Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mississippi Democrat party running scared
scribd ^ | 05/06/2012 | edge919

Posted on 05/06/2012 12:21:36 PM PDT by edge919

The Mississippi Democrat party just filed a motion to dismiss a ballot challenge in from Orly Taitz on behalf of a couple of Mississippi voters. The motion, which is more than 200 pages contains a citation and copies from every known so-called "birther" case that has been filed. Also, in this challenge, they they seem to think this satisfies the Federal Rules of Evidence in regard to self-authenticating documents. The actual idea behind that rule is to submit certified copies of records to the court so that the documents can be inspected by all parties to ensure they contain the required certification elements. Also, they rely on out-of-court claims made on various websites to “verify” the legitimacy of said documents, when nothing in those statements contains an actual legal verification. The MDEC includes a ballot challenge in Illinois in which a photocopy of the printed PDF was submitted. Again, none of these items actually satisfies the FRE. The MDEC seems to be relying on a strategy of overwhelming the plaintiffs with everything they could find, plus the kitchen sink, ignoring that out of all the cited cases, not one time has a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate ever been submitted in any legal action. Out of the 200 plus pages in the Motion, an actual certified copy of Obama's alleged long-form would be compelling ... and Obama has TWO such copies, he alleges, so certainly he could loan one to them??


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certificate; eligibility; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last
To: BigGuy22
And read more carefully, please. I didn't say that the precedent is overwhelming. I said that judicial interpretation of Wong Kim Ark overwhelmingly supports the jus soli point of view rather than the "heritage-based" one. I find your objection to that to be quite baffling, other than the fact that it upsets you that none of the judges agrees with you in the slightest.

That judges don't agree with me is a matter of reassurance from my perspective. I regard the legal system as having been corrupted by Liberal ideology due to the influence which Roosevelt and Truman exerted on it for 20 years, thereby transforming the Federal Judiciary from a careful deliberative body into a collection of activist loons.

This is a common belief among conservatives, and it is only people of liberal persuasion that finds this perspective disconcerting. Conservatives have come to respect the legal system very little. It has become a collection of ideologically corrupt idiots that among other things, permit the slaughter of innocent children because previous idiots in their profession told them to.

It is a system which is ill, and it needs to be healed. One way to heal it is by exposing it's fallacies and ridiculing it. And to that end you are assisting us.

51 posted on 05/07/2012 2:04:15 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"No more than John Brown's views on Slavery had an impact on what the laws eventually became."
__

"Eventually became"!! You finally got it!

Now look back at what you were responding to -- it was my comment that "your view has no impact on what current law actually is."

And you seem to agree. You are hoping that the law will eventually become what you want it to be.

And who knows, maybe it will. All I'm talking about is what the law is now -- which, by your own admission, is not what you want it to be, because you said it yourself -- "we mean to force the laws to change."

You admit that current law is against you. And that's exactly what I've been saying.
52 posted on 05/07/2012 2:08:24 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“I understand your purpose is to try to deflect this issue, but you’ll need to do a much better job.”
__

Your understanding of my purpose reminds me of your understanding of the law!

Every decision has gone against you. Every single one. You can cherry-pick quotes that you think give you a thread of support — so, good, use it on appeal! See if you can parlay some of that word play into a favorable decision.

So far you are batting zero, but hey, take your best shot!


53 posted on 05/07/2012 2:13:44 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
I haven’t said anything remotely resembling “we are correct,” nor have I claimed that their argument was valid.I haven’t once taken the position that “facts are decided by consensus.”

Yes you have, every bit of it is implied by your context. What other conclusion can be drawn from your naming off how many people agree with a position?

You’re simply setting up straw men, and you’re not going to succeed in getting me to defend points of view that I’ve never expressed.

You've expressed them. Now that you realize how indefensible they are, you are attempting to distance yourself from them.

I’ve simply said that that the judges’ rulings represent the current state of the law, and nothing you’ve said seems to counter that in any way whatsoever.

It represents the unconsidered opinion of a Judge parroting precedent in absence of a weighing of evidence. The law is quite clear to those who know how to read. You keep trying to equate what is the "law" as being the same as what is a judge's opinion.

I have read the debates on the 14th amendment. (The basis for the Wong Kim Ark ruling, and without which it wouldn't exist) and it is quite clear that they had no intention of regarding anyone born under the 14th amendment as a "natural born citizen".

