Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
... and then went on to cite Vattel nearly verbatim. Clearly, "common law" did not mean English common law. We'd fought wars to separate ourselves from England, you know.
Yes it has, by our masters and overlords.
Make you happy too, eh? What is your position on Lawrence vs Texas, Kelo, do or will you defend those decisions here so passionately like you do your boys obvious ineligibility?
No, they went on to deny Vattel’s definition and use the one provided by English common law.
I may disagree with the Supreme Court, but I won’t get a lower court to rule against them. Neither will Lakin. Nor will you. That is why they are the SUPREME Court.
Talk about a hypocrite, who's the one ignoring his own quotes now? what happened to that 1st part of the cite from WKA that you boasted of:
“the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
Those words have meaning:
“The term “citizen,” (natural/original common law) as understood in our law, is precisely analogous (Similar in function but not in structure(meaning) and evolutionary origin) (jus commune/natural/original common law v. jura corona, or lex prerogativa/feudal/statutory law) to the term “subject” (jura corona, or lex prerogativa/feudal/statutory law) in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
The change of government meant brought about a change in meaning. Analogous, although similar in function brought an entirely new meaning to the phrase. The feudal doctrine was ushered out & natural law under the laws of nations was ushered in by the change of phrase. Contemporary dictionaries claim that a computer brain is analogous to a human brain so shal we make citizens of all comperters now too? That is the kind of ignorance you show as well as progressives who think plants & animals have a right to sue us in a court of law.
Just how much alcohol have you had to drink today? It's affecting you already feeble mind and it isn't a pretty sight.
Show me just ONE SCOTUS case that has addressed specifically NBC since the ratification of the 14th. WKA was deemed by Judge Grey to be “AS MUCH A CITIZEN AS THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”. He was not deemed a NBC and that fact you can NOT refute.
Yes, in WKA Gray cited Minor:
“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.”
In addition, to that date of Oct. 3rd. he spammed here more than 350 posts in less than three months, and ONLY on these threads. His calculated text tells us that he certainly in advance knew what he splashed into!!!
LOL, what an idiot.....ever contemplate 5-4 decisions?
Supreme over YOU maybe, not me.
That's why we fight wars, you and your kind will lose, God is Supreme, he will reign in the truth.
Once again, you have revealed your self.
You’re confused as to the purpose of nations and laws, Mr. Rogers. We were never bound by the laws of England, common or otherwise, once the new nation was established. Founder George Mason walked out on the Convention and refused to sign because, in his words, the common law was completely overturned, meaning English common law. And it was.
Mason’s insistence upon a Bill Of Rights, which was as you’ll recall the result of Constitutional Amendment immediately following ratification, is the sole extent of the old common law in United States Constitutional law.
The rest drew upon numerous sources, from the Roman Republic onward, much as the Law Of Nations did. You seem fixated upon Vattel as if this somehow diminishes or discredits the Law Of Nations. He merely published a treatise upon it, he didn’t create it. He was, however, tremendously influential during the timeframe in question for having done so, far more among our Founders than any expert upon the English feudal legal system would have been.
That system is what they were removing themselves from. Why is this so difficult for you?
“Analogous, although similar in function brought an entirely new meaning to the phrase. The feudal doctrine was ushered out & natural law under the laws of nations was ushered in by the change of phrase.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What blows your argument out of the water is that the court used NBS to determine the meaning of NBC. They rejected citizenship by descent and relied totally on birth location.
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
And much later, “Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.”
So no, they were not following Vattel. They WERE following English common law.
And if you cannot understand that, then you’ll just have to go on losing. Every time.
Rogers likely gets paid by the word with cutting and pasting included.
We are not bound by the laws of England - yet YOU are the one saying Obama is a British subject because of English law.
The courts said the MEANING of legal terms in the Constitution are those found in English common law, since it was the legal language in effect when the Founders were writing. And they thus used the meaning of natural born subject to determine the meaning of natural born citizen.
And the courts specifically rejected Roman law about citizenship.
Again, you don’t get a vote. You don’t have to like it. It is the law. But if you want, feel free to put some skin into the game. Publicly refuse to obey laws signed by Obama because he isn’t REALLY the President. Then, when charges are brought against you, use discovery to get Obama’s birth certificate. Then you’ll be a hero like Lakin...or a prisoner like Lakin, if you lose.
And you will lose, because you ignore the law and substitute your fantasies.
Troll Rogers can't get past that fact unless of course it is convenient to use subjects and common law....specifically citing native in his wet dream WKA
![](http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7310/native.jpg")
Of course, he will also tell you that modern day lawyers do not use dictionaries for legal terms, and will not recognize that that is what the problem is.
According to Rogers, semantics suck, unless it supports his main man, bammie.
FYI..."3 centuries of feudal English common law" does not make for precedent when it is clearly recorded in the records of Congress that the founders went well beyond those 300 yrs and brought back the original common law of England at it's founding which was nearly a 1000 years prior to that. But more importantly, it was the Dutch, Swedish & French that were 1st to settle on the soil, NOT the English. The Native Indians didn't speak French because they just happened to like the language. French was the common language of the Dutch who were the 1st settlers. French was the common language of the country prior to the English conquest in the mid 1600’s & was the common language used in schools. Most of the founding fathers as youth were taught in French, including Jefferson, Franklin, Jay & Washington
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA..yeah, I can gloat too!
LTC Lakin’s Appeal Denied
Friday, October 15, 2010 6:01:18 PM · 623 of 914
Mr Rogers to butterdezillion
Fine. Take your conspiracy theories to Congress & the Courts and...oh wait. You’ve done that, and they all laugh at you.
Wonder why...
If this is the best Lakin can count on, he is TOAST!
Rogers, you're a scum sucking disgrace...you would rather see a fine, decorated hero fall then see the man who is destroying this Nation fall.You wonn't even have the decency to call on your hero bammie to resolve the whole mess.
I would post what I think about you but you ain't worth the effort.
"So no, they were not following Vattel. They WERE following English common law."
Do we believe Ms. Rogers or do we believe James Madison?
To Repeat.
Madison. "The two extremes before us", he said. "are a perfect separation and a perfect incorporation of the 13 States. In the first case they would be independent nations subject to no law, but the law of nations. In the last, they would be mere countries of one entire republic, subject to one common law."
So Rogers, is that "subject to one common law" English common law here that Madison was referring to at the 1787 Constitutional Convention? Gee Rogers, I also see Madison say independent nations are subject to no law but the law of nations.
And if you cannot understand that, then you’ll just have to go on losing. Every time.
A delusional statement.
So WHY did SAD dropped him from her Passport application as a hot potato???
That is a great quote. The Federal Govt was formed to bring a sense of continuity & ease of passage for its citizens between the free & sovereign states for the pursuit of happiness of mankind. If man did not like the laws & regulations of one state, he could remove himself to another that better served his pursuit.
LOL, if you have to ask, you are one......oh yeah, you got pegged a few days back....3.....2.....1......
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.