Retired Army general: Lt. Col. Lakin has 'valid point'

World Net Daily ^ | April 23, 2010 | Chelsea Schilling

[Las Vegas Ron]

What’s the point of getting back to you?

Then why are you bothering me?

Let me lay it out for you, troll.

First, you responded to a comment I made to another poster regarding the two citizen parents definition required to be a NBC, that poster indicated that now court would agree to that definition to which I responded with cases that did indeed define it as two parent citizens.

Then you come along with this nonsense:

You cited these cases as saying the courts had already ruled several times that someone in Obama’s position was not a natural born citizen

I never posted that, stated so and then further explained that you had me confused with some one else or were on drugs

I then noted how I had read your posts and commented on your continued misunderstandings and you're either a troll or an idiot, now you want to come back and tell me that I cannot debate you when in fact I'm dealing with some one who cannot follow a thread or conversation.

Suffice it to say, I am now convinced you're both an idiot and a troll, head over to DU, you'll fit right in.

[mojitojoe]

Pssstt... he’s a “fly under the radar troll”

[Las Vegas Ron]

Pssstt... he’s a “fly under the radar troll”

Not even, he's an "out in the open troll"

Maybe the mods are just letting us have some fun!

[freethinker_for_freedom]

Interesting that you say that the cases you cited show that to be a NBC requires that you have two citizen parents, and yet you claim that you are NOT saying that this applies to “someone in Obama’s situation.” Excuse me for misunderstanding that on a thread about Obama’s Section Two qualifications to be president. But never mind.

I asked you to read the cases, which I assume you now must have. First then, you will note that you cited Justice Marshall as CONCURRING in the case of THE VENUS, 12 US 253, when he was in fact DISSENTING from the opinion in that case. Don’t you think it’s a bit weak to quote a dissenting opinion as a Supreme Court ruling in support of your proposition? Also, Marshall quotes Vattel quite extensively, but not for the proposition of distinguishing between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Indeed, in not one of these cases that I could find does the Court quote Vattel to make such a distinction. Rather Marshall uses Vattel’s phraseology concerning a “natural born citizen” to assist in making the determination as to whether the person in question is a citizen and then quotes him further as an aid in determining the man’s domicile..

I think Vattel’s language “natural born citizen” can be correctly cited for the purpose of determining citizenship in most of the cases you listed. So, for example, in MINOR V. HAPPERSETT the court, citing Vattel’s “natural born citizen” language found that the woman who was born in the state of Missouri and resided there continuously ever since was a in fact citizen of that state and should be allowed to vote. Likewise, in SHANKS V. DUPONT, Vattel’s language is quoted as an aid in determining the citizenship of a young woman born in South Carolina who left to marry a British subject in 1782, before South Carolina became a state. I was unable to find EX PARTE REYNOLDS or US v. WARD.

Finally, I don’t understand all the hostility. I merely pointed out that these cases apparently stand for a different proposition than what you cited, and your response is that I am a “troll or an idiot.” Seems a little harsh. I was a lawyer for more than twenty years, and argued several cases before various courts of appeal, including one case before the Texas Supreme Court, so I have some confidence in my ability to read and understand legal opinions. I think of this board as a search for the truth, and also a way to determine the most effective means of fighting the enemies of conservatism. Do you disagree?