Wow. Now that’s a retort. We’ll add that to the list of ridiculous squeezizms:
That one should read “Your goofy gibberish”
Now, you should ask yourself what causes people (me and others) to say these things to you???
Let’s see,
1. You don’t think the 14th Amendment applies to most Americans, those who are born here to two citizen parents.
2. You don’t think the Ankeny court thingy applies to Obama, because he is not called “Obama” in the two sentences of the holding.
3. You don’t get that the holding is on what a NBC is, which includes kids of foreigners, which does not apply to the other person, McCain.
4. You ignore 99.9% of every case to focus on minor grammatical issues, to try to prove your point.
5. You repeat the arguments about NBC, that LOST the first time way back in 1844.
6. You give quotes, and leave off the links and websites.
7. You quote stuff from cases, then leave off part of the quote to mislead people.
8. You quote losing arguments from old-timey cases and don’t tell people this stuff has already lost.
9. You get one sentence from page 655 and another sentence from page 702, cram them together, and try to mislead people.
10. You do number 9, while skipping all the stuff in between which shows how wrong you are, in pretty simple language.
Sooo, I could go on and on about the stuff you screw up, but really, you are just absurd in what you say, and even when people correct you,you keep on doing it.
Sooo, my question is WHY to you. WHY do you work this hard to mess people here up about the law??? You are way past not knowing any better. Are you a Obot just screwing with people here??? Because I have seen them do this kind of stuff at the old gretawire forum, just because they hated conservatives. Or, do you have brain problems??? I don’t think so. I think you are doing it on purpose and you should be ashamed of yourself.
If you were just some crazy person who thinks the moon is made out of green cheese, who would care. People would just let you ramble. But what you are saying has a real effect on people like Rubio and Jindal trying to run for office. Is that what you are up to??? Trying to mess them up???
It's not what I think. It's what the court said:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."2. You don’t think the Ankeny court thingy applies to Obama, because he is not called “Obama” in the two sentences of the holding.
No, I said the Ankeny court did NOT declare Obama to be eligible. You still have not found ANY citations from this decision to say that he is. There's a reason for that.
3. You don’t get that the holding is on what a NBC is, which includes kids of foreigners, which does not apply to the other person, McCain.
I've shown how this court contradicted itself several times, particularly in undermining its own legal rationale. The one decision that it says provided "guidance" failed to declare its own defendant to be a natural-born citizen. McCain is irrelevant to that.
4. You ignore 99.9% of every case to focus on minor grammatical issues, to try to prove your point.
No, this is simply a deflection you've introduced out of laziness.
5. You repeat the arguments about NBC, that LOST the first time way back in 1844.
None of the arguments I've presented ever "lost." Minor was a unanimous decision: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens ... these were the natural born citizens.
6. You give quotes, and leave off the links and websites.
Supreme Court cases are posted at several cites: law.cornell, justia, umkc, etc. I link to everything that is not part of a well-established case.
8. You quote losing arguments from old-timey cases and don’t tell people this stuff has already lost.
Nonsense. This is another one of YOUR lazy mischaracterizations. You have nothing to refute what I've posted, so you invented nonsense. The OP, for example, does NOT consist of so-called "old-timey cases." Second, legal precedent does not expire.
9. You get one sentence from page 655 and another sentence from page 702, cram them together, and try to mislead people.
Sorry, but this is a nonsense whine, plus it's hypocritical. You were quoting the Lynch case and pretending it was controlling precedent in the conclusion of the which would be 30 pages apart. You'd still failed to explain why Gray wrote an extra 32 pages of decision. I'm waiting on that and for a direct quote from Ankeny saying Obama is eligible. Hop to it, lazy squeezy.
10. You do number 9, while skipping all the stuff in between which shows how wrong you are, in pretty simple language.
More nonsense. You IGNORE that I've quoted multiple citations from WKA that all support my point and I've explained in DETAIL why your misinterpretation fails based on the dicta. For example: I gave you about 12 citations of Gray using the term "citizenship at birth" instead of "natural-born citizenship" and shown exactly how these terms differed. You rhetorically stuck your fingers in your ear.
WHY do you work this hard to mess people here up about the law???
NBC is based on neither Constitutional nor statutory law. I'm not messing up any people except those who are too ignorant and stubborn, like yourself, to admit they are wrong, when you clearly are. These decisions are clear. All children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These are the natural born citizens. If that messes you up, it's YOUR problem. I'm only here to help fix your problem.