Their entire purpose was to grant former slaves the right to be a citizen under the only legal theory by which they could do so without specifically referring to their former status as slaves. They could NOT appeal to jus sanguinus because former slaves could not claim jus sanguinus.

It has been dishonest in the extreme for those of your mindset to equate an amendment to grant freed slaves citizenship as repealing the article II requirements that the President be a natural citizen. Former slaves were NOT natural citizens, they were "naturalized" (adopted) by the force of the 14th amendment.

54 posted on 05/07/2012 2:18:17 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22

Sorry, but this is logical fallacy. A so-called consensus of stupidity doesn’t make these judges right. Talk about the actual issues if you understand them. I already pointed out that the MDEC is making this same fallacy by trying to argue quantity rather than quality.


55 posted on 05/07/2012 2:22:22 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: edge919
I understand your purpose is to try to deflect this issue, but you'll need to do a much better job.

He is just a "scarecrow" for which we "crows" have little concern. :)

He is just a tacit opposition. Verbal filler if you will.

56 posted on 05/07/2012 2:22:28 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“What other conclusion can be drawn from your naming off how many people agree with a position?”
__

I hope most people draw the obvious conclusion.

The fact that every single judge who’s looked at the issue has come to the same conclusion is strong evidence that there is an overwhelming consensus in the judicial community regarding how WKA is to be interpreted. Whether that interpretation is “correct” is a totally different issue, one on which I have expressed no opinion.

I don’t think that’s a difficult concept to understand, and I’m not going to keep repeating it.


57 posted on 05/07/2012 2:24:39 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“Sorry, but this is logical fallacy. A so-called consensus of stupidity doesn’t make these judges right”
__

Sorry, the fallacy is your own. As I’ve said over and over, the consensus doesn’t prove they’re right. I never said it did.

I said that the existence of the consensus indicates that an understanding of the current state of the law is widely shared among judges. I have taken no stand on its correctness.

Why are you having so much trouble understanding that?


58 posted on 05/07/2012 2:28:46 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
Now look back at what you were responding to -- it was my comment that "your view has no impact on what current law actually is."

And you seem to agree. You are hoping that the law will eventually become what you want it to be.

You are apparently unaware that John Brown opposed actual laws, not Judges opinions of laws. Laws regarding slavery were deliberated and voted on by the legislatures of the several states, and therefore were duly enacted legislation. i.e. "laws."

I am not acknowledging that what judges cause to occur constitutes the same thing as an actual law.

And who knows, maybe it will. All I'm talking about is what the law is now -- which, by your own admission, is not what you want it to be, because you said it yourself -- "we mean to force the laws to change."

I am not confining myself to just this one issue in regards to "the laws." There are many actual laws that need to be changed, not just this widespread misinterpretation of Amendment 14.

59 posted on 05/07/2012 2:30:08 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Well, it looks like we agree on more than we might have thought. Nice chatting with you.


60 posted on 05/07/2012 2:33:23 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22

The consensus is the premise behind your posts. Why are you afraid to own that?? There’s no point in bringing up the consensus unless you think it proves correctness.


61 posted on 05/07/2012 2:34:15 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: edge919
The consensus is the premise behind my posts and I don't think it proves correctness.

That really isn't hard to understand.
62 posted on 05/07/2012 2:39:21 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
Every decision has gone against you. Every single one. You can cherry-pick quotes that you think give you a thread of support — so, good, use it on appeal! See if you can parlay some of that word play into a favorable decision.

You sound like Chief Justice Taney's cheer leading squad during his Dred Scott v Sanford decision! "Take that you D@mned Slave! Every case has gone against you, so therefore you are WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! "

Sorry, not very persuasive from my perspective. Washington lost most every battle till he finally won. This battle won't be won in the courts, it will be won in the court of Public Opinion. That the courts have been all over the place in their decisions is more a cause for hilarity than anything else.

Whodathunk they would make up such silly crap to justify their rulings? :)

"New Jersey doesn't require proof to get on the ballot." HA HA HA HA HA!

"Georgia : We have no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, but on that basis we will rule him eligible!"

They should write a Saturday Night Live skit for this. It's just that funny!

