Posted on 02/17/2012 8:28:43 AM PST by Seizethecarp
“At issue is nothing less than the enforcement or loss of constitutional rule of law,” he submitted to the court. “The petitioner’s right to live in a constitutional republic will be lost if the clearest terms of the U.S. Constitution will not be enforced by the judicial branch of government.”
He said if the judiciary does not take the appropriate action, “it would confirm that the judicial branch is now unwilling to enforce the clearest and most basic requirements of the U.S. Constitution.”
His appeal explains that Malihi’s opinion defies logic.
“[His] conclusion runs contrary to common sense, violates venerable rules of constitutional construction followed by the U.S. Supreme Court since its inception, and violates the explicit holding of the Supreme Court case relied upon. Had the drafters of the Constitution intended all people born in the U.S. to be considered natural born citizens, the 14th Amendment would not have been necessary. Had the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended that amendment to alter the Article II definition of natural born citizen, they would have clearly stated so. Yet the term ‘natural born citizen’ is not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment. The amendment also makes no reference to Article II. The [Malihi] ruling, therefore, violates rules of construction that the OSAH had itself relied upon just days earlier in the same litigation,” the brief explains.
It explains Malihi also ignored a Supreme Court precedent in favor of a non-binding opinion from Indiana.
“Contrary to popular opinion, voters are not the final arbiters of whether an individual is qualified to hold office. In a constitutional republic the power of the majority is limited and cannot infringe upon constitutionally protected rights of a minority,” the brief argues.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Actually you ARE (cough, cough, dishonest namecaller.) No one butchered any quotes and I backed it up several times and explained EXACTLY how and why you were wrong. I'll do it again because I love to rub it in.
The case was about a citizen by statute.
That's what I just said. Is there some part of "The quote from RvB ONLY refers to statutory law" that you didn't understand??
But the quote is clear enough - the United States follow the English concept, jus soli.
... "in this area" of "our law." The statement was qualified. The Supreme Court in WKA said NBC is defined outside the law, so it's NOT talking about the same thing. Read it. Learn it. Understand it. You're not comprehending and acknowledging the words that were used.
And jus soli means "born on the soil = natural born."
Wrong. It does NOT mean natural-born. The Supreme Court said in at least TWO decisions that natural-born = born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The court was UNANIMOUS on this definition in Minor. You're trying to connect dots that were NEVER connected by the court. Never.
Oh? Where did Minor specify that childrens of aliens are non-NBC?
Answer: they didn't. Minor made specific statements only about the group that included Mrs. Minor. It left other situations very gray, and from the omission of specificity you are trying to extrapolate that they did say it. And then you are trying to get away from a specific statement in Rogers v. Bellei that the United States follows the English common law concept of jus soli.
Which is why no court has bought the argument of a "precedent" from Minor v Happersett, and won't buy it in the future.
You trumpet an ambiguous quote from Minor, a case which was not about children of aliens, but you won't accept a straightforward quote from RvB because it wasn't about citizen born on the soil. Not very consistent, are you? I will quote for you again, explaining line by line, since you are not comprehending (or refusing to comprehend, most likely)
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.Point by point
Note that opinion (Justice Scalia concurring) was against the petitioner.I'm just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution. I don't think you're disagreeing. It requires jus soli, doesn't it?
Lawyer: No your honor, I do disagree with that. I believe it encompasses Jus Sanguinus citizenship.
The court was UNANIMOUS on this definition in Minor. You're trying to connect dots that were NEVER connected by the court. Never.
Back at you, buddy. The court in Minor was not ruling on the definition of "natural born." They were ruling on Virginia Minor's citizenship, a specific case in which she was born in the US and had two citizen parents. The court in Minor never claimed to be ruling on other situations, in fact they said they would not.
From Minor v Happersett:
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Yet some people insist on substituting the phrase “natural born citizen” into that sentence for the word “citizens.”
Due to honest expectation bias or partisan dishonestly, people defending Barry's eligibility WANT the sentence to read:
“Some authorities go further and include as natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
But that is NOT what is written in MvH. The “doubts” are NOT about a sub-class of NBC, but a sub-class of citizens who are NOT NBC at birth because the immediately preceding MvH definition of NBC (about which there is no doubt) ONLY includes those born in the country to parents who are citizens.
The MvH holding on the definition of NBC is precedent because it was required to establish a citizen class to which Mrs. Minor belonged.
The WKA declaration that WKA was a citizen was based on the non-citizen class identified in MvH about which there were doubts as to CITIZENSHIP and the WKA court reached WKA’s citizenship but NOT his NBC status. Even the Ankeny court admitted this, as did Malihi.
