Posted on 02/22/2012 10:09:16 AM PST by jdirt
So Ankeny persuaded him but it was not precedence? Can you split that hair any finer?
You said that Ankeny had errors. I was just pointing out that opinion was not born out by any real court proceedings. It is simply more unsubstantiated birthers blather that will go absolutely nowhere in court. Like every birther legal argument.
Get back to me when you have some real victories in real courts.
All hail Harlan1196! Keeper and dispenser of knowledge of all things legislative
and determiner of that which shall and shall not be believed!
@There is no such thing as Positive law. It is a meaningless legal term.
Your crown, sire.
I’m sure you could compare rape to consensual sex and find many similarities, and then legal intertwine them, calling them the same.
It’s been explained. Acting stupid as you are doesn’t change the facts.
Not everyone is perfect like you.
Now tell everyone how I also acknowledged my mistake.
Now tell everyone how that particular error was irrelevant to the point we were arguing about.
Stop acting like you are a sixth grader on the playground.
And yet birthers keep losing. Perhaps it is not as clear as you think it is.
Now tell everyone how I also acknowledged my mistake.
I already did.
Now tell everyone how that particular error was irrelevant to the point we were arguing about.
I can't as it was.
Stop acting like you are a sixth grader on the playground.
You can't handle ridicule.
Oddly @reminiscent of another reply made to me.
I think the plaintiff is screwed.
“As noted, Plaintiff also has sought leave to file an amended complaint. Again, the amendment rules are inconsistent with the extremely shortened time frames at play in election contests.”
He doesn’t have enough time to meet the statutory deadline, especially if he is going to serve the president via certified mail.
I vote for lousy fishermen. Look at all the different bodies of water you have cast your bait into with no results. It is not like birthers are fishing in just one tiny pond.
I vote for lousy fishermen.
A predictable response.
Look at all the different bodies of water you have cast your bait into with no results. It is not like birthers are fishing in just one tiny pond.
You aren't reeling in any fish yet the fish are at fault for not taking the bait.
The wise fisherman does not boast of his prowess until he has a couple of fish on his stringer.
I can understand believing in your arguments. It’s this absolute certainty that yours is the only true answer I question. Custer was the epitome of absolute certainty and look where it got him. Just like Custer, you might be better served with some humility and some honest introspection.
With legal defeat after legal defeat, “it has nothing to do with us and our legal arguments.” rings hollow.
It is simply more unsubstantiated birthers blather that will go absolutely nowhere in court.
It’s just a bunch of birthers making stuff up again.
Why do you think that every Supreme Court ruling is a litany of prior cases?
Because the flawed thinking of our legal profession has raised the fallacy of tu quoque to a methodology. It is just one more functional defect in our legal system.
First principles should be the starting point for every decision. Not what someone else thought. Our laws are the majority opinions of legislators, not Judges.
I leave this message in the firm knowledge that you can't even understand what I have written.
It says no such thing. It specifically uses the word "citizen" and specifically omits the word "natural born." Wong Kim Ark is the same sort of Citizen as those who were Grandfathered in in Article II. A Newly created citizen from a condition of no prior citizenship in this country.
Lord Coke intentionally interpreted it this way so as to defuse the crisis. Again, it was people monkeying with the existing law to create a different interpretation so as to gain power. The Same sort of thing we are dealing with now.
Because it is a creation of the Feudal law system. It requires perpetual allegiance, and does not allow for a subject to remove himself from the King's Obedience. Our war of Independence and subsequent War of 1812 was an overt and categorical refutation of English Feudal based Subjectship law.
What is it about overthrowing English Subject law that you do not comprehend? We BROKE with the King! Don't you get it?
I have often thought if conservatives could be made to see the similarities between the two issues, they would realize that "birth" is an arbitrary place to draw the line between Person/Non-Person or Citizen/Non-Citizen.
I have argued this with Obots before, but they are singularly unimpressed with the comparison, likely because they aren't pro-life anyway. To them, picking arbitrary points of convenience like "birth" or "place" to establish characteristics which are actually inherent, is consistent for their other beliefs, such as moral relativity.
The Jus Sanguinus argument *IS* a different manifestation of the Pro-Life argument, and the Jus Soli argument, *IS* a different manifestation of the Pro-Abortion argument.
Good find!
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.