Posted on 02/22/2012 10:09:16 AM PST by jdirt
Please attend hearing if you can.
So you do know how things will end - good. At least you have some grip on reality.
Yeah, but there is precedent for this. (It actually happens a lot.) In 1920, the top leading minds in Physics were all certain of the Ether theory of light transmission. Einstein set them straight.
This happens so often there is an axiom for it.
"Every great physical theory starts as a heresy and ends as a dogma".
Law works the same way, but with less competence and checking of accuracy.
Perhaps Leo should invite them over for some poker and a lesson in Constitutional law. Because there is no doubt that Leo is the go to guy on this issue.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Perhaps you'll get something else correct before midnight, though I doubt it.
Leo’s writings are the basis of many of your arguments - true?
You accept without questions the legal ramblings of a professional poker player with absolutely no legal experience. You support the legal antics of a California dentist with an online law degree. And you are upset when others disagree with you.
Do you think Leo has a better understanding of the issue then they do?
I have some Idea of what Leo has learned of the subject. He has done extensive research on this exact aspect of it, while Roberts and Scalia would presumably know more about the more mainstream aspects of constitutional law. As I keep pointing out, this is a cul-de-sac issue of constitutional law. It relates to nothing else, and there is little reason for most lawyers to investigate it, especially as the gale force winds of ignorance throughout the legal profession erroneously claim it was decided by Wong Kim Ark.
Given that it is unlikely that Roberts or Scalia have been apprised of the evidence accumulated which demonstrates the English Law principle to be erroneous, I would have to say yeah, Leo has a better understanding of the issue than they do.
H3ll, anyone who thinks "Anchor Babies" are legitimate is obviously ignorant. Don't you think so Mr. Anchor baby?
Yes, the economy will collapse, there will be riots in the cities, and perhaps millions of people will starve or be killed in the aftermath. That is what will eventually happen if we keep allowing corrupt/idiots to rule us.
The courts will be loath to undo their previous erroneous decisions or thinking, and will ride it all into the ground.
But Leo is not a real Constitutional scholar. He is a professional poker player with no absolutely no legal experience.
Where did gain his knowledge? From actual litigation? No. From serving as a judge? No. From teaching law? No. From Google? Yes.
He is just another Google lawyer. And yet he knows more then the top conservative legal minds in America. Wow.
So how do you explain the Supreme Court rejecting all the birther suits? Surely they read the arguments and evidence in the briefs. Why didn’t the light come on and they say “boy were we wrong.”?
Because it is beyond the realm of possibility that you might be wrong. The only possible answer is that every court and every judge is either ignorant or corrupt. Is that what I am hearing?
Leo points to documents which we can read for ourselves. Documents like this:
Or This:
These documents do not rely on Leo for their legitimacy, but are self affirming.
It is an Alinskey tactic to attempt to discredit independent evidence by linking it to an ad hominem directed at an individual.
So if it is so clear cut, shouldn’t we be seeing a lot of articles in legal journals discussing the eligibility issue? Shouldn’t there be vigorous debate over whether Obama is a NBC? Why are your theories relegated to the loonytoon fringe of the internet? Some vast conspiracy encompassing the entire legal system and both political parties? Is the why the truth is being suppressed?
“If we found a document, signed by every member of the Constitutional Convention attesting that their intentions in using the term “natural born citizen” were to require American citizen Parents and birth on the soil, he would accuse them all of lying, or not knowing what they are talking about. :) “
I don’t need to do what ifs. Here are samples of how one of the ratifying states used NBS & NBC interchangeably:
In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1790, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Also in March, 1791, the Massachusetts legislature passed“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Of course, in the Bizarro World of Birtherism, the documents you have never found outweigh the documents that do exist. Pity for you that the courts don’t live in the same world you do. In the real world, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is considered more knowledgeable than a poker player.
That is what I am seeing and hearing, and **that** is what should concern **you**. Please remember Yuri Besmenov’s warning. The first people dragged out of their homes and shot were the Useful Idiots.