Not in the English speaking world. The "neither" and "nor" are part of an introductory clause that has NO effect on what the rest of the sentence, which means EXACTLY what I said it means. The court was COMMITTED to the view that NBCs and children born of aliens were EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment. The justices who voted unanimously for this exclusion dealt with a different issue in the Slaughterhouse case. That's Gray's point. He said Slaughterhouse was not comprehensive because those justices could not know they were going to deal with a different aspect of the 14th amendment two years later. The Slaughterhouse exclusions were based ONLY on the subject clause. The Minor and Elk exclusions are based on the birth clause, NOT the subject clause. The court was committed to those exclusions which is MANIFEST (which means "made clear") by a UNANIMOUS decision in Minor. Read it. Learn it. UNDERSTAND IT. You can do it. Don't give up on yourself.
You trumpet an ambiguous quote from Minor, a case which was not about children of aliens, but you won't accept a straightforward quote from RvB because it wasn't about citizen born on the soil.
The Minor case wasn't about aliens, but it did talk about aliens and how they could become citizens. Are you honest enough to admit that?? Here's the direct quote that proves it. Are you going to try to lie your way out that too??
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States ..."Our law in this area" - the law of the United States in the matter of citizenship.
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11]
From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
Are you this dense in real life?? I already addressed this point. It's why I said the Supreme Court declared that NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. Your other points fail because you incorrectly ignore that NBC is NOT the same thing as jus soli. No one is arguing that statutory law is not based in jus soli criteria (except of course for those born abroad to citizen parents). The law is nothing if not inconsistent.
The court in Minor was not ruling on the definition of "natural born." They were ruling on Virginia Minor's citizenship, a specific case in which she was born in the US and had two citizen parents.
You're not being honest. Viriginia Minor argued her citizenship was NOT based on having citizen parents. Read the argument, or are you going to try to lie about this too??? We need to rack up the number of lies you've come up with in denying the facts:
It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men, are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
So, "back at you buddy" where do you see ANYTHING about parents in the argument as presented to the court?? Why did the court NOT accept this argument and why did they say ANYTHING about citizen parents OTHER than how it is used to define NBC???
From Ankeny, after citing Minor:
Thus the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizenFrom the Georgia hearing
However, the Indiana Court explains that Minor did not define the term natural born citizen. In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the Minor Court merely concluded that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens would qualify as natural born, and this Court agrees. The Minor Court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen.Neither of these two found in the Minor decision what you claim is so obvious. Ankeny quotes WKA
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. .and also notes that quoted within WKA
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally establishedAnkeny concludes
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
Read the example:
Here's the direct quote that proves it. Are you going to try to lie your way out that too?? Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States ... As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11] From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
I have not disputed that this case involves Virginia Minor's citizenship (although it is primarily about whether she can vote). Nor will I dispute it discusses naturalization. And this quote proves what about natural born? Nothing. So you can cry "liar" all you want, but it's false - I don’t need to lie (not that I would anyway) because I’m telling you what the current law is, and what it’s based on. Not what I wish it were. Not what I want it to be. But what actually is, instead of some tinfoil hat theory that has been and will be kicked out of or ruled against by every court.
Are you this dense in real life?? I already addressed this point. It's why I said the Supreme Court declared that NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution.
Ah, more Ad Hominem attacks – sure sign of a weak argument.
Your other points fail because you incorrectly ignore that NBC is NOT the same thing as jus soli. .
Wrong. As the :RvB opinion said, the US follows the “English concepts” and accepts Jus soli. Are you honest enough to admit the English concept? Born on the soil (usual diplomatic and military exceptions) means natural born subject. And as WKA quoted, that had not been changed by statute (and still hasn’t) so it still applies here as natural born citizen.
You're not being honest. Viriginia Minor argued her citizenship was NOT based on having citizen parents. Read the argument, or are you going to try to lie about this too??? We need to rack up the number of lies you've come up with in denying the facts:
More insults rather than reasoned arguments. Are you maintaining that the court was ruling on “natural born” rather than Virginia Minor’s right to vote? She was definitely a citizen, but I don’t see the court ruling on who doesn’t qualify as natural born.
“The court was UNANIMOUS on this definition in Minor. You're trying to connect dots that were NEVER connected by the court. Never.” So, "back at you buddy" where do you see ANYTHING about parents in the argument as presented to the court?? Why did the court NOT accept this argument and why did they say ANYTHING about citizen parents OTHER than how it is used to define NBC??? :
I repeat. The Court was not ruling on natural born. They were ruling on her right to vote. The quote you love so much specified her situation and said it was not going to resolve doubts on other situations. And do try to lose the insults – they don’t help your case. You want it to be true, so you argue tinfoil hat theories. All you do is make a laughingstock out of anyone associated with this.
“In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
“’The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Id. at 167-168.’
