Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Would you mind posting a link to the "original Constitution of England?"
Well, I'm not going to follow your drone theory of “half a league” and sit silent while the occupier of the white house & company continues to destroy this nation. Watergate wasn't exposed right away & the occupier's term is no where near over. With that said, if you want to learn the history of England and the origins of their constitution, then shut off the boob tube & open a book or read it online. I personally like to download them so I can read them at leisure without having to log on. Google has hundreds of them for free that were written before the revisionists took over the publishing industry. Books written by the English & published in England. Books that the founding generation were made to study in their youth.
Anyway, I take it you've now figured out that there is no "original Constitution of England," (capitalized "C" in your original, I might add) as you claimed, so the point has been made.
The history of the English constitution: Volume 1
Rudolph Gneist - 1886
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. FIRST PERIOD. THE ANGLO-SAXONS. CHAPTEE I. W&t gJitglo^axon Jfouniiatton.* The conquest of the British Isles by the Saxons, Angles, and Jutes from the middle of the fifth century has the character ...
I guess you skipped the part where the English were first known as Anlgo-Saxons and why our heritage is rooted in the ancestry of those Anglo-Saxons. Of course, had you read & studied the 1st works on American Law & our constitution by James Wilson & printed in 1791 & free for all on the internet, you would have known this.
Your embellishing of your knowledge supersedes you, much the same as the occupier in chief.
Really? Quite clearly how exactly? We have never seen the BC, and there is no evidence SAD was ever married to BHO Sr. All we have is Bill Ayers fantasy biography which has been pretty well destroyed by Corsie and Cashill.
Noobs bumbed up this old thread...
I get great pleasure in calling out their ingnorance. Especially when they tout how much they have studied, when in fact, they haven't a clue as to what they are talking about. England had no original constitution...how lame was that, bwahahahaha
Just to give you a heads up, Patlin. BCC runs around FR claiming that the 14th Amendment nullified the NBC requirement for POTUS, as originally delineated in the Constitution. I would attempt to summarize his argument, but it’s too irrational to distill. Also, be warned: he resorts to name-calling and ad hominem attacks at the drop of a hat. I speak from experience.
BAM! ... got 2 of ‘em today. I studied, therefore I freep. Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God. Hey, I think I just came up with my new tagline.
You go, Patlin. As scholars of the Constitution go, you are nonpareil in my book. As long as the disruptors, distracters and Obots keep setting them up, you’ll keep knocking them down. Good show!
All you've done is link to a book someone wrote about English Constitutional history, which is really all there is because there is no English/British document analogous to our Constitution establishing a legal framework superior to laws passed normally by Parliament. But you've probably figured that out by now....
But hey, if you want to go with Gneist's references to the Anglo-Saxons, perhaps you can identify which Anglo-Saxon kingdom had this alleged Constitution. Was it Wessex? Mercia? East Anglia? Or maybe Northumbria? Or was it after that era, and during the time of the Danelaw? I mean, I've read a bunch of the Venerable Bede's stuff -- though not all --and I've never seem him refer to a "Constitution".
Just out of curiosity, are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on the internet?
Oh, almost forgot. If you want to forget about finding the “original Constitution” of England, I’ll take a link just to the current Constitution of the U.K.. Not a link to a book discussing English or British constitutional hisory, but a link to the actual Constitution. Should be easy enough, right?
The fact is, is that there is NO constitution in the history of the world that is analogous to ours because as the framers stated, they created a document from a blank sheet taking into account lessons from the past as not to repeat past mistakes in the future. But, then you would have know that if you had really studied it for the last 20 years now wouldn’t you. Your strawman constituion argument to hide your obfuscation of the Law of Nature & Natures God definition of natural born is all telling of who you are & what your agenda really is.
As I tell all the other trolls, I don’t do others homework for them. I already gave you the keys to the starting gate, so what you choose to do with it is entirely up to you not me.
Except that you did provide a link -- it just wasn't to the actual Constitution of England. Or Britain. Or the U.K.. And it's not for me anyway, as you well know, because I know that no such document exists. The purpose of the link is to back up your own claim that it does. Which you obviously can't do.
You are deliberately misrepresenting to people that such a document exists. That's a tactic from the left does -- lie to people about facts because they're convinced their ultimate position is righteous. So, to the exent anyone else cares about this little colloquy, they should just google "English Constitution", and read up on it a bit. They'll see that no such "original Constitution" exists.
And just on general principles, anyone remotely familiar with the history of pre-Conquest Britain would recognize that the whole concept of citizenship as applied in modern nations-states would be nonsensical anyway. So even if there were an "original Constitution" from England in Anglo-Saxon times, it wouldn't be applicable to a modern citizenship argument. You didn't really even have a nation-state until after the Conquest, and the sway of the various petty-kings of the various Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms didn't have permanent boundaries.
Whether or not you are correct in your ultimate argument on citizenship is one thing. But this completely bogus tangent is simply indefensible.
I misrepresent nothing and you clearly have not studied English history in depth or the origins of what a constitution really is, which is a compact. For example, the Magna Charta is a compact which is also constitutional law and it was regarded as such and such were the rights under that constitutional compact that had been written into it, that the inalienable right of every free man to cast of his old allegiance and take another in the pursuit of his happiness & that of his wife & children. So, go feed yourself on that fact for a while troll.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html
So hey, I've done your homework for you! Gee, aren't I just swell? Now, can you quote the language you believe is reevant to your NBC argument?
Yeah. Didn't think so.
I have read the Magna Charta & I didn’t need to go to an English site to read it. The US Library of Congress has had it available online for years as part of their collection of OUR founding documents. I have also read & studied the words of the founders & framers of our constitution and they beg to differ with you.
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.