63 posted on 05/07/2012 2:40:53 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“Every case has gone against you, so therefore you are WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! “ “
__

Ooops, there you go again! I never made a judgment as to right or wrong. That is a straw man of your own invention, and you just can’t seem to let go of it.


64 posted on 05/07/2012 2:43:03 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
The fact that every single judge who’s looked at the issue has come to the same conclusion is strong evidence that there is an overwhelming consensus in the judicial community regarding how WKA is to be interpreted. Whether that interpretation is “correct” is a totally different issue, one on which I have expressed no opinion.

I don’t think that’s a difficult concept to understand, and I’m not going to keep repeating it.

All the physicists in the world had bought into the "Aether" theory until Einstein came along and demonstrated that it was rubbish.

Let me try once more to acquaint you with the fallacy of your presentation.

Argumentum ad populum.

65 posted on 05/07/2012 2:46:26 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22

The “consensus” was already brought up in the OP. Again, I already pointed out that the MDEC is trying to argue QUANTITY over quality. There’s no point in regurgitating anything about concensus unless one thinks it reinforces correctness. The part that is hard to understand is the lack of honesty.


66 posted on 05/07/2012 2:47:10 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
Sorry, the fallacy is your own. As I’ve said over and over, the consensus doesn’t prove they’re right. I never said it did.

Then why do you keep repeating numbers?

I said that the existence of the consensus indicates that an understanding of the current state of the law is widely shared among judges.

Or a misunderstanding is widely shared among judges. Given the evidence available, this is the more likely scenario.

How anyone could regard an amendment grating citizenship to slaves means we must accept foreign citizens as President is just a stretch too far for a sensible man.

I have taken no stand on its correctness.

Sure you have. By equating falsity and truth as a matter of opinion you have taken a stand for falsity.

Would you be so confused as to the correctness or incorrectness of slavery?

67 posted on 05/07/2012 2:53:20 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"All the physicists in the world had bought into the "Aether" theory until Einstein came along and demonstrated that it was rubbish."
__

Well, sort of, though Michelson and Morley had a lot more to do with it.

But the analogy between science and law fails utterly in a context like this. It is currently held (generally -- Dirac differed) in the Physics community that there is no ether. And if there is no ether now, there was no ether then. Scientific theories evolve, but scientific facts don't change, through consensus or anything else.

But laws do change. Slavery was once legal; it is not legal now. Abortion was once illegal; it is legal now.

Whether any of these laws is *correct* or "incorrect* is a totally separate issue from whether they are in fact laws. And one of the ways that laws change is through a kind of consensus -- for example, the majority in Roe v. Wade that made abortion legal.

One may disagree with that decision. But it is the law, and I am able to state that it is the law with absolute assurance without having to take any position on whether I feel that law is a good or a bad thing.
68 posted on 05/07/2012 2:58:44 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
Ooops, there you go again! I never made a judgment as to right or wrong. That is a straw man of your own invention, and you just can’t seem to let go of it.

You are wrong in equating "correctness" as being proportional to the numbers of people who agree.

Your argument keeps summarizing as "This group of people say you are wrong, therefore you are wrong." Rather than saying you are wrong because (for example) "John Bingham clearly stated, and the Congress clearly inserted the words "Natural born citizen" into the 14th amendment."

They didn't, but if they had THAT would be an example of you providing evidence to support your (by the proxy of the judges) claim.

You keep trying to deflect the argument back to "nobody in power agrees with you, therefore you are wrong." You simply chose not to argue the issue on the merits (same as the judges) probably because you know that on the merits the argument of regarding "anchor babies" as citizens can easily be taken apart.

69 posted on 05/07/2012 2:59:49 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"Would you be so confused as to the correctness or incorrectness of slavery?"
__

What a silly question! I am not confused about any of the issues we have been discussing.

I can say with assurance that slavery was once legal in the U.S. And I can similarly say with assurance that slavery is currently illegal in the U.S.

And I can make those statements without stating any position on the correctness of slavery; that's simple logic. My failure to inject my opinion is not a sign of confusion, it's a way of stating facts and keeping them separate from opinions.

But I know that causes confusion, because everyone wants to argue with opinions that I've never stated.
70 posted on 05/07/2012 3:09:13 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"Your argument keeps summarizing as "This group of people say you are wrong, therefore you are wrong.""
__

Nonsense. You keep summarizing it that way.