“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”
end quote
Wrong, wrong, wrong! This is an erroneus interpretation and Malihi's embrace of the interpretation is erroneous.
Reading the "black letter" dicta, the Minor v. Happersett court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a CITIZEN, not doubts about whether a child of alien parents is NBC. These non-NBC children of aliens or foreigners are the persons about whose CITIZENSHIP there were doubts. There were no doubts that these persons were not NBC because these persons were explicitly “distinguished from” NBCs:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
IOW, if a person born in the US had one or more alien or foreigner parent, they were “distinguished from” NBC persons. That is explicit and that definition of NBC as having NO alien or foreign parent is a definition which is “never doubted.”
As philman_36 has noted, even the Ankeny court stated in dicta that the WKA court did NOT say WKA was NBC. The Ankeny court's misinterpretation of the MvH dicta was cited in dicta as justification for including Barry in the class about whom the MVH court said there were doubts that they were NBC and Ankeny resolved those doubt in favor of Barry.
Again, the doubts in MvH were clearly whether persons with alien or foreigner parents were CITIZENS, not whether they were NBC, which they could not be under the MvH holding that was used to place Mrs. Minor in a class of citizens...that being NBC. This NBC class was DISTINGUISHED from the class that had one or more aliens or foreigners as parents.
Note that by their own admission, neither the Ankeny court nor Malihi were able to cite a single federal cast affirming their claim that WKA set a precedent NBC definition under which Barry is NBC. Not one federal citation in over 110 years!
What I am claiming is that any court which has made such a decision has INCORRECTLY interpreted the law. Currently, the case of Wong Kim Ark can be interpreted as drawing a distinction between the term "citizen" and "natural born citizen". If looked at in this manner, it is not in conflict with the law. If on the other hand, it is regarded as meaning the same thing, then this court case is definitely in conflict with the law of that time.
Modern courts (Ankeny) are just blindly and stupidly equating the one thing with the other and claiming their misinterpretations of previous precedent as supporting their decision. The Gray court should not be held responsible for the stupidity of subsequent courts.
If you read up on it, there was a wave of anti-immigrant feeling from 1830 to about 1860, evidenced by the Know Nothing party, the Native American party, etc. There was widespread anti-Catholic sentiment, and reaction against the floods of immigrants from Ireland and Germany. New York was getting a large proportion of the immigrants. The Native American Association was very active in New York, and there was a petition (p31) to change naturalization laws, requiring 21 years residence in order to vote. Given the sentiments of the time, no surprise that New York code might include this, but it's irrelevant.
It is irrelevant to this discussion WHY the state of New York passed a law banning citizenship for the children of transient aliens. What *IS* relevant is that they had the power to do so and did. It PROVES, that one did not automatically get American Citizenship for being born on American Soil, but the Newspaper article from 1811 also proves this.
You will of course know that what you posted applied to a citizen of New York but could not supersede Lynch v. Clarke in unmaking someone a citizen of the United States. From Lynch v Clarke:
Second. Such being the rule of the common law, in the absence of express legislation, the difficult question is presented for decision; is the common law in this respect, the law of this state, or of the United States ? If it be the law here, then Julia Lynch was a native born citizen, and inherited the property in controversy; assuming that it was the property of Thomas Lynch, as alleged in the bill of complaint….[p639]
Yes, that reminds me of this: (James Madison)
It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a law existed in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference drawn from such principles.
And do you know what this tells us? Both are lamenting the fact that the State had not passed a law deciding who is a citizen, and as a result, the English Common law is the default they chose to use in the absence of positive law. (In the case of Julia Lynche, it was just stupid.) This is a tacit acknowledgement in both cases that a state CAN pass such a law, and that the English Common law principle of jus soli is not an automatic given.
Of course in both cases, they are addressing the issue of citizenship within a STATE, not the issue of Federal citizenship. As the previously cited newspaper article mentions, one can be a citizen of a state without being a Federal citizen.
In any case, New York subsequently passed a law that barred citizenship for the children of Transient Aliens. Again, this act proves they could completely reject the use of English Common law Jus Soli principle if they so wished. If they could not claim state citizenship for being born in a state, how could they claim Federal Citizenship?
So whatever the New York legislature passed, the court had already ruled with regard to US citizenship.
For Julia Lynche. The court was thereafter barred from ruling such for anyone else. Even in the case of Julia Lynche, it was an incredibly stupid thing to do, but court systems do love them some "precedent."
The applicable interpretations and laws are what was in 1961. You maintain the laws and interpretations were wrong, because the Founders actually meant something different. You have shown me that New York citizenship was denied to children of transients (SAD was domiciled in Hawaii) but not that US citizenship was denied.
If one cannot claim State citizenship, on what basis can you claim Federal citizenship? Riddle me that oh confused one! :)
You even cited the NY Chancery case that showed US citizenship was not denied to children of transients.
