Here he is. The Kenyan AIDs test.
Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
Can a Kenyan man acquire Indonesian citizenship?
For that matter, can a gay man such as yourself acquire Indonesian citizenship? I don't think they would hold the mental retardation you exhibit against you. But your attraction to men could be a problem.
Please - Yale, Harvard, Chicago are bastions of liberal thought.
I’m an American. I’m concerned with American law. You will have to deal with Kenyan & Indonesian law by yourself, but I’ll note that Kenya requires anyone who had dual citizenship to denounce the other in order to claim Kenyan citizenship. In doing this, it differs strongly from American law.
“But your attraction to men could be a problem.”
Keep on posting like that. It shows your total inability to reason or argue the facts, just like Red Steel & edge919 trying to make me female. I can only assume they do so out of attraction to someone who beats them regularly...
So all of the post is bogus? Because you find something small to hang your crap on. You won't turn Kawakita or Obama into a natural born citizen that way.
Poor thing, your a mess.
Fellow Freepers, can we get a collection started for this guy? I think he needs help.
You are delusional and you cannot think your way out of a wet paper bag.
You’re not understanding what is written. Read this again, Missunderstands.
“IV. It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.”
They’re talking about whether one law supercedes another here. They’re not rejecting anything nor are they trying to reject anything. I explained that they’re looking for a reason to justify their belief that the 14th amendment will supercede the U.S.’s treaty with China.
The part that ‘finishes’ I just quoted for you in my previous post. I notice how you completely dodged providing any kind of rebuttal or even an explanation for your ill-founded belief on what you think this says. Further, you undermine your own misinterpreation with this part of the quote: “... all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”
Do you see the words all WHITE persons?? If you’re trying to establish that the United States REJECTED English common law ... this does it, but not in the way you mistakenly believe. The SCOTUS is admitting that our citizenship laws only applied to White persons and not ALL persons. Next they use the term ‘native-born’ citizens (clearly avoiding the term ‘natural-born’) ... and clearly they cannot use the term natural born citizen here because they cite and affirm the definition of NBC used by Waite in Minor v. Happersett.
Once again, I thank you for destroying your own argument and making mine for me. I really recommend you log off and find yourself a remedial debate class so you can avoid this kind of embarrassment and humiliation in the future. It’s not that I don’t appreciate your services as a floormat ... it’s just that my shoes can’t get any cleaner from such quickly repeated wipings.
So get it done, please. Your a freeper, and we want you around. We care. We wont be judgmental about your relationships and those bath houses. We Promise.
“I explained that they’re looking for a reason to justify their belief that the 14th amendment will supercede the U.S.’s treaty with China.”
Umm...no. No treaty overrules the Constitution. That is why they made their arguments from the Constitution - because it would override the treaty with China.
“Do you see the words all WHITE persons??”
And did you know slaves were not citizens?
“If you’re trying to establish that the United States REJECTED English common law...”
No, I’m saying they used English common law to determine the meaning of NBC, which is why they have a long review of NBS - because if WKA qualified as a NBS (and he did), then he was a NBC and thus a native citizen and thus a citizen and thus the treaty with China was null & void because it could not overrule the Constitution.
“Next they use the term ‘native-born’ citizens (clearly avoiding the term ‘natural-born’)”
As I have pointed out elsewhere, they used the terms interchangeably, and that had been done in American law for decades.
“it’s just that my shoes can’t get any cleaner from such quickly repeated wipings.”
Yet your side has never won a court case, while the courts continue to rule as I say they must. You can pat yourself on the back (or whatever other part of your anatomy you touch while reading my posts), but YOU CANNOT WIN A CASE.
Not once.
Odd that an intellectual genius like yourself cannot convince a single court, or state, or Congressman...
Here he is. The Kenyan AIDs test.
Damn, life is so unfair. Honestly, you have my sympathies.
LOL! :)
Did you mother ever wash your mouth out with soap? Or was she too afraid to go near you?
You do understand that your namesake was extremely effeminate, of an ambiguous orientation, spoke like a child and couldn’t beat his way out of paper sack?? The quality of your posts is in perfect alignment with those characteristics.
Funny, that we don't see the Blackstone Commentaries nor is English common law anywhere being referenced in the US Constitution. We do see however that the Law of Nations is referenced in Article 1, Section 8.
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"
It's also why they leaned so much on common law. What they didn't do was EVER say that NBS = NBC. Not once in that entire decision.
And did you know slaves were not citizens?
Then you agree: the U.S. did NOT adopt English common law. Thanks for finally admitting it.
No, I’m saying they used English common law to determine the meaning of NBC ...
And you're wrong. Nothing in what you quoted says this. You're connecting dots that have no sequential relationship.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, they used the terms interchangeably, and that had been done in American law for decades.
It's also been pointed out elsewhere that the use of these terms is not what you believe ... and nothing in the WKA decision confuses these terms. It does the opposite and shows the distinction. You just don't want to admit that.
Yet your side has never won a court case, while the courts continue to rule as I say they must.
My 'side' hasn't presented the argument I've presented. They've gone straight to Vattel, while my argument is based on SCOTUS precedent and definitions from Minor and WKA. You can whine all you want about those court cases, but it doesn't rebut the argument I've presented. Meanwhile, your argument is still on the bottom of my freshly wiped shoes.
LOL, your killing me!
Do’s Mr Rogers posts have a lisp?
I’m still laughing...
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.