Why don't you give me a quote? Why don't you show something I said in which I concluded that you are wrong?
71 posted on 05/07/2012 3:12:50 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: edge919
"Again, I already pointed out that the MDEC is trying to argue QUANTITY over quality. There’s no point in regurgitating anything about concensus unless one thinks it reinforces correctness."
__

Nope, now you're moving the goal posts.

I am not the MDEC and I do not speak for them. The MDEC may well be taking a position on correctness; I am not.

What I have said is that the conclusions of all the judges who have ruled on this matter shows that there is widespread agreement among the judicial community regarding how WKA is to be interpreted, and that agreement is by definition the current state of the law.

I am not -- I repeat, NOT -- saying that that interpretation is in any sense correct. I am simply saying what I am saying, that there is widespread agreement, even if some consider it to be widespread agreement on something incorrect.
72 posted on 05/07/2012 3:22:27 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
But the analogy between science and law fails utterly in a context like this. It is currently held (generally -- Dirac differed) in the Physics community that there is no ether. And if there is no ether now, there was no ether then. Scientific theories evolve, but scientific facts don't change, through consensus or anything else.

You are right that there is a great difference between science and law. In science, if an experiment keeps yielding ridiculous results, it is regarded as a failure and is therefore null and void. Not so in law in which there is such a worship of procedure, that the results are actually irrelevant as long as "procedure" was followed! Legal people tend to be "Procedure Nazis."

But laws do change. Slavery was once legal; it is not legal now. Abortion was once illegal; it is legal now.

Really? When did the Congress or any of the State legislatures pass a law legalizing it? Last I heard it was a collection of jackasses that made up a bunch of phoney bullsh*t regarding the 14th amendment, and then declared laws against it void.

You may regard this as an imprimatur of legitimacy, but from my perspective this is anything but. It is a case where a nation that was very much against something, out of respect for the institution of law, tolerated the edict of Authoritarian judges shoving something down their throats against their will.

The court soiled themselves with that ruling. (among others.) Even when they revisited it back in the 90s, the best justification they could come up with was "because we say so." (Stare Decisis) Even Liberal legal critics regard it as bad precedent and bad law.

One may disagree with that decision. But it is the law, and I am able to state that it is the law with absolute assurance without having to take any position on whether I feel that law is a good or a bad thing.

It is not the law. It is judges opinions which has come to be accepted as the ruling edict of today. People CALL it "the law." But it was not duly enacted by the consent of the governed. That people accepted it does not make it legitimate.

The Nazis made laws about Jews. The fact that they could do so did not make their laws legitimate, as they eventually found out.

73 posted on 05/07/2012 3:23:45 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22

Sorry, have no more time to waste on this today.


74 posted on 05/07/2012 3:27:22 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"The Nazis made laws about Jews."
__

Godwin's Law.

Thanks for playing.
75 posted on 05/07/2012 3:29:03 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
What I have said is that the conclusions of all the judges who have ruled on this matter shows that there is widespread agreement among the judicial community regarding how WKA is to be interpreted, and that agreement is by definition the current state of the law.

The only one moving goalposts is you. I've already address this "widespread agreement" claim by showing that the decisions actually use a variety of inconsistent arguments. Many of these decisions are based on lower court dicta, not WKA interpretations. And you're STILL using a concensus argument. Just admit it. It's still a fallacy to do so.

76 posted on 05/07/2012 3:32:25 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“And you’re STILL using a concensus argument.”
__

I am certainly speaking of the consensus that exists, based on the fact that all of the judges who have ruled on the matter have come to the same conclusion. Not one has lent any support to the argument that the lack of two citizen parents precludes natural born citizenship. Not one. Nada. Zilch. There is a complete consensus on the conclusion, even if you want to quibble over the details of how they got there.

What I have not said is that I regard the consensus as evidence of correctness and, despite your insistence, you have still been unable to provide a quote in which I did so.


77 posted on 05/07/2012 4:54:34 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22; edge919; DiogenesLamp
This has been a very interesting and informative thread, considering the sparse number of commenters involved. Though quite a bit longer than I expected it to be, I had to read the entire thing.

"I have taken no stand on its correctness."

You certainly seem to have taken some pains to avoid appearing to do so, but a careful reading of your commentary suggests otherwise. At #22 You (BG22) stated:

"You can apply your own logic to whatever quotes of Paine and Jay you care to cherry-pick, but until the courts agree with you, your argument remains a loser.

1. Straight-up Alinskyite bs. Explain how my logic is flawed or retreat from your supposition.

2. Show where I even cited a specific text by Paine or Jay, let alone where I "cherry picked" any quotes by them. Or are you instead suggesting that any quotes by Paine or Jay et al will perforce be "cherry picked?" Definite bias showing there.

3. "Your argument remains (and by extension, you also remain) a loser." Nice.

A trifecta in a single sentence. Impressive. And a fair attempt at subtlety in that last.
/s

78 posted on 05/08/2012 3:00:24 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

Nice try, but you’re missing the obvious.

Until the courts agree with you, your argument remains a loser. Once they agree, you’ve got a winner.

Couldn’t be clearer. It has nothing to do with what I consider correct or incorrect — I’m speaking simply of success or failure in court, and my conclusions are completely self-evident.


79 posted on 05/08/2012 4:39:02 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
Godwin's Law.

Thanks for playing.

Nazis, Slavery, Abortion, it's all the same thing really. The only question is, are you a supporter of evil or not? When you have the National Socialists in your corner, odds are you are on the side of evil.

The notion that "Laws" should override morality is completely wrong. "Laws" are nothing but codified morality, the only question is Who's morality will be the root of the law?

80 posted on 05/08/2012 5:54:37 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
I hope most people draw the obvious conclusion.

Me too. I hope they come to the obvious conclusion that our Legal system is full of stupid and corrupt people who need to be excised from it as quickly as possible.

The fact that every single judge who’s looked at the issue has come to the same conclusion is strong evidence that there is an overwhelming consensus in the judicial community regarding how WKA is to be interpreted.

Yes, they all seem to be beyond hope. Oh well, a new broom sweeps clean!

Whether that interpretation is “correct” is a totally different issue, one on which I have expressed no opinion.

Again with the lying. Of course you've expressed an opinion. The very act of responding to our comments is intended to express an opinion on the subject.

You see, we find that most people who have no opinion on the subject don't bother discussing it. Those that do fall into two categories. Those trying to protect Obama's claim to legitimacy, and those of us who've actually read the history and the law, and know that he is not a legitimate President.

You have come here to play your sophistic games, and you aren't fooling anyone. I've scanned through your messages. Since you've got here you've done nothing but challenge anyone asserting Barack is illegitimate.

Your style if full of legalistic crap, and closely matches the style of the Fogbow crowd that we have all had to wipe off of our shoes. Give my love to Sterngard Friegen.

81 posted on 05/08/2012 6:09:10 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
What I have not said is that I regard the consensus as evidence of correctness and, despite your insistence, you have still been unable to provide a quote in which I did so.

There is no need to quote you. Virtually every response has been the same. "This group of people disagree, therefore you are wrong." Since this is clearly your mantra, it is pointless to remind you of what you have just written.

Truth is immuned to consensus.

82 posted on 05/08/2012 6:15:29 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
You folks are really too much.

I have stated an obvious fact: Every court so far has ruled against the heritage-based theory of natural born citizenship, and that indicates that there is a broad consensus in the judicial community on that subject.

If you disagree with that, show me where I'm wrong.

But instead you are pretending that I'm endorsing the consensus as "correct," and that is simply a red herring. What I've stated, what's right up above in italics, stands on its own as a matter of fact, and if you think it's factually false, tell us why.

I understand that the fact is unpalatable to you, which is why you want to run away from the facts and convert this into an argument about opinions.
83 posted on 05/08/2012 8:28:53 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22; edge919; Flotsam_Jetsome
Here: Educate yourself.

You other two already know this stuff.

84 posted on 05/08/2012 8:38:15 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

As I thought, you are not disputing the fact that I stated and are still arguing opinions.

Thanks for proving my point.


85 posted on 05/08/2012 8:46:24 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
As I thought, you are not disputing the fact that I stated and are still arguing opinions.

Thanks for proving my point.

You write words, but their meaning escapes me. It is starting to resemble gibberish.

86 posted on 05/08/2012 8:56:24 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"You write words, but their meaning escapes me."
__

Yes, I've noticed that. Let's try again.

