Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
The Axiom that "birth" is the requirement to establish Human rights, is the same requirement that you cite to establish "citizenship." Are you certain you don't see the connection?

No sorry, I don't. And it sounds like Justices Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia also don't see that same connection, or they would have taken one of the "natural born" cases.

Forgive me, but I don't adhere to the notion that "SCOTUS" decides truth. They just decide which way the guns point. *I* am arguing for what is true, not which direction to point the guns.

And that's where wires are getting crossed. In the perfect world where truth always wins out, there would be no abortion, no one could cross the border illegally, there would be no divorce, no homosexuality. But that's not what we're discussing - we're discussing what the law says, what the Constitution says. And SCOTUS most definitely decides the law, even when they're wrong, corrupt, or just plain stupid about it.

So if you want to discuss that kind of truth, this isn't the thread to do it and you're changing the subject. If you want to discuss whether according to law 0bama would have been deported, this is the place.

200 posted on 10/09/2011 2:52:41 PM PDT by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies ]


To: sometime lurker
No sorry, I don't. And it sounds like Justices Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia also don't see that same connection, or they would have taken one of the "natural born" cases.

No man is so insightful that they can see every connection with a cursory, or even often an extensive glance. (Your case stands as an example. :) ) I liken the connection to that of an invention which everyone proclaims as obvious once it has been placed on the market. "Obvious" is not always so Obvious.

And that's where wires are getting crossed. In the perfect world where truth always wins out, there would be no abortion, no one could cross the border illegally, there would be no divorce, no homosexuality. But that's not what we're discussing - we're discussing what the law says, what the Constitution says. And SCOTUS most definitely decides the law, even when they're wrong, corrupt, or just plain stupid about it.

So if you want to discuss that kind of truth, this isn't the thread to do it and you're changing the subject. If you want to discuss whether according to law 0bama would have been deported, this is the place.

Au Contraire, Mon Frère. A couple of Axiomatic Principles.
1. As a Government derives it's authority from the consent of the governed, the Laws will eventually follow the wishes of the people.
2. If the truth is spread widely enough among the people, it will eventually become their wish.

As Franklin said:
"Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick; and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they chearfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute.

As my goal is to MAKE the Supreme Court eventually do the right thing (as in MacDonald v Chicago) nothing serves the purpose better than to establish the proof as to what is the truth. These arguments only hone the weapon better.

205 posted on 10/09/2011 3:34:51 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson