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

Skip to comments.

Triangulating Minor's definition of Natural-Born Citizen; why it's an exclusive definition
equilateral triangle ^ | 02-07-2012 | edge919

Posted on 02/07/2012 1:50:19 PM PST by edge919

I've been giving this some thought, because it's clear to me, but others seem to have a hard time understanding why the natural-born citizen definition is an exclusive, self-limiting definition. The new Obot case du jour is Ankeny v. Daniels which claims that Minor's definition of NBC left it open as to WHO could be a natural-born citizen other than those born in the country to citizen parents. It's a false assumption because it ignores that the Minor court explored every known permutation and possible combination of parentage and birth location criteria for defining the different classes of citizenship.

We'll put that issue aside for now and focus on how the language is sufficient to the cause. The best way to show this, IMO, is by using a simple analogy with a very visual theme. First: Here's the exact language from Minor v. Happersett:

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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

For an analogy to be effective and accurate, we must emulate this language and use it in a similar manner. "Natural-born citizen" is a specific type of citizen. Natural born modifies the noun citizen, so we need a noun for our analogy and a modifier that acts upon that noun in a similar way. Some people might like to use cats and dogs or apples and oranges, but I think we need something that can be modified in a very specific way with a clearly defined meaning, thus I came up with the shape of a triangle, so let's plug that in:

At common mathematical law, with the nomenclature known by geometrists, it was never doubted that all polygons with three equal sides and equal vertex angles are triangles. These are the regular triangles, or equilateral triangles, as distinguished from cones and pyramids. Some experts go further and include as triangles all shapes without reference to the number of sides. As to this class there are doubts, but never to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now that all shapes composed of three equal sides with equal vertex angles are triangles."

In this analogy, a polygon that doesn't consider the number of sides might be a triangle, but to solve the doubts, the number of sides need to be counted. In order to be an equilateral triangle (analogous with how to be a natural-born citizen), then the rest of the criteria have to be applied: equal sides and equal vertex angles ... with that being analogous to born in the country to citizen parents. Three sides MIGHT be a triangle the same way born in the country might be a citizen, but the other criteria has to be included to meet the more specific classifications of equilateral triangles and natural-born citizens.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; naturalborncitzen; obot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
In Obama's case, he is a square with one of its sides missing. In that case, he is neither an equilateral triangle (natural-born citizen) or even a triangle (citizen). The shape must be changed in order to fit the triangle definition, the same way a person has to be naturalized in order to be recognized as a citizen. First, Obama has to prove his three sides are actually connected ... which is an analogy to coming up with a birth certificate. While that might prove he is a triangle, it cannot give him equal vertices (same as he can't be a natural-born citizen). There's nothing natural about a bent square. Hope this helps and for those who need visual aids, draw a few shapes and label them appropriately.

Equilateral triangle = NBC
Isosceles triangle = naturalized citizen
Square minus one side = Obama

1 posted on 02/07/2012 1:50:23 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: edge919
The analogy doesn't work for several reasons, but most importantly because there are actual legal reasons for saying one can be a natural born citizen "without reference to the citizenship of their parents," including British common law and the 14th amendment.

For a triangle, you can say it's in doubt because the number of sides is unknown, but there's no argument for saying the number of sides is unimportant to the argument, unless you get into non-Euclidean geometry, which is the mathematical equivalent of a birther legal fantasy land.

2 posted on 02/07/2012 4:13:24 PM PST by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Euclidean geometry is too superficial. It lacks depth.


3 posted on 02/07/2012 4:20:25 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Venn diagraming might help.

There are two large, unconnected circles which represent the two major categories of citizenship. One circle is the naturlaized citizen. The other circle has at least three smaller circles within it: citizen by place of birth, as separate from citizen by parents at birth, and citizen by both parents and place of birth, of that category there has never been dispute. That third category is where the other two inner circles overlap, forming the jus soli + jus sanguina category of which Rep. The Minor v Hapersett & Rep. Howard (author of the 14th Amend.) said there had never been any dispute.

4 posted on 02/07/2012 4:21:19 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Don't be so obtuse. ;-)

-PJ

5 posted on 02/07/2012 4:25:32 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

That is what diagram Van Irion held up in his presentation to Malihi.


6 posted on 02/07/2012 4:26:26 PM PST by Obama Exposer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: edge919
You could just as easily rewrite it this way:
At common mathematical law, with the nomenclature known by geometrists, it was never doubted that all polygons with three equal sides and equal vertex angles are triangles. These are the regular triangles, or equilateral triangles, as distinguished from squares and pentagons. Some experts go further and include as triangles all shapes with three sides without reference to the length of their sides. As to this class there are doubts, but never to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now that all shapes composed of three equal sides with equal vertex angles are triangles."
which is the way those of us who disagree with you have been saying it should be read. The problem with yours is that you left out anything analogous to "born within the jurisdiction," a problem my "with three sides" addresses.
7 posted on 02/07/2012 4:28:19 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer
That is what diagram Van Irion held up in his presentation to Malihi.

So it was a Van Venn diagram?

8 posted on 02/07/2012 4:30:12 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Obama Exposer

It is so common sense that I’m not surprised such a clear illustration was ignored by the obamanoid judge. Had he acknowledged even comprehending it the specious Ankeny ruling would not have been cited. But then Judge Malihi didn’t formulate what he wrote anyway, the Chicago mob did.


9 posted on 02/07/2012 4:41:20 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

Van Irion’s venn diagram can be seen here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76900058/Flier-Handout-Obama-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-with-Venn-Diagram-Support-Art2SuperPAC


10 posted on 02/07/2012 5:16:36 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

FWIW, Van Irion’s diagram appears to state that children born to US parents outside the boundaries of the US are not NBC’s.


11 posted on 02/07/2012 5:21:40 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
You cannot be thazt stupid ... but then you are just a not so stealthy agitprop.

I'll explain, doofus:

The large circle is native born, and inside the larger circle are to two smaller circles which overlap each other at the third category of both jus soli and jus sanguina, the formula about which there has never been dispute, NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Yoou try so hard to be a prick that you prick yourself with your point, little nettle. Now loosen your obamanoid kneepads and find some other tale to chase.

12 posted on 02/07/2012 5:55:39 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Ahhh, MHG. Always the charmer.

Just so we’re clear, no one born outside of US borders can be an NBC under any circumstances?


13 posted on 02/07/2012 6:03:56 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Go find your passy, you're drooling spittle again as you wobble around in circles. The largest group is native born; within the largest group are two smaller groups, jus soli and jus sanguina; where the two smaller circles overlap is Natuiral Born Citizen about which there has never been dispute.

Give it another try, obamanoid. Try to make it confusing when it is so clear. Spittle way, doofus.

14 posted on 02/07/2012 6:10:20 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Thanks for confirming that the analogy is dead on. This follows the exact language of Minor. What you’re referencing is irrelevant because the Minor court already said NBC is NOT defined by the 14th amendment. Wong Kim Ark confirmed this point.


15 posted on 02/07/2012 7:14:36 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

This has nothing to do with Venn diagramming. Evidently you’ve become confused because I used a triangle analogy. This is about the language, not a diagram. I suggested pictures of triangles only to help visualize the difference between the words.


16 posted on 02/07/2012 7:17:05 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

“All shapes” is the phrase that is analogous with “children born within the jurisdiction” ... the extra detail you came up with doesn’t change the obvious fact that equilateral triangle is only defined by the criteria in the preceding sentence.


17 posted on 02/07/2012 7:26:36 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Ahhh, the sterling coherence of ideas that we have come to love from Birthers.

It is just staggering that you haven't convinced the world yet.

18 posted on 02/07/2012 8:09:08 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: edge919
“All shapes” is the phrase that is analogous with “children born within the jurisdiction”

But it's not, because there's no restriction on "all shapes." It doesn't say "some authorities go further and include as citizens all children," it says "children who meet a certain criterion." Your analogy isn't working.

But let's say you tweak it so it works. You have to admit that my version is just as valid as yours. Which means that the multiple courts who read Minor the way I do aren't "wrong," as you keep insisting. They just disagree with you.

19 posted on 02/07/2012 8:17:22 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

The way you “tweaked” it doesn’t change that the definition was used in an exclusive manner. The only way the second class can be equal to the first class is by meeting the criteria used exclusively to define that first class. This proves without doubt the courts such as Ankeny are reading it wrong. Wong Kim Ark did NOT read it wrong. Extending the triangle analogy, they used a broader definition of “triangle” and characterized that definition with a completely different term to avoid calling or equating Ark’s citizenship with an “equilateral triangle.”


20 posted on 02/07/2012 10:23:22 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

A lot of people, such as yourself, are blissful in their ignorance. I’m here to educate and with you, I’ll take all the time that’s needed.


21 posted on 02/07/2012 10:24:41 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: edge919

As long as we can disagree in a civil manner, I’ve got no problem with that.


22 posted on 02/07/2012 10:50:16 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

This is fascinating. Someone who specializes in hit-and-run, snarky, deflective posts insists on a “civil manner”??? Really???


23 posted on 02/07/2012 10:54:04 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

You wobbly attempts remind me of that pig, Bob Beckel. Is that you, Bob?


24 posted on 02/07/2012 11:08:30 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

Leo Donofrio, Esq. has a different take on the British common law as it relates to the US Constitution:

“There is a fundamental distinction between natural law in the international community, and natural law under the English common law.

Our Constitution forbids the establishment of religion, while respecting the rights of all persons to worship God or nature as they like. The English common law is in direct polar opposition to our Constitution, in that infidels were considered enemies of the state. In Calvin’s Case, which is universally recognized as having established the English common law with regard to the jus soli rule, the decision makes it perfectly clear that the English common law presumed infidels would never be converted to Christianity, and it specifically states that they are subjects of devils.

Hence, one could be born on English soil, in the King’s castle even, to parents who loved the King, but if the parents weren’t Christian, they could not be natural-born subjects. Instead, they were considered enemies of the King, because they refused to believe that the King was God’s monarch on Earth. This is not “natural law” to anyone who wasn’t Christian.

The English common law’s uniquely Christian definition of natural law governs the English common law concept of natural subjection/natural allegiance. And that is why the English common law definition of “natural-born subject” can never be judicially recognized as synonymous with “natural-born citizen”. Such a construction of Article 2, Section 1, would be directly repugnant to the 1st Amendment.”

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/the-english-common-law-definition-of-natural-law-is-not-part-of-the-law-of-nations/

Also, I cannot find the term “natural born” anywhere in the 14th amendment. Can you point it out to me?


25 posted on 02/08/2012 7:07:30 AM PST by snafubar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: edge919
The way you “tweaked” it doesn’t change that the definition was used in an exclusive manner.

I guess if you start with a misreading of the words, any analogy you come up with is likely to be flawed. That you deny or can't see the flaw doesn't surprise me. Carry on.

26 posted on 02/08/2012 10:36:17 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Perhaps you have a point.

I shall tone the sarcasm down.


27 posted on 02/08/2012 11:56:08 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
The analogy doesn't work for several reasons, but most importantly because there are actual legal reasons for saying one can be a natural born citizen "without reference to the citizenship of their parents," including British common law and the 14th amendment.

It's already been proven that state and U.S. citizenship laws contradicted British common law in several instances (e.g., not all Black and Native American children born in the U.S. were provided birthright citizenship until the late 19th century at the earliest). And as far as the 14th Amendment I'll refer you to what the drafters, the Senate Judiciary Committee, say it means:

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."Congressional Globe

We all know Obama owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth. The DNC openly admitted Obama's citizenship status is governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 because of his non-U.S. citizen father. The only conclusion we can draw from your claims otherwise is either that you're willfully choosing to remain ignorant, or you're deliberately spreading disinformation to cover for a Constitutionally ineligible president.

28 posted on 02/08/2012 12:21:40 PM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
I guess if you start with a misreading of the words, any analogy you come up with is likely to be flawed. That you deny or can't see the flaw doesn't surprise me. Carry on.

I guess if you accuse other people of misreading words, then any analogy you don't like can be incorrectly dismissed as flawed. That you deny or can't see that there's no flaw doesn't surprise me. Carry on.

29 posted on 02/08/2012 1:33:20 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

It is certain that Kleon made more in his own mind of his reply’s force of logical weight than any other sentient being would be able to. The reason is indeed the “14th”, in its actual wording and in its recorded contemporaneous legislative intent.

Yet I must tender an affection to your good riposte to his reply. That is one must consider how and who establishes by what rules or customs it is determined that one “owes allegiance”.


30 posted on 02/08/2012 2:27:17 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bvw
...one must consider how and who establishes by what rules or customs it is determined that one “owes allegiance”.

In Obama's case, the Democratic National Committee already gave us the answer to that on their Fight The Smears website: The British Nationality Act of 1948.
British Nationality Act, 1948

Allegiance is the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to their respective sovereign or government.

31 posted on 02/08/2012 3:03:42 PM PST by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Thanks!

I have the official Natural Law and British common law (by way of suggestion from Blackstone) reason ready to go. But I’m a sandbagger in this instant discussion, I’ll wait in the shadows for another reply and then “wack!”


32 posted on 02/08/2012 3:09:05 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]




Click the Smoke       Thank you, JoeProBono

He's cute and tiny
But they grow up so fast


Become a monthly donor and kill the FReepathon dragons
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

33 posted on 02/08/2012 5:37:38 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
If you concentrate and view these two sentences listed below, they will appear different in some very significant way. After consuming 8 shots of Jamesons Irish whiskey, these two sentences written in plain English will begin to appear to be virtually identical. Honest to god, you will not be able to tell the difference between the two after 20 shots. Try it! (If they are not Identical, you have not consumed enough shots. Its best to do this with a full bottle at hand, and take a shot every five minutes.) After doing this exercise, I can attest that, yes, Obama is in fact a natural born citizen, per Minor V Happersett. I saw it with my own two eyes! I have heard that you can also do this exercise with KWA, using LSD, and the word “Natural born citizen” will appear magically in place of “citizen” when describing Mr. Kim.

"Ha Ha I'm an Illogical bore", these are the two sentences. How many shots did it take to make them the same for you?.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

Some authorities go further and include as Natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

34 posted on 02/09/2012 8:07:24 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Sordid one, look at this! It works with Vodka shots too!
Just drink shots of vodka and eventually the two lines below are identical! Holy crap, Obama is a Natural born Citizen!!! I'm seeing it now!!!

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

Some authorities go further and include as Natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

35 posted on 02/09/2012 8:43:30 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
This is like going out to the bar and at 12:00 midnight, all the women are victoria secret models! This is awesome! I finally get it!
36 posted on 02/09/2012 9:00:34 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

Yesh...

That shirtenly does worksh...


37 posted on 02/09/2012 9:40:21 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

I like this game, Ma River! I won’t be able to play tonight, since I have to work tomorrow; and I’m out of Jameson, so I hope Jim Beam rye will do. I’ll work on those two, while you work on these:

“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

“Only these were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

For a bonus round, try these:

“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of two parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”


38 posted on 02/10/2012 12:56:38 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

You got it La La Boglical!!! Check it out !!! The Jim Beam Rye is even better!!! I can take two sentence with completely different meaning and they are now the same!!!

Ruth Bladder Gutsberg must be reading with shots of Jim Beam!!! I finaly understand the modern constitionalist!!!

And my mortgage has droppd from 1000 a month to 100 a month, and my girlfriend is actualy my wife!!

“These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

“Among a variety of others classes, these were also natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

For a bonus round, try these:

“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of a parent who was a citizen became themselves, upon their birth, a citizen also.”