"I have stated an obvious fact: Every court so far has ruled against the heritage-based theory of natural born citizenship, and that indicates that there is a broad consensus in the judicial community on that subject."

Is that a fact that you agree with or one that you dispute? And, if you disagree, why?
87 posted on 05/08/2012 9:05:18 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
"You write words, but their meaning escapes me."

Yes, I've noticed that. Let's try again.

It is the nature of thoughts that a poor selection of words can be ill suited to convey them.

"I have stated an obvious fact: Every court so far has ruled against the heritage-based theory of natural born citizenship, and that indicates that there is a broad consensus in the judicial community on that subject."

I don't think I've disputed that there seems to be a "consensus" as to their conclusions. Certainly there has not been a consensus of reasoning arriving at their conclusions, but they all get to a "consensus of outcome" notwithstanding their fallacious reasoning. My point has consistently been that a "consensus" is not the same as truth, and that the belief that it is constitutes a fallacy known as argumentum ad populum. (also Argumentum ad vericundium is related.)

The more interesting question is why you think there is any purpose to harping on it? I've given you a link that pretty much explains the most common sentiment regarding the judiciary and why they cannot seem to get anything right, and yet you still seem persistent that the opinions of ill informed people ought to matter for something just because they are in positions of authority.

We don't get our truth from the propaganda tap around here. We are free thinkers and don't respond well to attempts to push us into official orthodoxy, regardless of who is doing the pushing.

You want to sway opinions here? Bring facts, not votes.

You really ought to read that link. It will answer the questions you seem intent on asking.

Judges are just spouting their religion as decreed by their elder priests. Their decisions are based on faith, not on reason.

88 posted on 05/08/2012 9:39:42 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"I don't think I've disputed that there seems to be a "consensus" as to their conclusions."

Thank you. That's the only point I've been trying to make.

"You want to sway opinions here? Bring facts, not votes."

LOL, that's ironic! I don't know what you mean when you talk of "votes," but I certainly have presented a fact, and it's one with which you do not disagree.
89 posted on 05/08/2012 9:47:24 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
LOL, that's ironic! I don't know what you mean when you talk of "votes," but I certainly have presented a fact, and it's one with which you do not disagree.

The "fact" that you bring is that a bunch of people (judges) have all voted the same way. Again, this is not proof that they are correct, all the mores so because their reasoning is all over the place.

You keep presenting a consensus as proof of something, and we keep telling you that the actual laws and historical facts disagree with their conclusions.

90 posted on 05/08/2012 11:00:27 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“The “fact” that you bring is that a bunch of people (judges) have all voted the same way. Again, this is not proof that they are correct”
__

And I agree. I’ve never said anything different, despite all your posturing on the subject.

Maybe someone else would like to have that fight with you. But you’re not going to get anywhere pretending I’ve said things and then arguing with them.


91 posted on 05/08/2012 11:05:54 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
And I agree. I’ve never said anything different, despite all your posturing on the subject.

Maybe someone else would like to have that fight with you. But you’re not going to get anywhere pretending I’ve said things and then arguing with them.

If it is not salient to your point, why bring it up?

92 posted on 05/08/2012 1:01:37 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
"If it is not salient to your point, why bring it up?"
__

I'm not sure what you think my "point" is, but the existence of a consensus, while not establishing the correctness of the theory on which the consensus exists, has some very real consequences.

I think the most significant one is that it shows that what the consensus represents -- the rejection of the "heritage-based" requirement for natural born citizenship -- is currently the prevailing view in the judicial community.

Again, that does not mean it is in any sense "correct." But it does mean, for example, that even if a future SCOTUS ruling were to change the picture, and render ineligible a future Presidential hopeful on heritage-based grounds, it would have no effect on the 2008 election, because those grounds were not in effect under the law prevailing at the time.

It's similar to what I said the other day. If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, it would not criminalize abortions performed yesterday.

Slavery is wrong today and it was wrong before it was abolished. But it was legal then, and people who practiced it were not considered legally accountable for something they did that was legal under the prevailing law of the time.
93 posted on 05/08/2012 1:18:21 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22

Again, this was already addressed in the OP when I said they are trying to use a quantity over quality argument. The lack of “quality” is that, in the quanitity of “consensus,” the legal reasoning has NOT been consistent in these cases. I already explained this too. There’s no reason to regurgitate the point unless you think the consensus is based on a “correct” interpretation, which it demonstrably is not. The most widespread legal reaction has been to deny legal standing to private citizens who have challenged the Kenyan coward, but again, this hasn’t even been consistent from a legal rationale standpoint.