It is not only the Jews of Germany who simply could not believe that “every court and every judge is ignorant or corrupt”, it has happened in nearly every country that has fallen to despotism. Most citizens, especially the Useful Idiots, simply could believe what seemed to be impossible. Those that were wise packed up an left before the country fell. Unfortunately, if the U.S. falls to tyranny there is no where else to go. The entire world will fall under a dark age that will last centuries.
More than having a likely usurper in the Red House ( oops! “White” House) is the fact that Obama’s elgibility has been ignored by every governor, all secretary of states, all state attorneys general, every representative on every level, the MSM, conservative media, and our very highest military leadership.
Maybe you are tone deaf but alarm bells are going off in my head. Endemic moral decay and corruption is far more threatening to our nation than having a usurper in the White House.
You accept without questions the legal ramblings of a professional poker player with absolutely no legal experience.
No, you dotard, I read the necessary information and came to my own conclusions! Unlike you, I don't let others think for me.
And you are upset when others disagree with you.
You're really pathetic. Wipe the lies off of your homepage.
So? You do know what "Argumentum Ad Verecundiam" means, don't you? On the other hand, probably not. It means that something is not true just because someone in authority says it is true.
A person with no credentials whatsoever can be correct. Facts and Logic do not bow to credentials, but are freely employable by everyone. God is no respecter of Persons, and I don't see why any American should be. We gave up practicing lèse majesté when we overthrew English Law.
Where did gain his knowledge? From actual litigation?
What knowledge can be gained from Litigation, other than court procedure? (Which in my mind has absolutely nothing to do with the correct meaning of "natural citizen." )
No. From serving as a judge?
Again, how does that increase one's knowledge of what was meant in 1787? Does knowledge fly in through the courtroom window carried in by knowledge fairys or something?
No. From teaching law? No.
Teaching law would only inform someone who focused on this particular aspect of it. As it is a legal cul-de-sac, not subject to very much scrutiny at all, it is highly unlikely that teaching general law would result in any appreciable knowledge regarding the correct meaning of the 1787 term "natural born citizen." Most law professors probably default to the simpleminded "it's based on English Common law" in complete and utter oblivion to the fact that the War of 1812 absolutely refutes this theory, as does the Expatriation act of 1868. Here is another document you won't understand.
From Google? Yes.
Nope, Google (liberal owned and operated) scrubs links on this issue. Yahoo is far more informative.
No, everything you mentioned above is irrelevant. The ONLY way to gain understanding on this issue is to research it, starting with founding era documents, and working outward from there.
This is a deliberate distortion. This is unlike you. As one of the defenders of Obama’s legitimacy you generally do not use these debating tactics and I have respected you for that.
You very well know that access to documents is being withheld.
So you are hopelessly wrong due to you own doing? Makes sense to me.
Several possible reasons. Here is the first, and most obvious.
It is already established that the Court will maintain an unconstitutional ruling if to overturn it will disrupt things beyond their tolerance.
As Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, writing for the majority in the case of PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY, "Stare Decisis." (Which means Shut the F*** up! We have made our decision!)
Given that it is axiomatic that "Constitutionality" is not the Supreme goal of the Supreme Court, it requires no imagination to wonder why the Judges might run screaming in terror from the very thought of turning out the first "Black" Precedent.
If they thought that ignoring the case would result in massive quantities of people burning down cities and killing many thousands, they would very likely have taken the issue up.
But you go on thinking that this is all about law and constitutionality.
Lots of people have well researched legal theories that are completely wrong.
Every case that goes before a judge has a winner and a loser. The losers are smart guys who are convinced that they are still right. But they are still losers.
Leo is one such loser. His theories have gained absolutely no traction either within or outside of any court. He has lost every case. Every case that uses his theories has lost.
That’s how things work in the legal system. You just can’t stand up and declare that you are right. You have to fight those that have different ideas and you have to prevail in a court of law.
When you can point to real victories in real courts then perhaps you can say that you and Leo are right. You cannot say that at the moment without ignoring a harsh dose of reality.
So not only are Roberts and Scalia ignorant, now they are cowards. Got it.
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.