I don't think you've repeated it enough.
"Four Legs GOOD! Two legs Bad!"
Posted on 02/22/2012 10:09:16 AM PST by jdirt
Please attend hearing if you can.
I realize that the system is infected with a disease which needs to be eradicated. The people on your side have twisted federal law every since Roosevelt and Truman had 20 years of stacking the court with kooks. The consequences of this distortion in the legal system is still manifesting itself today.
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.
Well see, this is where conservatives disagree with you. Our current system is not the same system as existed for 200 years. This "living constitution" bullsh*t is only of fairly recent vintage, and can be traced exclusively to the influence of Roosevelt and Truman's appointments to the Federal bench.
Normal SANE judges would not permit most of Roosevelt's agenda. Time after time one of his programs would be judged "unconstitutional" (Borderline Communist stuff) and so every time an opening came up, Roosevelt would appoint another Liberal Kook.
Kook judges, force the law schools to teach kook law. Too many of them believe (as do you) that the law is what a Judge Says it is.
Again, this stuff is axiomatic for conservatives. For you, on the other hand, it is probably the first time you have ever heard of it.
It is a tenet of the conservative side of the political spectrum that the Legal system is seriously diseased; Not that it functions "normal."
A "normal" legal system does not legalize baby murder based on an Amendment to grant citizenship to slaves.
There are bad times a-commin, and when the dust settles, the court system will be functioning correctly once again.
I appreciate the concept of a bot being set up to give a warning or alert when somebody replies to a particular reply or thread.
You just give credence to how good Mario Apuzzo's article is as you're here right on cue.
Depending upon what you mean by the term "birthers", the answer is "yes." Absolutely. The notion that someone of questionable credentials should be merely accepted on their own say-so is about the most incompetent thing i've seen from governmental officials in decades.
Competent adults know better. As the only people asking for evidence are "birthers", one must conclude that they are the only competent people on the stage.
Humility is not a word you are familiar with, is it?
You may have reasons to be humble, but I have a track record of capability that is exceptional. Competence is a word with which I am very familiar.
You have a very active imagination. So who do you think I work for? NSA? CIA? Area 51?
I had to give you something to which you could relate. You seem to be pretty much a comic book type of person, so I figured the reference might resonate with you.
So who do you think I work for? NSA? CIA? Area 51?
From your homepage...I presently work in the defense industry supporting Navy operations.
Who do you work for, if I may ask?
Yes, we use the terms "Captain" and "Corporal" but that doesn't mean our soldiers owe allegiance to the King as do theirs.
Our founding principles exclude the English understanding of subjectship. The very existence of our nation is a rejection of the character of being a subject. That some states continued usage of the term is nothing but verbal inertia. I note you have no references after 1789.
Even Thomas Jefferson initially wrote the word "subject" into the Declaration of Independence. He then rubbed it out and re-wrote the word "citizen." A more fitting symbol of what we did as a nation is unlikely to be found. We explicitly REJECTED Monarchical based subjectship law.
In this case, the disease needs to provoke enough outrage that a few judges get their butts impeached. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are so clueless as to how things were supposed to operate, that they don't know what they think until someone tells them.
The system will teeter along until it falls, and the signs are looking ominous to me.
I don't think you've repeated it enough.
"Four Legs GOOD! Two legs Bad!"
I work for you - the American public.
He is unquestionably a bot. There are only three groups of people involved in these discussions. Conservatives who want the truth to come out, misguided conservatives (Mr. Rogers) who can't shake their delusions, and bots working for the other side.
Given this guy's unfamiliarity with the ubiquitous concept (among conservatives) that the Federal Judiciary is seriously screwed up, the obvious conclusion is that he runs in different circles than do normal conservatives.
His arguments are too involved in esoteric minutia to be discovered by someone with a casual interest, and in many cases they are verbatim fogblow.
He is simply a false flag agent provocateur.
I work for you - the American public.
I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. LOL
Then let me rephrase my question...
I presently work in the defense industry supporting Navy operations.
What company in the defense industry do you work for, if I may ask?
I'm sure a computer program COULD produce more articulate and rational arguments then can you. As of yet, you have produced none. A computer need reply with anything (including random text gibberish) to have bettered your effort.
At least gibberish wouldn't be absolutely wrong.
DNC or College Democrats.
“We explicitly REJECTED Monarchical based subjectship law. “
Odd, then, that the same men and states seemed to have used the term interchangeably...
Perhaps you would like to tell me the basis of a commonly understood meaning of the legal term “natural born citizen” prior to 1787. Remember, it did not appear in any translation of Vattel prior to 1797. Indeed, someone following Vattel would have used the term native, or indigene - as Vattel did.
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.
Do you know of anybody "of renown" on the liberal side currently writing any articles as to their take on the rulings?
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.