Free Republic

You aren’t a conservative. You’re a twit who can’t read one single case and get it right. Heck, you can’t get ONE SENTENCE right!

Talk about a bunch of Rocket Scientists!!!

I tell you what. I’ll save Jim the trouble of zotting me. I had hoped to make a dozen years, but what the heck. As long as you idiotic Birfers are loose to make this place look like some kind of Art Bell Halfway House, I don’t want my name, uh er uh, screen name, associated with it.

Jim should have spanked Birfer Butt a long time ago and made you idiots behave. You have been terrorizing the threads too long and calling anybody who disagrees with you trolls and whatever. Should have been stopped a long time ago.

So, I tell you what. Jim Rob made you, and Jim Rob can have you. He can give you a bottle at 3:00 am when you wake up crying with a poopy diaper!

Until then, I ZOTTTTT! myself. The door ain’t hitting me in the ass on the way out. . .

parsy, who . . . . .bows, and takes his leave. (Applause)

You aren’t a “true Constitutionalist.” You’re somebody who can’t read a legal case and wants to get rid of anybody who can. If I get zotted over this,it’s worth it.

YOU are a prime example of what’s wrong with Birfers. You can’t defend an argument and you go running off whining when anybody tells you so.

BTW, maybe you should go after Chuck DeVore, too. He doesn’t call you “true Constitutionalists” either. He calls your theories “crazy”. He wouldn’t even appear at the same function as Orly Taitz.

Here. Read it and weep:

In the article, a representative Orange County’s top tea-partier, Chuck DeVore, bashes Taitz.

“I can say emphatically that the Chuck DeVore campaign and Chuck DeVore himself strongly disapproves of Orly Taitz and the crazy theories she continues to advance,” said Josh Trevino, a DeVore spokesman.”

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/orly-taitz-uninvited-to-tea-pa/

parsy, who, if he does get zotted, at least won’t have to be around sorry excuses for freepers like yourself!

It doesn't CONTRADICT the holding. You didn't put in the ENTIRE sentence. You said: "We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief;..." It was all a dog and pony show of contradictory dicta. The ACTUAL sentence reads: "We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite THE FACT THAT THEY WERE BORN ABROAD." [caps added to show what you left out.] That's the REAL COMPLETE sentence. It gets followed by: That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty united states is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status. " This comes from footnote 14 and 15 found at the bottom of pages 17 and 18 of the decision which can be found here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf (Very simple. No contradictions. The Ankeny Court didn't deal with foreign born citizens. It just dealt with those born in the United States. Just as the Wong Court did with poor Wong, who was born in the United States. That does not, in any way, contradict the Ankeny Court's holding about those born IN THE USA. Not even talking about the same thing.) Now, lets look at your last statement: ""We believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. " Lets rewrite that a little so that its all in one place. . . "We believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments [ that . . ."there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’(page 12)"] fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." And, what does the Ankeny Court say, again: "Based upon the language of Art. 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 Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)" Its a published case. The Vattel two-citizen parent theory is NOT good law. The Ankeny Court shot it down in flames. parsy

ONE: If a court cites a treatise, it does not necessarily incorporate everything in the treatise. Look at a treatise. You usually have topical sections with multiple sub-divisions. There might be a part of Dicey, a court finds relevant and good, and another part either not-relevant, or not good, or a combination thereof. For example, some treatises argue BOTH sides (sometimes more than 2) of an issue. Clearly a court can not adopt ALL sides.

TWO: The part you cite appears to deal with jus sanguis citizenship of person born overseas. Wong wasn’t born overseas. Therefore, not relevant to Wong. You appear to be mixing citizenship issues between NBC and foreign borns, which some are probably NBCs and some probably ain’t.

parsy

Page 3 of the Ankeny decision. 2nd sentence of the first full paragraph says it TESTS THE LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE CLAIM. Its the facts you don’t contest. The LEGAL merits of the Plaintiff’s, the “Not an NBC” part, has been tested, and it failed.

Again, its a ONE SENTENCE holding for the most part. pretty clear.

parsy

Sorry. Missed you in rush.

“They were irrelevant and immaterial to the issue??? That was the real issue whether or not Obama or Wong were natural born citizens. Indiana was talking out both sided of its ass. The case you love Parsy is worth dog-crap.”

If you are born in the country, you don’t have to be naturalized, so discussions about that (naturalization) are irrelevant. Real simple.

You have a ONE SENTENCE holding in Ankeny. That should not give you any difficulty.

parsy

Not the part you’re citing.

parsy

I’m not seeing any problem with that. None at all. Does it in any way contradict the the ONE SENTENCE holding? Nope. Slam dunk!

parsy, who says please hurry, its almost 3:30 here. I gots to go to bed by then.