39 posted on 02/10/2012 5:00:24 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kleon
but most importantly because there are actual legal reasons for saying one can be a natural born citizen "without reference to the citizenship of their parents," including British common law and the 14th amendment.

Interesting because AFAIK, "without reference to the citizenship of their parents" would make one a native born citizen, not a natural born citizen. 2/3 citizenship is derived from paternal lineage and 1/3 from maternal.

Why would the framers make the distinction between NBC specifically for Presidential eligibility? Why not just say "citizen"? Why do you suppose the bureau of vital statistics, to this day, requires birthplace of parents on birth certificates? If one is a citizen simply because they were birthed on US soil, what is the need for parent's birthplace information on the child's birth certificate?

40 posted on 02/10/2012 5:17:27 AM PST by liberalh8ter (Obama - The United Nation's first U.S. Presidential Candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
You have to admit, this one is the nail in the coffin for the birther idiots. You can see that these two are the same without alcohol. If you just slam you head on a cement floor 5 times and then quickly read these two, they are exactly the same for about two minutes! You'll also see some spots that look like stars!

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

Some authorities go further and include as Natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

41 posted on 02/10/2012 5:18:21 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
Since we have now established that these two sentences have the same meaning, we need to understand why the court wrote it with “Natural born” inserted into the second sentence:

“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

“Some authorities go further and include as Natural born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

I would suggest that the court was running low on ink and the Justice's hand may have started to cramp. So completing the sentence without “natural born” inserted was simply a matter of economy. Writing with a feather was difficult and messy, so allowing readers to fabricate their own translations was preffered. The writer knew that Justices such as Bladder Gutsburgh could construe any meaning in any sentence, (just as we have proved with our scientific Jim Beam test) so just getting the general topic on paper was the most important task at hand.

Sentences have meaning. They are basic constructs of thoughts. But unfortunately, these sentences were written by people 200 years ago, and most them white men. So we can dismiss most of what they have written as racist, bigoted and homophobic gibberish. After further review, I am convinced that leaving the "Natural born" out of that phrase was also an attempt to smear the first black president.

42 posted on 02/10/2012 5:56:52 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER
...and my girlfriend is actualy my wife!!

And your wife went along with that? What was she drinking???

43 posted on 02/10/2012 9:44:29 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: snafubar
Why do you think Leo Donofrio is credible? Before 2008 he is a legal cypher - no legal cases, no publications, no mention anywhere to indicate he was a practicing lawyer. Why should anyone regard him as a Constitutional scholar?
44 posted on 02/10/2012 12:47:26 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196
Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem

  1. Person A makes claim X.

  2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.

  3. Therefore X is false.

45 posted on 02/10/2012 12:59:14 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196; snafubar
I will restate Harlan1196's claim against snafubar:
"You either do not have the intellectual capability to comprehend and contribute to discussions on the Constitution and the Law, or you are not permitted to do so (for reasons unstated). You therefore must rely upon authorities to tell you what is the proper way of thinking about the Constitution and the Law, and also for any analysis, interpretation and result of the application of Constitution and Law.

And you must choose among only those authorities I approve of.


46 posted on 02/10/2012 1:06:13 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: bvw

No - I would just like people to explain why I should pay any attention to Leo. He has no law experience - can you even tell me what law school he went to?


47 posted on 02/10/2012 1:34:35 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Harlan1196

No founding era Supreme Court judge went to Law School either.


48 posted on 02/10/2012 2:41:57 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: bvw

They weren’t professional poker players or wannabe rock stars either. They were educated pillars of the community.

So can you point out a single legal accomplishment by Leo before he saw the potential $$$$ in the birth certificate movement?


49 posted on 02/10/2012 3:11:48 PM PST by Harlan1196
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
For a bonus round, try these:

“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

“...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of two parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”

Excellent. Now we know why Ankeny said that Minor only considered situations when BOTH parents were citizens. Drinking also explains why they botched their citation of Wong Kim Ark.

Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, ...

50 posted on 02/11/2012 12:39:58 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 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