Posted on 02/22/2012 10:09:16 AM PST by jdirt
As Lex Luthor remarked, "Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."
We know which category you and your ilk are in. Deep thinkers you are not.
The wise fisherman does not equate the existence of fish with his ability to catch them.
That no court ever bothers to hear a case means that no ruling of any such court can ever be regarded as legitimate.
You must HEAR a case, before you can decide it's nonsense. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying loudly "I'm not LISTENING! I'm not LISTENING! Is appropriate behavior for a child (or demcrats) but is not appropriate for a body of deliberative thought.
So far the children aren't listening. That does not make the children's opinion correct.
I understand that you are waking up to the futility of your position.
When your answer is a flat out rejection of our legal system as it has existed for 200 years then I understand you really don’t understand how things really work.
So the entire justice system is full of children and birthers are the only adults in the room?
Humility is not a word you are familiar with, is it?
Wisdom from comic book characters? Sure, why not? Between Leo and Orly, Lex fits in just fine.
“We BROKE with the King! Don’t you get it? “
Yes, I do. But the LANGUAGE of the law, used by men in 1787, was based on English common law. I have NOT said we are UNDER English common law, but that the term NBC finds its meaning in the English common law term ‘natural born subject’ - which was the normal legal term used then.
If the Founders wanted a different definition, then they needed to state one. They did not, and I’ve shown that at least one of the ratify states used the terms interchangeably for some years later.
“My POINT was that sometimes they used NBC and sometimes they used NBS”
Which of course raises the question. When they read the Constitution for the first time, how would the Massachusetts’ legislators have interpeted the phrase “natural born Citizen”?
Since they considered them interchangeable terms, they would have believed the meanings to be the same, only applied to US citizens instead of English subjects. That was the point of the WKA review.
Many being lawyers they would have been very familiar with the common law phrase “natural born”. They understood that they were citizens instead of subjects due to the change in system of government.
The point is they wrote the Constitution using the legal phrases they were familiar with. The entire document is full of phrases from British common law.
It’s plenty clear. All the deflections, distortions and excuses used by Obama apologists prove that it’s very clear and very threatening.
As we can see, there are no current court cases, including Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana and Tisdale, which have convincingly shown through real historical and legal analysis that any child born in the United States, without any reference to the child’s parents’ citizenship, is a “natural born Citizen.” As hard as the courts continue to try, they just cannot seem to be able to shake off the “natural born Citizen” clause. Maybe it is because the Founders and Framers are still holding on to it for dear life. Hence, the law of nations and traditional U.S. Supreme Court American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen,” which Minor in 1875 directly and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 indirectly confirmed, i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents, stands. Anyone who wants to change it needs to either go to the U.S. Supreme Court or have a constitutional amendment passed to accomplish that. - Puzo.
Losing arguments from losing lawyers the best you have?
Lawyers like Mario Apuzzo, Orly Taitz and Leo Donofrio are the reason birthers lose every time in every court.
@Tisdale v. Obama and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause February 16, 2012
I would also like to note and offer for consideration that there are no such current contemporary writings that I know of that are being written by anybody of the liberal bent agreeing with the decisions by any of the courts on this issue.
Kind of gives one an idea of what they think of it...they don't even try to defend them as they know how poor such decisions are.
He has created one legal principle or statement by combining the statements and using ellipsis which makes it look as though Hollander itself made the whole statement.
It isn't as if such antics haven't @been seen before.
Why do you always mash those two together?
Miles apart and your ellipsis is just plain wrong.
Sweets bait!
Just a theory at this point. I’ll have to test it again later.
Son - you are crossing the line into paranoia now.
If true, you should be embarrassed that a computer program can present more articulate and rational arguments then you can. Just saying.
Like I said, it's just a theory at this point in time and I'll randomly test my theory again at some other inopportune time.
So that is going to be your shield from reality? “I am not talking to a real human so I can ignore him?”
Do you appreciated just how delusional you sound?
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.