No sense in discussing what Dicey meant. It’s not relevant to this discussion. YOU figure out why. Two reasons, at least. Easy ones.

parsy

I’m not seeing any such thing. Looks pretty clear to me. One sentence is a hard thing to get wrong.

parsy

Here’s one of the precedents:

Based upon the language of Art. 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 Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)

parsy

They’re posting to me. I’m answering. If you call that trolling, zot me.

parsy, who is fed up with idiot birfers

Among other things, that the Plaintiff’s failed to [LEGALLY} state a claim that Obama wasn’t eligible for office. He is. They have no claim. Read the decision. There’s about 5 pages devoted to the NBC argument.

parsy, who gave you a cite.

First, that’s a false assumption. The state supreme court most likely didn’t want to embarrass the Indiana appeals court because their opinion isn’t worth dog poop.

ASSUMPTION=”The state supreme court most likely didn’t . . .”

For the last time, from Ankeny:

The Birfers: “Contrary to the thinking of most people on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’(page 12)”

The Ankeny Court: “Based upon the language of Art. 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 Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)”

That’s ONE SENTENCE. Pretty hard to get wrong. It’s LAW. Its PUBLISHED.

Born within the borders=NBC, regardless of parental citizenship

parsy

He posted to me. I’m answering. If you don’t like it, tough. Turn me in. Whatever.

parsy

Dismissed cases and cases which are settled by summary judgment are just as much law as cases which go to hearing and then go up. The reasons for granting dismissal or reversing are the point.

For heavens sake, go to a law library and start reading the cases where summary judgment was upheld or reversed and sent back down. All kinds of law there. Go here and read the first page where it says “Opinion - For Publication”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

That means this is going to be printed and published as precedental law. People can cite Ankeny now, since the court published it. Some cases, are NOT published. Those usually can not be cited.

parsy

Look up there by the number 10. See the stuff that reads “District of Columbia v. Heller”-—that’s a legal case. The judges may use dictionaries, ALRs, AmJurs, treatises, and other stuff. Those are not the LAW, and they don’t trump cases.

In Heller, it isn’t the DICTIONARY, as LAW, that makes the decision. It’s the Court. Because DICTIONARIES ain’t law. If you doubt that, read thru the LEGAL DICTIONARY and look at the thousands of things there that ARE NOT law. Ducking stools might be in there. Wergild (sp) perhaps, too.

parsy, who wishes you would just learn to listen once in a while.

Read Ankeny again. In short, cases are decided on facts and the law. Regarding Obama, there was no dispute as to the facts. The 2 plaintiffs claimed he was born of a foreign father, and since such was openly admitted by Obama, there was dispute as to the facts. (Plus, it was one of those things which if taken as true, would not change the applicable law.)

So, the judge ruled on it as a matter of law, which he was entitled to do, and it was dismissed. Appeals court also addressed the issue and relying on guidance from Wong, found Obama an NBC.

Indiana Supreme Court had no problem with that holding. So, yes, the issue was heard and ruled on as a matter of law and the case was dismissed—in part, because Obama is an NBC. There’s like 5 pages devoted to it in the appellate decision.

parsy, who wishes it was earlier

I disagree with the latter part, but its not worth arguing about. I believe the law is clear. Wong Kim Ark lays out the foundation. Ankeny slam dunks it home. This Birfer NBC stuff ain’t going nowhere, legally speaking. My advice is, start getting your ducks in a row for an amendment. That’s the only chance you have.

parsy

Since you pinged me, I guess it is OK for me to answer:

I kinda wanted to wait until AFTER you weighed in with your “esteemed” opinion of this alleged legal source. Has it ever occurred to any of you legal giants to go to the same dictionary and look up the word “citizen” and perhaps the term “naturalized citizen.”

I don’t have access to your version, although I do recall owning a copy, somewhere. Here is the 1892 version. Both volumes are online. You may find “citizen” at page 316, of Volume One. There you will find that “native citizens” unlike “naturalized citizens”, may be presidents and vice presidents, making the term the same as “Natural Born Citizen.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=YCRAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Once again-—I leave you alone for a few hours, and come home to find you stuck, head first, in the toilet. You see the real problem here is, one doesn’t use LEGAL DICTIONARIES
to TRUMP CASE LAW. That is why most legal dictionaries will reference cases in the applicable definitions.

Plus, by showing the definition of the “LAW OF NATIONS” above to the whole wide world, you have just gutted your premise that those words refer to the book by Vattel. Clearly, BY YOUR OWN SOURCE, it refers to international law.

parsy, who is shaking his head in wonderment. . .