Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by edge919
"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument." You attacked the judge's cirumstances ("a Carter appointee") rather than addressing the statement. Perfect example. Sorry.
Unfortunately, the Damage caused by Roosevelt/Truman stacking the courts for decades with Liberal Kooks cannot be ignored.
It appears that the Tea Party is here to stay for a long time and their influence on state and federal elections will be a detriment to the Rinos and the Demo party. It's going to take lots of time. 2010 elections was a good start as the House was easily taken with a solid majority and the Dim Senate almost fell too. The Dem Senate should easily fall next year with 22 to 23 Dem/Lib Senate seats up for grabs along with the White House. We can thank Obama, Pelosi, and Reid for their daily, constant contradictions and hypocrisy over the years that the main stream media cannot maintain any credible obfuscation or keep it hidden from the public.
However, the Tea Party effort will have to last about a decade to see a good changeover to the DC liberal culture...Cull a Senate Rino or 2 every primary election along with making many incumbent Dems fall every two years and we may see a few reversals to liberal laws. Eventually, the liberal judges as they retire would start to follow suit as Congress is right-shifted over the next decade or so.
Alleged US citizen child deported with alien father. US citizen mom tried to stop but could not..border patrol put US citizen baby on the bus. Sent to Mexico.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/us/21bar.html?_r=1
Don't argue with me, argue with the judge who called "the children are natural-born citizens of the United States" a "relevant fact."
bfl
I did not. Simply stated a fact. The judge DID NOT call the children natural-born citizens. The lawyer "stated" what he perceived as the relevant facts. He did so incorrectly. The judge did not "rule" on the nature of "natural-born" U.S. citizenship. The judge's ruling was about "deportation". FACT.
The United States Court of Appeals 5th Circuit in Castro v The United States affirmed there is nothing in the Constitution protecting a US citizen child being deported with their alien father.
If the alien father being deported wants to take the US citizen child he can.
This would not happen if both parents were US citizens.
No one removed a "neither ... nor." I diagrammed the sentence piece by piece for your benefit and showed you specifically how ignorant you were for not understanding that those two words did NOT change the main clause of the sentence, which was supported by a UNANIMOUS action. Yes, I understand you're bitter about being schooled. It happens. And the longer you cling to it, it's going to happen again and again and again. You just accused someone else of hijacking the thread, but that's exactly what you're doing by whining about something you've been schooled on.
Great find. Instead of acknowledging this very point, the apologists will now deflect by bringing up arguments they lost repeatedly in other threads.
Also, I don’t see anywhere in this decision where the child was claimed to be a natural-born citizen. But, as the OP showed, it doesn’t matter. The courts won’t treat them any different than outright foreigners. I guess you need big money in your back pocket, like Obama.
Gray affirmed, when he said the Supreme Court was:What the actual quote said:.. committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ...
That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court.Try to weasel out in any way you like, but you did truncate the quote to reverse the meaning.
You're exposing your ignorance. No sentences were combined. These were contrasting statements from the same court case that proved without doubt that Rubio does not fit the Supreme Court's definition of natural born citizen. Further, it's extremely stupid to complain about "picking" sentences from certain pages, when you were the one who mistakenly thought a sentence on page 662 is the controlling dicta when the decision rambles on for another 43 pages, later specifically defining the actual term in a way that CANNOT be applied to the plaintiff. Being bitter about being schooled in that other thread has no relevance here. Focus on this thread topic and see if you can form an intelligible thought.
Holy crap. How bitter and creepy is this or are you just a glutton for mental punishment?? You’re still trying desperately to salvage a point and save face that has been smacked down thoroughly. “Truncating” the quote did NOT reverse the meaning of anything. The court UNANIMOUSLY rejected a claim of citizenship based on the 14th amendment because V. Minor fit the court’s definition of NBC. The neither...nor construction was used by Gray to explain why the so-called ‘standard exceptions’ were not the ONLY exceptions to the 14th amendment. The same people who voted for those exceptions later voted UNANIMOUSLY that “all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens” were natural born citizens and that their citizenship was NOT dependent on the 14th amendment. That neither of the justices understood does NOT change this core fact. The court was committed to the view that NBCs were excluded from the operation of the citizen clause of the 14th amendment.
OMG!!! With news like what you have “discovered” you should do something to really capture peoples attention, like”
Attention America!!! The 14 Amendment does not apply to you if you were born here, and have two citizen parents!!!
Plus, I already know three cases so why should I have to learn another one like this one which says that kids of aliens who are born here are natural born citizens??? I am not “Miss Stupid of 2011” or anything. I am not a lawyer sooo I am going to save my brains for the important ones.
So There!!!
I thought at first they were just copying without checking - sloppy research skills. However, Edge919 maintains he did not change the meaning of the quote. That takes it from sloppy research to intellectual dishonesty or lack of reading comprehension.
Rubbish. You changed the meaning. I give you again a simple example:
The teacher and the principal said that John cheated.
Neither the teacher nor the principal said that John cheated.
See the difference?
The facts are simple..a US citizen child of an alien father was held in confinement and deported along with her alien father.
The US citizen mother sued the government. She lost.
The Border Patrol can deport citizen children of an alien fathers and citizen mothers.
This means Obama would have been deported if he was living with Senior at Harvard.
Don’t wear out the ! key on your keyboard. You may need it for the one time you might happen to come up with some pithy and logical to share.
The Border Patrol can deport citizen children of alien fathers and citizen mothers.
Your simple-minded examples are not the same construction that was used by Gray. I’ve showed you this several times. At what point do YOU start showing some intellectual honesty???
I think that “Mars Needs Vattel Birthers”, or “Emerich de Vattel - A Vampire”??? were pretty darn PITHY!!! How high did YOU score on the test??? Huh???
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.