Not sure what you are talking about here. I don't recall such a case, unless you are referring to Barry v. Mercein. In that case, the court ruled they had no jurisdiction to intervene. In any case, the child was born around 1835.
(And I have answered your Indians and Slaves objection multiple times. And arguing about diplomats, who are excepted from the laws of the host country and thus not "subject to the jurisdiction" is absurd.)
And yet you absurdly continue to overlook the fact that under the Jus Sanguinus doctrine, they are not exceptions at all! Your theory requires THREE special exceptions (two of which were changed, but at different times) to explain the history of what actually happened, the Jus Sanguinus theory requires NONE. Occam's razor is not on your side.
It is good that you see my contempt for the Imperial legal system coming through. I often wonder if I am not making it clear how little they are deserving of respect, and how much I think they, and much of their methodology need to be thrown over the ramparts.
Yes, the legal system lives in it's own little sophistic world, and I would dearly love to see some comeuppance come crashing through it's obnoxious indifference to reality.
It is my opinion that they are there to serve US, not the other way around. My point is still valid. Something is not true merely because a court says so.
Reality does not change when the courts make squeaking noises.
From Minor:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Children of aliens or foreigners are DISTINGUISHED from NBC children born in the country of parents (plural) who are citizens. These are the two mutually exclusive classes. Regarding NBC children there is no doubt that they are citizens.
Regarding non-NBC children of aliens and foreigners, the Minor court said there was doubt but unlike the NBC definition which they reached as an essential holding needed to assess the voting rights of the citizen class that Mrs. Minor belonged to, the Minor court did not reach clear definition of the children of aliens and foreigners which had been distinguished as non-NBC.
begin quote from Ankeny:
“In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
“’The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Id. at 167-168.’
“Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.”
end quote
Wrong, wrong, wrong! This is an erroneous interpretation and Malihi’s embrace of the interpretation is erroneous.
Reading the “black letter” dicta, the Minor v. Happersett court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a CITIZEN, not doubts about whether a child of alien parents is NBC. These non-NBC children of aliens or foreigners are the persons about whose CITIZENSHIP there were doubts. There were no doubts that these persons were not NBC because these persons were explicitly “distinguished from” NBCs:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
IOW, if a person born in the US had one or more alien or foreigner parent, they were “distinguished from” NBC persons. That is explicit and that definition of NBC as having NO alien or foreign parent is a definition which is “never doubted.”
As philman_36 has noted, even the Ankeny court stated in dicta that the WKA court did NOT say WKA was NBC. The Ankeny court's misinterpretation of the MvH dicta was cited in dicta as justification for including Barry in the class about whom the MVH court said there were doubts that they were NBC and Ankeny resolved those doubt in favor of Barry.
Again, the doubts in MvH were clearly whether persons with alien or foreigner parents were CITIZENS, not whether they were NBC, which they could not be under the MvH holding that was used to place Mrs. Minor in a class of citizens...that being NBC. This NBC class was DISTINGUISHED from the class that had one or more aliens or foreigners as parents.
Note that by their own admission, neither the Ankeny court nor Malihi were able to cite a single federal cast affirming their claim that WKA set a precedent NBC definition under which Barry is NBC. Not one federal citation in over 110 years!
Yes, there's a big difference between these oversimplified examples and the construction of the sentence in WKA. That aside, what YOU are not acknowledging is that the "thoughts" of the editors and readers do not change the reality of the action suggested in the rest of the example sentences. Edge did NOT butcher the quote. What the readers and editors thought does NOT change this fact. The quote was NOT butchered. The WKA action is likewsie measurable. The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision that excluded the children born in the country of citizens and aliens from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. What Justices Miller and others understood when they decided Slaughterhouse does NOT change the fact that the Minor decision, which they voted for, was unanimous and that it EXCLUDED those persons. The fact that it was a UNANIMOUS decision is why Justice Gray says the court was committed to the view. The understanding of Miller and others does NOT change the commitment. He's only saying they didn't understand it two years earlier because they were considering the subject clause not the birth clause in Slaughterhouse. Your examples prove MY point. Thanks.
I have not disputed that this case involves Virginia Minor's citizenship (although it is primarily about whether she can vote).
Let's assume it was about the right to run for president. What impact would this decision have?? Answering that question honestly destroys your beliefs.
Many thanks for the info!!!
I guess with enough $ anything can be covered up and inquiries and subpoenas ignored....
And at certain levels of office, not be held accountable or meet requirements (security-wise) that others would.
Grrrrr
Pls put ‘Freeper’ on “this subject” list. Thanx
Put it this way . . . Resident Obama has not been 'cleared' enough to play in the Marine Corp Band in the White House much less live there!
Okay, you’re added.
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.
