 1754.
15. Plan of the Lords of Trade, 1754.
16. Dr. Samuel Johnson’s Plan, 1760.
17. Galloway Plan, 1774.
18. Franklin’s Articles of Confederation, 1775.
19. The Articles of Confederation, 1778.
20. Drayton’s Articles of Confederation, 1778.
21. Webster’s Sketches of American Policy, 1785.
22. Randolph’s Plan, 1787.
23. Pinckney’s Plan, 1787.
24. The U.S. Constitution, 1787.
Now see, this is another one of those fallacies of false equivalency. You are equating my suggestion that the Judges of England might have been motivated by something other than the law as being the same thing as me thinking i'm "smarter than all the assembled judges of England, all of the Supreme Court, and virtually every REAL legal authority in history."
I believe the Latin for this is "non sequitur."
No it didn't. It was just elaboration on what Madison had already said. It was just added detail, and of no great significance.
And that's the problem--you can't see anything outside your own head.
No one thinks with another's mind. They think with their own. And this is a surprise to you?
It couldn't possibly be that they know as much as or more than you do about the issue and came to a reasoned, honest conclusion.
Having some understanding of how courts operate, and having the knowledge that they have not addressed the evidence on my side of the issue, it is a safe bet that the courts are in error. That a precedent driven court system flies into the ground is not surprising to me.
Again, Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, Wickard v Fillburn, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood v Casey, and so forth tells us the court system is deeply screwed up. Why you seem to think they are infallible is beyond my understanding.
No, they must have been compromised or doing someone else's bidding or had a political axe to grind.
The Evidence indicates this is a plausible explanation.
Somebody else truncates a quote? They're a font+5 liar. You truncate a quote? "It was irrelevant." It all comes down to "reality is what I say it is."
And here you go acting like a prick again. The part Jeff Winston truncated is the part which absolutely contradicts his argument. It was the essential part of the quote. The part that brings clear understanding of the man's position.
The part I didn't bother to quote (but posted the link for) is merely further detail on what Madison had already said. It did not change the meaning of his statement, and it did not create a false understanding of his position.
And then here you come along with your transparent attempt to retaliate against me because I hammered Jeff for what he did. Your effort had nothing to do with any real point, you just wanted an excuse to pretend I had done the same thing. It was an effort by you to create a "tit for tat", because your buddy was caught red-handed twisting Bingham's words and you wanted revenge.
Sorry if I'm a pr*ck for pointing that out.
No you're not, you're sorry that you couldn't make the accusation stick. As far as i'm concerned, the "prick" appellation is an accurate response for such an attempted deceit.
No, there’s no fallacy there.
There may be a bit of euphemistic speaking, but there’s no fallacy.
When I say that you are supposedly “smarter” than all of the assembled judges of England, all of the US Supreme Court, and virtually every real legal authority in history, I largely mean that you pretend that your authority (which in reality is nonexistent) somehow trumps theirs.
The fact is, virtually every legal authority in history is against your claim. Your response to that: “Oh, that’s an argument ad numerum.”
And no, it isn’t. The combined legal expertise of every real authority in history represents the combined legal expertise of every real authority in history. It represents a massive mountain of literally thousands of years of detailed legal study, knowledge and expertise. And virtually every bit of that mountain of study, knowledge and expertise says your theory is complete and total BS.
In comparison, you and your imagined legal and historical “authority” are nothing more than a june-bug on a cow pattie.
The hilarious thing is that you pretend it’s the other way around: that all the assembled legal scholars of US history are the june-bug and you are the mountain.
It’s pretty pathetic, really.
No, it doesn't bring clear understanding, because he provided no definition of "not subject to the jurisdiction, etc."
Clarification of what he meant is to be found in his other comments, and the comments of other Representatives, including some that were made while he was in the room, which he never objected in the slightest to.
Aside from which, I had already duly quoted a statement upthread from Bingham that was PRACTICALLY VERBATIM the same as the one you called me a "liar" for not including in one particular specific post.
Aside from which, you had already produced such statements so many times (always leaving out the full context of the comments from other Representatives, and always leaving out Bingham's other words equating "born a citizen" and "natural born citizen," of course) that any reasonable person would consider those quotes had already been aired.
Fact is, I haven't dodged the full words of Bingham or anybody else. I'm the one who's posted most of what early authorities had to say about natural born citizenship and Presidential eligibility. It certainly hasn't come from you, because the vast majority of what was said doesn't agree with your BS claims.
The part I didn't bother to quote (but posted the link for) is merely further detail on what Madison had already said. It did not change the meaning of his statement, and it did not create a false understanding of his position.
Ha! The part you left out was certainly relevant to the meaning of what Madison was saying, and not in a way that was favorable to what you were trying to claim. Possibly even more importantly, you left out the entire context of Madison's comments, which shows that it wasn't that the Founders hated the entire common law and were trying to get rid of it at all costs, it was that some of the Founders were greatly disturbed that they DIDN'T find themselves able to incorporate the common law into our national law pretty much wholesale, because they feared that vitally important civil rights that were included in it were being left out of our national law.
