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 ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2606951/posts?page=885#885
Why are you using a definition for "analogous" that comes from a medical dictionary? That's a precise, limited meaning of the term, and there's no indication that "structure" means "meaning" as you imply--things like wings and organs, which is what the definition applies to, don't have meaning, though they do have structure.
It's probably more accurate to use the defintion from the field of logic, which would turn the quote into
The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous (Similar in one particular aspect that can be inferred from their similarity in other aspects) to the term “subject” in the common law...
That would lead one to conclude that since "citizen" and "subject" are precisely similar ("like each other but not identical") in several respects, they must be like each other in the respect under consideration, which is citizenship. And a reasonable conclusion from that would be that whatever "natural born subject" meant, "natural born citizen" must mean also.
“SHOW THE MONEY QUOTE wherein the court declared WKA to be a natural born citizen and not just a citizen with all the rights of a NBC. You still haven’t done that and neither has any other drone.”
Please read what you wrote again. “...and not just a citizen with all the rights of a NBC...”
If you don’t feel stupid, you ought to.
“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.”
I have posted on average a thousand posts/year for 12 years. I post more now that I’m retired. I have posted extensively on the Costco shooting, among other items, in the last 3 months. But facts don’t matter to birthers. The truth doesn’t interest birthers. Only attacks.
Lakin isn’t a decorated hero. He’s a doctor with a few awards. He is also a dupe for birthers like yourself...but I have said to give him credit. Unlike you and your friends, Lakin has put himself on the line. You and your friends watch him from the sidelines, because you are cowards.
As I have stated many times now, and as you are apparently incapable of reading, the courts said common law DEFINES the terms used. It does NOT say we fall under common law.
And it used common law to DEFINE what NBC meant, for 1/3 of the WKA decision.
Do you understand the difference between being UNDER common law, and common law providing the lingua franca for the Constitution?
“precisely analogous (Similar in function but not in structure(meaning) and evolutionary origin)”
Thank you. I didn’t notice that he was using a medical dictionary to argue law. I cannot say I’m surprised...honesty is not strong with him, as Yoda would say.
“analogous adj.
Similar in function but not in structure and evolutionary origin.
The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary”
It’s okay, Centurion, you needn’t worry about what I am or am not going to do...just stop posturizing about that just aren’t true.
ANAL'OGOU’S, a. Having analogy ; bearing some resemblance or proportion ; followed by to; as, there is something in the exercise of the mind analogous to that of the body.
What part of “subject” resembles that of the “sovereign citizen”? Only in a qualified & limited sense under the English definition of a subject as not all English subjects were held equal. And also, never have the terms citizen & subject been equal in their origins. In ancient times of Rome & Athens where we 1st find the definitions of the terms subject & citizen, subject is used interchangeably with slave, while a citizen partakes in the making & enforcing of the laws. They rule over the subjects/slaves. The only way to become a citizen was to have been born to citizen parents.
So yes, they may be “(Similar in one particular aspect that can be inferred from their similarity in other aspects)”, but they can never be similar in their origins. One is conferred upon a person either at birth or naturalization by a sovereign King or Prince and can never be cast off, the other is derived by consent, either through the explicit consent of the individual or tacit consent through the citizen parents and can be changed when the individual no longer finds citizenship is a certain place conducive to his pursuit of happiness.
Hence “change of government, change of origins of how one becomes a member” of that new society that was formed. IN America, the government is NOT the sovereign, the sovereignty is in “We the People” as reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]
I see you are still heavy into the “spirits”. I have no problem with what I wrote:
“SHOW THE MONEY QUOTE wherein the court declared WKA to be a natural born citizen and not just a citizen with all the rights of a NBC.
NBC is a path to citizenship, it is NOT a class of persons who have more rights than others. And you still have not shown wherein Gray deemed WKA to be a NBC. His path to citizenship was deemed to be different to that of the NBC which Gray quoted the definition from 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.
SCOTUS defined NBC 23 yrs prior to WKA and thus Gray used a qualified sense of native to deem WKA a citizen, but not a NBC because he was NOT born to citizen parents. His parents were merely permanent residents at the time living in the US for work purposes. When their work was done, they went back to China. You & Gray also disregard the Treaty between the US & China which took precedent over laws governing citizenship of children born to Chinese parents on US soil during that time. Gray spit in the faces of the Chinese when he wrote that ruling.
I'm saying it and so are several websites that sprung up to deflect the issue during the election, such as Fightthesmears, etcetera. English law did have a claim upon him at birth, via his father, and likely still does. This makes him less than completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which means he is not a natural-born citizen.
Could be, but since that class of people are all dead, we'll never know for sure.
Right. Nobody else in my family gets viruses either. The thing they do different is not visit sites related to eligibility.
Lakin is perhaps the only person whose actions are consistent with someone who honestly believes there is a fraud in the White House. On the other hand, I'm not convinced the people putting out the theories Lakin read are completely serious. Some of their arguments are so bizarre, it's almost impossible to think they could actually believe them.
I think most birthers are looking for an emotional outlet to deal with the Obama presidency. Some are trying to get quick recognition, and some are probably just trolling.
Oh, and have a nice day.
People who were not born citizens at all could not possibly have ever been natural-born citizens. It’s a state or condition present at birth. It either was or was not present. It was not present.
It's really a simple formula... just use some combination/variation of "gay +/- obot +/- troll" and you've got it! I know, not very imaginative or mature, but banging your head against a brick wall for 2 years is not without consequence. Have pity.
Now...get back under the bridge, HomObot!!!!
That post was in response to rogers at #884
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.