Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
And I have no doubt, never had, that the receipt traveled in that envelope.
Really, I don’t.=P
I blame you for publicly calling me a liar and not contacting me directly like you SAID you would.
You might be interested to read a little more from Calvin’s case, where it clearly considers the status of the parents as to whether one is a ‘subject born.’ As such, this explains why Justice Gray HAD to look at Wong Kim Ark’s parents’ status to determine if the plaintiff was a citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. Even under common law; it is not just Jus Soli. There are THREE factors ...
“3. There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king. 2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.”
Yeah yeah....like I said—I would have looked at these yesterday. I won’t bother today.
When you start with a set of assumptions you have only partial information about you are BOUND to get the wrong answers. Basing a theory and calling people liars based on assumptions which do not match the facts is illogical.
So yes, your *ss is illogical.
Golly, why bother looking at the proof which destroys your current theory! Sheesh, that might make you have to reassess your assumptions and conclusions.
Wholey COW! You might have to apologize again! Heaven forbid!!
You disappoint me MT. You really do.
I quoted Scalia, who said, "But for constitutional purposes, it seems to me, as opposed to statutory purposes, whether the person is an alien or not should depend upon whether the person is a natural born citizen of the United States or whether citizenship must be conferred by Congress..."
The 14th Amendment is not an act of Congress conferring ["to grant or bestow"] citizenship. It is an act of the States, who voted by a super majority to amend the Constitution. Once amended, the CONSTITUTION makes everyone born here of parents under the jurisdiction of the US citizens.
Congress is granted the power of naturalization by the Constitution, and they pass laws (acts of Congress) defining how a person can become a naturalized citizen. In the case being argued, they had stricter requirements for the child of a father than for the child of a mother, and the Court upheld the acts of Congress as complying with the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment is the Constitution, as determined by the STATES, giving citizenship. The 14th derives its power, not from Congress, but from the STATES that voted to approve it. Congress drafts the wording. The states then vote to approve, or not. That is why the 14th Amendment has power, and the Equal Right Amendment does not.
Ping to post. MT demands more pictures which are posted while at the same time throwing around accusations of lying and forgery, then refuses to even look at them.
Draw your own conclusions.
I don’t recall saying that. But if I did, then for that, I do apologize. I just don’t remember telling you that.
I looked at a few of them. And they seem authentic. I just wanted to see them yesterday.
Fair enough?
Is it LAW or NOT? The answer is YES & the only difference is that the LAW is added to Constitution as SUPREME LAW of the land and not merely just a codified law. It still makes its way through Congress, 1st through committee, then through the passing of Congress, then to the president & (my mistake, 14th wasn't signed by the pres) if the pres vetoes, then 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress pass, it then goes to the people, 3/4 pass and then it becomes LAW!
Get the picture? Or is your head still stuck too far up the horses arse? FYI...Mondays are notoriously bad days for trucking dispatchers, so you are likely to see no sympathy today as idiots laced with ignorance syndrome are a dime a dozen in this country & in your case it seems to be not merely a habitual caused syndrome but also an impenetrable one.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
Obama Sr was in the USA with the consent of the USA, and was required to obey the laws of the USA. He was under the obedience of the US.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
Hawaii was and is a state in the union.
And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.”
At the time Obama Jr was born, the US held sovereignty over Hawaii, and all persons born in Hawaii. Had Hawaii been part of another country at the time of Obama Jr’s birth, then Obama Jr would NOT be a NBC.
Part of the problem is that you got in bed with Polarik. And he’s totally discredited. I cannot help that you have that tie to him.
It makes me wonder. As I showed earlier, Polarik posted some kind of phony evidence. It causes me to ‘nitpick’ yours. You cannot ask me to just throw that aside. I don’t know you, Danae.
I did stop short of calling you a liar, Danae, but I skirted the line. It’s because of the Polarik tie. I am sorry for that if you are on the level, but that d*mned tie to Polarik, it makes no sense. My goalposts with you are based on that.
How about we do what you said earlier—forget the other one exists?
“It still makes its way through Congress, 1st through committee, then through the passing of Congress, then to the president & (my mistake, 14th wasn’t signed by the pres) if the pres vetoes, then 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress pass, it then goes to the people, 3/4 pass and then it becomes LAW!”
No. That is not how it works.
And Constitutional Amendments have power, not because they passed thru Congress (which the Equal Right Amendment did in ‘72), but because states approve them and they become part of the Constitution. Congress makes public and private law, which derives its authority from Congress. The Constitution derives its authority from the States.
When Scalia contrasted the Constitution with the Congress, the 14th Amendment fell under the Constitution, not Congress. The States approved it and conferred citizenship to those born in the USA, not Congress.
And someone who doesn’t understand that distinction shouldn’t post in front of his betters.
Well he needs a place to make a living - that’s just a business expense paid actually by us. We know ‘they’ are among us.
You’re still posing questions that don’t deal with your failure to show that the HI AG or any court has specifically addressed the UIPA.
HRS 338-18(b)
“The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]
Look, I NEVER worked with Polarik. I sent him scans, and the very next damned thing I know he is posting how I sent him forgeries. If that’s what you call working with someone, then I don’t know what to do with you.
And BTW, there’s no ‘proof’ of anything in an online photograph. This much is clear.
Only more questions. It’s been 20 hours since I first commented on this. You see what I mean.
It really isn’t you Danae—it’s Polarik. Don’t take any of it so personally—especially if I am wrong. You are just forever tied to him on this issue.
No, not really. I had 3 assignments due for my 300 level courses yesterday by morning eastern. I also had my sonsbest friend I’ve for a sleep over, oh and 4 chapters of reading to do for my other course, he final is this week.
I had other more pressing things to deal with.
In the US, we do NOT take oaths to the President, the government or any single being as they did in feudal England. Ours has always been a oath to the Constitution, the sovereign law of the land which resides in every citizen, so when one becomes a naturalized citizen, that oath is to ALL the people as a sign of consent. In feudal law there is no consent and that is why Sherley, the Frenchman became upon his local temp stay a “NATURAL SUBJECT” himself & that is why his ‘issue’ would be deemed a natural born subject of the King and by the King. It was conferred on him & that form of subjectship is NOT part of our Supreme Law although it does recognize it does exist.
If feudal law existed in the US, then ALL aliens would become citizens upon their local but temp stay...GET THE PICTURE! You can not have it both ways, feudal law & the laws of nature are completely & totally INCOMPATABLE!
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.