[Yosemitest]

"OK, let me get this straight, I quoted from Liberty & Tyranny, you came back & quote from Men in Black..."

WRONG!
Again, you intentionally get it wrong.
But to distort the facts is your S.O.P.
Did you find the subjects I mentioned in "Liberty & Tyranny" on the pages I referenced?
You certainly didn't find them in "Men In Black" on the pages I referenced.
Lets take a look again at what I posted:

You know, I really shouldn't waste my time, responding to you.
You intentionally misrepresent what I wrote.
Post #126 you wrote
"If you are going to respond, at least respond with the correct book."

In post#124 I had wrote:
"I've read it, and listened to it a couple of times, although that was sometime late 2009.
I dusted it off again, and I find pages 200-201 about Judges to be something we need to do.
Page 202 about Immigration is what we're fighting about with the "Establishment Republicans", right now.
Pages 204-205, hits the nail on the head, and must be done.

But I'm not going to sit here and transcribe Mark Levin's book.
Somewhere around here, I've got his book on "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America".
But I've got to find it again, and I just can't lay my hands on it, right now."

You didn't even take the time to see what I was talking about.
You just intentionally misrepresented the second paragraph's book as being the subject of the first paragraph.
It was a test, and you failed.

And credentials, ... credentials are important, and obviously, you're ashamed of what you don't have.
At least I made my position and lack of credentials clear.
BUT ... at least you're consistent about Obama not being eligible under the same law.

And about the credentials ...

"And about that credentials thing again...I am taking this as you saying that only lawyers can write & thus interpret the laws."

I didn't say that. I didn't even imply that.
It's a simply question, so I can understand your background and your logic.

"Mark's obfuscation of citizenship laws for his personal political leanings, US Constitution be damned as long as the lies he proffers support his political agenda."

Lie? Says who?
Mark knows of what he speaks, and he speaks it well.
Political leanings? We all have leanings, we're human.
I say again, maybe the Supreme Court DOES need to address this issue, or maybe the Congress needs to clarify it.

But me, with leftists leanings? I've never been accused of that before, and I've been around here a while.
Now I'm NOT young, not by a long shot. And I presume you're not young, maybe old and in constant pain.
But I'm not the one trying to intentionally twist things into something they're not.
So, go deceive someone else with your H. Michael Sweeney's tactics.
You've exposed yourself.

[patlin]

Liberty & Tyranny, pg 154: “But does the 14th Amendment grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? The relevant part of the amendment reads that “all person, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizen of the United States.” This language requires more than birth within the United States. The amendment’s purpose was to grant citizenship to the emancipated slaves, who were born in the United States and owed sole allegiance to it. Native Americans who were subject to tribal jurisdiction were excluded from citizenship. There is no legislative history supporting the absurd proposition that the 14th Amendment was intended to empower (illegal) aliens to confer American citizenship on their own babies as a result of their birth in the United States.”

I highlighted what the actually law says. We're not talking judges, we”re talking the about Mark Levin's credibility when he interjects the word “illegal” into a Constitutional issue wherein the actual law only says “alien” as in all aliens. But instead, you want to divert the debate away from Mark and onto the judges because in your blind eyes, he is infallible. Sad, truly sad & the reason this nation is such a mess...Ignorant people who would rather follow blindly than lead with the truth.

Speak to the point or move

[patlin]

Edward J. Erler whom Levin misquotes in his book & on air:

Consider as well that in 1868, the year the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Expatriation Act. This act permitted American citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate their citizenship. This piece of legislation was supported by Senator Howard and other leading architects of the Fourteenth Amendment, and characterized the right of expatriation as “a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatible with the common law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship. One member of the House expressed the general sense of the Congress when he proclaimed: “The old feudal doctrine stated by Blackstone and adopted as part of the common law of England . . . is not only at war with the theory of our institutions, but is equally at war with every principle of justice and of sound public policy.” The common law established what was characterized as an “indefensible doctrine of indefeasible allegiance,” a feudal doctrine wholly at odds with republican government.

In sum, this legacy of feudalism - which we today call birthright citizenship - was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868...

The same kind of confusion that has led us to accept birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens has led us to tolerate dual citizenship. We recall that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specified that those who are naturalized must owe exclusive allegiance to the U.S. to be included within its jurisdiction. And the citizenship oath taken today still requires a pledge of such allegiance. But in practice dual citizenship - and dual allegiance - is allowed. This is a sign of the decline of American citizenship and of America as a nation-state.

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=12508

Again, the subject matter at hand is Mark's unethical abuse of the law by misquoteing it to suit his personal political beliefs.