Your point, essentially, was that the Founders hated England so much they rejected every common law principle. That's rubbish, and it's shown to be rubbish by THE CONTEXT THAT YOU (purposefully?) LEFT OUT.
And then here you come along with your transparent attempt to retaliate against me because I hammered Jeff for what he did.
No. He came along with a "transparent attempt" to call you out for your obvious hypocrisy.
By the way, the documentation on this only gets clearer and clearer.
I for one am continuing to do research, and it only becomes clearer.
Your claim that “natural born citizen” requires both being born on US soil, and having citizen parents when you’re born, is absolute, total, complete BS.
And there’s no real ambiguity about that in history. There are a few people who actually did maintain otherwise - a VERY, VERY few - but most of those really didn’t know what they were talking about, and the extremely few who did were completely overruled by far more authoritative figures.
So you can keep slinging your BS is you want, but it’ll only keep getting debunked. And every debunking from here on out will only get clearer and stronger.
Because you said so, right? And I'm obviously wrong for thinking it provided important context. I notice you didn't even think it was worth asking what context I thought it provided. That's what I mean by your inability to see anything outside your own head.
The Evidence indicates this is a plausible explanation.
There is no "Evidence" that any of the courts have been compromised except for the fact that they disagree with you.
And then here you come along with your transparent attempt to retaliate against me because I hammered Jeff for what he did.
Don't flatter yourself. I've been reading your Nerf "hammering" of Jeff for weeks, on multiple threads, and haven't said a word. I was just amused that the guy who was jumping up and down screaming "Gotcha!" because someone truncated a quote, ended up doing the same thing himself. The point of the advice about motes and beams in your eye isn't to compare whose is bigger.
Let us turn your argument on it's head and say their ability to reason is likely no better than mine. In addition to that, my ability to access information vastly outstrips theirs, or indeed most courts until fairly recently. I have a better vantage point. That is all.
About these things, there is no "pretense" they are self evidently true.
The fact is, virtually every legal authority in history is against your claim.
And here you repeat your same old song. Beyond Madison (who's support for you I dispute) you have no FACTUAL Authorities on your side. Legal? Meaning did they work in Law? Yes. People who know what the h*ll the Delegates did in Convention? No. You have an abject puacity of examples from among the group of people who know what they are talking about. Ex post facto legal talking heads? Those you have aplenty.
Your response to that: “Oh, that’s an argument ad numerum.”
A point, the relevance of which, you have demonstrably failed to comprehend, else you would stop asserting the fallacy. One more time. The numbers of people who think something, is NOT PROOF. At one time, the authorities of the world thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. They were all wrong.
And no, it isn’t. The combined legal expertise of every real authority in history represents the combined legal expertise of every real authority in history.
No it doesn't. The ONLY opinions of relevance are those of Convention Delegates and State Ratifying legislatures. Subsequent lawyers can only offer their personal opinions, not first hand testimony. The legal system has a term for such opinion; "hearsay."
The nation has been saddled with a great deal of misery because Judges have presented their own opinions as law, when in fact it was not. There *IS* no right to Abortion guaranteed by the 14th amendment. It is made up bullsh*t, just as is your understanding of "natural born citizen."
It represents a massive mountain of literally thousands of years of detailed legal study, knowledge and expertise.
And it is all moot unless it represents a seat inside the deliberations. No amount of studying old law is relevant when people are creating new law. It becomes merely "hearsay" opinion. (And contradicted by other opinions, as I have shown.)
And virtually every bit of that mountain of study, knowledge and expertise says your theory is complete and total BS.
As I have explained above, if they don't have first hand knowledge regarding the creation of new law, their knowledge of old law won't give them understanding of it. It will, in fact, give them a MISUNDERSTANDING of it.
The hilarious thing is that you pretend it’s the other way around: that all the assembled legal scholars of US history are the june-bug and you are the mountain.
Not at all. I just notice that from their perspective, this is a trivial issue, and it is not surprising that they didn't bother to get it accurate, and instead preferred to claim it meant something with which they were familiar and with which they were comfortable.
Again, how many delegates do you have?
Then you have absolutely nothing at all to support your BS claims, and I have no idea why you quote Bingham.
You are really nothing more than a naked propagandist for your BS claim.
When I or anyone else produces a massive list of real authorities that say you’re full of ****, then you plead “argumentum ad numerum,” even though doing so is in itself a fallacy, because we’re not saying a thing is true because a lot of people believe it, we’re saying that the fact that virtually every REAL AUTHORITY IN HISTORY says it’s true indicates that it probably is.
When anyone produces REAL AUTHORITY to back up the truth, you say it doesn’t mean a damn thing unless it came from a FRAMER.
Then, as soon as it suits you, you plead the weakest of possible authorities and claim it boosts your own argument. David Ramsay, who certainly was not a Framer and was voted down 36 to 1 by those who were. Samuel Roberts, who was an obscure little judge over several counties.
You’re really little better than a troll.
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.