Posted on 02/22/2012 10:09:16 AM PST by jdirt
Please attend hearing if you can.
I don't speak French. The "old folks" spoke French around us when we were kids and we knew they were talking about us kids. I guess they thought it better to not teach us as we would then know what they were saying.
I looked the phrase up and still didn't get the joke. It was the end of a long day.
Descartes was a fascinating dude - usaully, it is quoted as “Cogito, Ero Sum.” I think, therefore I am.
Before old Descartes came along, decriptions in Maths included phrases like, “In Triangulorem rectorum ...” , “In a right triangle...”
So Descartes took two rulers, and crossed them at right angles.
We now call this the “Cartesian coordinate system.”
Two rulers. Huh. Who knew.
But I put decartes before de horse.
;)
Yes.
WKA = Ankeny = NBC = born on American soil.
WKA or Ankeny - pick your poison, they both say the same thing.
Ankeny and WKA. Says it all. The law of the land.
Time will tell.
No, anybody who agrees with you will be wrong, and the rest of us will still be correct.
The problem is that people on your side are too stupid (lacking in intellectual capacity) to comprehend our argument. Your side is still Geocentric in it's beliefs. You need to drop your foolish certainty and learn how to deal with things that simply will not FIT into your theory.
Does it bother you that no one else in the legal profession shares your views?
I know you have cherry picked enough out of context words from over the centuries to stitch together what you consider legal justification but yet the legal system seems to thing differently about it.
If it was so clear cut, then at least some of those birther law suites would have succeeded. If Supreme Court precedent is so clear cut then Chief Justice Roberts would not have sworn in Obama.
That is your problem in a nut shell - the real would outside of the internet is indifferent to you and you legal theories.
Possibly, and it will have as much legitimacy as the "Deem and Pass" regarding the Healthcare bill.
As Lincoln said: "Just because you call a tail a "leg" doesn't make it so."
Yes, I think it is time for you to stop pretending. You are a Fogbow Obot who is here to act as an agent provocateur. I find it unlikely that you are a conservative of any sort. Conservatives are generally not prone to such lying or self deception.
WKA or Ankeny - pick your poison, they both say the same thing.
Idiots parrot the idiocy of others.
So you are smarter then Justices Roberts and Scalia?
Do you know how delusional you sound?
Like Roe v Wade, and just as valid. Are you a supporter of Roe v Wade? After all, it *IS* a decision by the Supreme court!
Would the link in post #57 have an update?
That post has it listed on the court calendar:
Thursday February 23, 2012
Case # C20121046
Judge: Gordon, Richard E.
Time: 9am
Defendant:Democratic Party
Nelson, Brad R.
Obama, Barack
Plaintiff:Allen, Kenneth
So there is indeed a case filed.
Well, first of all, you are wrong about that as I have pointed out before, and secondly, I find it highly likely that a system which could bring us decisions like Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Kelo v New London, etc. can only be assumed to be defective, so no, it doesn't surprise me at all that any system which could yield such defective decisions doesn't agree with me. It actually reinforces my thinking that I am on the right track.
How about you? Do you enjoy the fact that the legal system agrees with you about Roe v Wade?
I know you have cherry picked enough out of context words from over the centuries to stitch together what you consider legal justification but yet the legal system seems to thing differently about it.
And Roe v Wade.
That is your problem in a nut shell - the real would outside of the internet is indifferent to you and you legal theories.
And Roe v Wade.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.
The problem: WKA says that NBC is NOT defined by the Constitution:
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. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
So when Scalia cites WKA to say the Constitution contemplates only TWO sources of citizenship, NEITHER of those sources refers to NBC because Gray specifically cited Minor to say that the Constitution does NOT define NBC. It's why Gray said the Supreme Court was "committed to the view" that NBCs are excluded from the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. Then WKA cites Minor's definition of NBC: "all children born in the country to parents who were it citizens." The dissent in WKA noted that the NBC definition is from Vattel.
I assure you, I know about things of which they do not know. As Thomas Edison said, "Everybody's ignorant. Just on different subjects."
My experience is this. Unless you have SPECIFICALLY researched this exact aspect of constitutional law, you will necessarily remain ignorant of it. I very much doubt either Roberts or Scalia spent much time on this. Most likely they probably accepted the common fallacious wisdom prevalent in legal circles nowadays.
Do you know how delusional you sound?
Absolutely, and the answer is not at all. Of course to a warped mind, everything sounds delusional unless it's crazy to start with. We should call you "Mr. Anchor baby", or perhaps "Mr. Roe v Wade." You are a firm believer in "ex cathedra" pronouncements from the most holy church of the legal priesthood. For me, it is axiomatic that the courts get things wrong all the time, but that is because *I* am a conservative, and you are not.
I have something to take care of. I’ll be back to spank you later.
Where can we find updates, I searched the site you linked to a minute ago just now and didn’t come up with anything... searched on case number and judges name
The law of the land.
Which law is that?
This is a logical fallacy (one of many logical fallacies employed by Obots). A supreme court justice does NOT have the individual authority to nullify an electee from taking office. Feel free to cite whichever part of the Constitution you believe supports the idea that a Chief Justice could do this arbitrarily and independently.
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.