Posted on 02/14/2013 5:50:35 PM PST by Vendome
LOL! No, I said arguing with someone who supplied no source for their assertion was LIKE arguing with a 2 year old.
Your inability to differentiate between the 2 concepts is not my problem.
-----
Legal precedent is not a “living” Constitution argument.
If you don't know what the legal definition of legal precedent, it is. You were provided that definition in post 75.
1) n. a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which establishes the legal rule (authority) in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment.
Your 1884 case was not heard by an appeals court, thus no 'legal precedent' was set. Your attempt to behave as if there WAS one when by legal definition, there was not, illustrates your belief in a living Constitution.
-----
Oh, I see...Pink unicorns giving strawberry milk again eh?
Your lack of response to the Greisser case is quite telling. It was almost identical to the Look Tin one yet had totally desperate determinations.
Guess the slavish devotion to your federal masters has blinded you into giving a more rational, mature and insightful response.
-----
So tell me...what will you do when the federal government defines 'militia' only as law enforcement officers?
“If you don’t know what the legal definition of legal precedent, it is. You were provided that definition in post 75.”
Not only do I understand legal precedent, I understand how it is applied, as you apparently don’t.
Did you comment on this?
Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”.
You Birthers are every bit as batty as the RonPaulians. I suspect some serious overlap.
Please show me the Constitutional definition of the federal government's jurisdiction.
That’s called a shifting sands deflection.
You cannot be taken seriously any longer.
When did you last see the pink unicorn and where were you when you saw it.
I'll leave you to play with your unicorns since you seem to have such a fascination for them.
Have a nice day.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition: 2009
First Edition: 1891
Vattel: 1759
Constitution:1787
Minor: 1874
Which is closer in time to the Constitution?
Yeah, I’ll go with Vattel. At least two copies were in the room when the Constitution was drafted.
Black’s was still 104 years away from being written.
Popular use does not supplant historical precedent. The whole phrase “ jurisdiction of a natural government” is a thread by itself.Obviuosly a person person in one country whose parents are citizens of another, is at best a dual citizen, if not directly a citizen of that other country.
And as far as construction of a legal document goes, if the Article II requirement is a specific requirement, and the 14th Amendment does not reference that requirement or its application in any way, which one stands?
Guess not. Chester burned all of his papers because he was a pyro. I get it now. Too bad John Jay and George Washington didn't. Poor James Madison had to rewrite that whole paragraph for nothing.
There were a lot more copies in the room shortly after.
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America / Monday / March 10, 1794 / Volume 2 / page 44
Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone's Commentaries, and Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=002/llsj002.db&recNum=42&itemLink=D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_LF5V::%230020043&linkText=1
Courts must operate according to precedent, but the country does not. The law is what those who wrote the law meant by what they said. This is true of the Constitution and all other laws.
The evidence indicates that, in the minds of the authors of the Constitution, a NBC is one whose parents were both citizens at the time of his birth.
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.