Wong Kim Ark dissent agreed with majority; NBC is separate from the 14th amendment

Vanity ^ | 02-29-2012 | edge919

[Harlan1196]

So you pulled it out of your butt - what a shock.

Normally if you accuse someone of something, you have actual proof.

[Brown Deer]

So you pulled it out of your butt - what a shock.

nope, I'm not all like you. No butt fetish here.

Normally if you accuse someone of something, you have actual proof.

I do and btw, you also proved your ignorance. Nice job, loser.

[Natufian]

Why must I answer your questions when you haven’t answered my question from post 200?

[philman_36]

Why must I answer your questions when you haven’t answered my question from post 200?
Your question...@How does any of that support your argument that English Common Law ceased to be valid from the moment the State’s ratified their Constitutions?

As I stated...@You must first answer my question and then yours will be answered.

I'm trying to ascertain if you know the order of events.

So once again...Did the Constitutions establish courts?

[Natufian]

And I’m trying to find out if you have the faintest clue what you’re talking about and since you are the one who’s made a fetish about the order questions are answered, why don’t you answer the first one (mine), and then we’ll get to yours.

[Natufian]

While you’re wrestling with a response, factor this into your thinking:

§ 1-200. The common law.

The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly.

(Code 1919, § 2, § 1-10; 2005, c. 839.)

From the State of Virginia Code

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+TOC

[philman_36]

While you’re wrestling with a response...
I'm not wrestling with a response, I'm waiting for an answer to a question in order to give a response.
And the longer you delay answering the question the longer it will be till you get your response.

[philman_36]

While you’re wrestling with an answer, factor this into your thinking:

@§ 1-201. Acts of Parliament.

The right and benefit of all writs, remedial and judicial, given by any statute or act of Parliament, made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, not local to England, shall still be saved, insofar as the same are consistent with the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth and the Acts of Assembly.
(Code 1919, § 3, § 1-11; 2005, c. 839.)

[philman_36]

Fixed link...@§ 1-201. Acts of Parliament.

You might want to look at this as well...@[H 2640] Approved March 26, 2005

That's what that "839" link above brings you to.

[philman_36]

...and be the rule of decision...
Think about that. The concept of precedent was continued, not the decisions themselves.

[Natufian]

The same applies to you. You’ve failed to answer a question asked earlier than yours and you’ve got the nerve to whine about me not answering your later question? Shame.

[Natufian]

2005? How does that fit into your “short time after the Constitution was ratified” theory?

[philman_36]

What?! You reply to #227 and #229 yet there is no reply to#228 and #230? Amazing!

Aaaaaanyway, your continued refusal to answer my question just gives my earlier statement more and more credence...

The reason you don't want to answer my question is that in answering it you already know the answer to your own question.

You did this to yourself, not me. You sought to trap me in my own words and now you're the one who is stuck! LOL

You know the trap closes on you the minute you answer my question so you simply refuse to answer it.
Fine by me. We can go 'round the merry go round forever as far as I'm concerned.

Did the Constitutions establish courts?

[philman_36]

But when that time arrived, when the highest courts in each state were regularly engaged in deciding cases and applying the rule of stare decisis to their own decisions, then there began to develop in each state a law of that state in precisely the same sense that there existed a common law in England developed by the English courts.

[philman_36]

How does any of that support your argument that English Common Law ceased to be valid from the moment the State’s ratified their Constitutions?

[Natufian]

Nope. I’m the guy who’s been answering questions and posting supporting information all week.

You’re doing nothing but making unsupported and crazy statements and now you’ve got the chutzpah to demand more whilst providing nothing.

You look like the type who likes to merely dig himself in despite being shown hard facts to the contrary so I’ll consider my work here done in the knowledge that any rational lurkers will have been convinced even if you can’t be.

Have a nice day.

[philman_36]

...so I’ll consider my work here done...

Translated - I'll just run away!