94 posted on 05/08/2012 1:30:44 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“There’s no reason to regurgitate the point unless you think the consensus is based on a “correct” interpretation”
__

I’ve already told you many times that’s not what I think. If you don’t believe me, too bad. Maybe your reading comprehension will improve with time.


95 posted on 05/08/2012 1:51:12 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
Sorry, but you were busted flat out in this post.

link to Flotsam_Jetsome post #78

Best just to drop the argument since you aren't fooling anyone.

96 posted on 05/08/2012 1:58:49 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: edge919

“Sorry, but you were busted flat out in this post.”
__

As I said in my reply to that post, nice try. Work on that reading comprehension some more.


97 posted on 05/08/2012 2:06:25 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
As I said in my reply to that post, nice try. Work on that reading comprehension some more.

It was more than a "nice try" ... you were busted flat out. The problem is not reading comprehension, but your lack of honesty. Reading comprhension supports that you were busted. The rest of your response was more of the same consensus fallacy. Time for you to move along.

98 posted on 05/08/2012 2:27:43 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
I'm not sure what you think my "point" is, but the existence of a consensus, while not establishing the correctness of the theory on which the consensus exists, has some very real consequences.

I think the most significant one is that it shows that what the consensus represents -- the rejection of the "heritage-based" requirement for natural born citizenship -- is currently the prevailing view in the judicial community.

Again, that does not mean it is in any sense "correct." But it does mean, for example, that even if a future SCOTUS ruling were to change the picture, and render ineligible a future Presidential hopeful on heritage-based grounds, it would have no effect on the 2008 election, because those grounds were not in effect under the law prevailing at the time.

It's similar to what I said the other day. If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, it would not criminalize abortions performed yesterday.

Slavery is wrong today and it was wrong before it was abolished. But it was legal then, and people who practiced it were not considered legally accountable for something they did that was legal under the prevailing law of the time.

Yes, that's a very elegant tap dance you have done around the point. You mention the consensus, not to prove it correct, but just to prove it has consequences, eh?

You miss a greater point. The end goal is not the legal system but the culture itself. History needs to reflect that this man was not legitimate, and is just a further degradation of one more in a long line of Democrat garbage presidents for whom we have to thank for the deaths of millions and the massive economic and cultural destruction of our society.

It is important to keep hammering the fact that the man has gamed the political system via exploiting the corruption of the legal system, and that judges cannot be counted on to represent or defend the interest of the people.

From my perspective, it is our DUTY to call into question the legitimacy of our courts. They have long since stopped performing their rightful role, and they have taken on the appearance of petty despots.

I think perhaps if a few of them get hanged in the oncoming social collapse, it may focus the minds of those remaining to pay closer attention to the duty of upholding the principles that might have prevented it. If not, the tree of liberty could always use some more decorative fruit.

Barack needs to go down in History as a false president, and one that is undeserving of respect. His name should be synonymous with traitor as is Benedict Arnold. His supporters likewise need to pay a horrible price for their role in his deceit. America, History, and the World need to know the truth about this man, and the only way that is going to happen is if he keeps being shown to be the illegitimate bastard that he really is.

He should be a source of humiliation to those people who have enabled him, not just to decent people.

99 posted on 05/08/2012 2:29:46 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
To me, this entire argument hinges on the original intent of the framers when they authored article 2. There are some that would argue that that the matter is settled. They would have us worship at the alter of precedent either judicial or historical. Those that argue this, use defective logic. Think about it..... If someone publicly breaks a law and the violation is intentionally ignored or distorted by those whose duty it is to define or enforce it, does that make the law less valid? No it does not.... So better our discussion should focus on what the framers actually meant in article 2. Obama might get a pass simply because the matter is not settled. So far, most courts including U.S Supreme Court have not had the courage to take on this matter. We need to clearly define what is meant by the Natural Born Citizen requirement to hold the office of president of the United States. It is as simple as that.
100 posted on 05/09/2012 7:07:16 AM PDT by Save-the-Union
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson