Sen. Ted Cruz Triumphs in 2016 Presidential Straw Poll: Wins Early GOP Vote Over Walker, Paul

Every post you put up says the exact same thing using slightly different words. You don’t respect judges who disagree with you and you think that the American judiciary is corrupt.

The Judges are not corrupt, they are incompetent. I don't respect Judges who are wrong, and I most certainly don't respect Judges who base their decisions on "precedent" or personal ideology. For about the thousandth time, the relevant concept is FIRST PRINCIPLES, not "Precedent."

Science and Engineering do not use opinions, they use facts, derived from first principles. In comparison, the entire legal system is a clown circus that would be a comedy if it's results weren't so tragic.

I have pointed out to you over and over again when and how the legal system deviated from first principles, and all you can say to answer this is "Precedent." "Precedent." "Precedent."

Once again, "Precedent" is just the fallacy of tu quoque enshrined as a methodology. Every argument you make derives back to adherence to a confused precedent from one of the most reviled courts in history, yet for those people taught to follow the religion of legal dogma, "precedent" governs their lock step march into farce.

If eligibility challengers didn’t continue to file lawsuits and appeals, I wouldn’t be commenting on the opinions, holdings or the obiter dicta that comes from them.

Neither would you were the legal system competent. You simply defend them because they agree with your preferred outcome. Again, it is a most odd conservative that thinks so highly of the legal system. The rest of us thinks it's just shy of tyranny and toleration of it's excesses should have long ago ceased.

.

But please, do go on.... Continue licking the boots of your masters.

"Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion,... "

Not even going to read your comment. I'm sure it goes something like this: "Rah Rah for our team!" Blah blah blah blah blah..."

Which of course is what you always say when you've been caught dead to rights.

I'll summarize it for you, really easily, and use small words so that you can understand it.

The case of The Venus just does not say what you say it does.

The notion that Judge's opinions are of lesser worth than that of writers, lawmakers, French Valet's, Spanish Janitors, and "some guy over at the mess hall named Bernard", is so idiotic and false on the face of it that only a deluded sap and his fellow sappers would offer this as a plausible argument.

That's why my next major post is going to cut to the chase and deal with the opinions of the most qualified people in the world who spoke clearly on this topic.

Once again, you people rely on the weakest possible standard of "citizen", and then you deliberately conflate "citizen" with "natural citizen".

You're either a complete jackass, or simply a liar.

I don't "rely" on anything. I look at history and law to see how people defined terms used in our Constitution and our law. Which, incidentally, was what I thought the discussion was about.

And I have NEVER, EVER failed to distinguish the meanings of "citizen" and "natural born citizen."

Neither has anybody else.

The case of The Venus just does not say what you say it does.

Yes, my own f***ing eyes are lying to me. And you wonder why people think you're a kook.

And I have NEVER, EVER failed to distinguish the meanings of "citizen" and "natural born citizen."

Oh yeah? So which one did Wong Kim Ark decide?

Were it irrelevant to his point, he would not have cited it.

Or, an even more plausible view given the issue in the case, is that he included a bit more beyond Vattel's paragraph on domicile to show that his cited authority delves into matters of international law from multiple angles and to give the reader the context of the relevant portion on domicile. (Which makes him, unlike you, a "read in full context sort of guy." I can admire that.)

Or do you only consider him a fool when it suits you?

Nice strawman argument there. I never called him that. There are reasons to support his treatment of Vattel, while still recognizing only the portion on domicile is relevant to the case as hand and the other portions are obiter dicta (disregarding for present purposes a dissent as a whole is that).

Justice Marshall started his quote of Vattel where he did because he regarded it as SALIENT to the point.

Or, he wished to provide a bit of context.

But you may go beyond mere assertion to support your argument. So I ask: what was his "point" (the person's citizenship wasn't in dispute, nor was there any discussion of his parents) and how did the paragraph speaking of "indigenes" support his point?

Given your tendency to cite IRRELEVANT crap . .

So far, I've only cited to The Venus, Minor and Wong Kim Ark. I'll grant you as to the question of whether a person such as President Obama is a natural born citizen, the first two cases are IRRELEVANT. So here, you are correct.

. . . I can only surmise you project this same weakness onto other people,

Here I'm not projecting. I'm just observing and documenting what I see.

but I assure you, Justice Marshall is more competent than are you.

Let me see if I grasp your methodology here. Are you making an "appeal to authority?" Because what I observe is you rest on that argumentative crutch whenever anyone else lists the considerable number of judges and legal commentators supporting the view you oppose. So when citation to authority is (or is not) an improper "appeal to authority" is a bit hard to figure out with you. Consistency is not your strong suit.

The Judges are not corrupt, they are incompetent. I don't respect Judges who are wrong, and I most certainly don't respect Judges who base their decisions on "precedent" or personal ideology. For about the thousandth time, the relevant concept is FIRST PRINCIPLES, not "Precedent."

Science and Engineering do not use opinions, they use facts, derived from first principles. In comparison, the entire legal system is a clown circus that would be a comedy if it's results weren't so tragic.

In the very first paragraph of his 1881 book titled The Common Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. expressed similar thoughts in a somewhat different way:

"The object of this book is to present a general view of the Common Law. To accomplish the task, other tools are needed besides logic. It is something to show that the consistency of a system requires a particular result, but it is not all. The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics. In order to know what it is, we must know what it has been, and what it tends to become. We must alternately consult history and existing theories of legislation. But the most difficult labor will be to understand the combination of the two into new products at every stage. The substance of the law at any given time pretty nearly corresponds, so far as it goes, with what is then understood to be convenient; but its form and machinery, and the degree to which it is able to work out desired results, depend very much upon its past."

So, you're in solid company when you point out that exacting principles of logic have never played more than a limited (albeit very important) role in the course of our legal development.

And you wonder why people think you're a kook.

I don't know about "kook" per se, but I've called him a "beast worshiping darksider" more than a few times, as well as "deceiver" based on his acts here.

Still...I've gotta put him in the "Forgive them, they know not what they do" category and go from there, in spite what he's doing.

The truth will come out...

Or, an even more plausible view given the issue in the case, is that he included a bit more beyond Vattel's paragraph on domicile to show that his cited authority delves into matters of international law from multiple angles and to give the reader the context of the relevant portion on domicile.

Ah, we ARE full of "nuance". Or perhaps something even more brown and sticky.

Nice strawman argument there. I never called him that.

Tantamount. First you alleged that a Judge's opinion outside of a holding is irrelevant, then you suggest that an explicit quote by a judge didn't deal with the issue in question anyway. Well which is it, Irrelevant because it's not a holding, or irrelevant because it doesn't touch on his point? Either way, we gather that it is "irrelevant" as far as you are concerned.

So I ask: what was his "point" (the person's citizenship wasn't in dispute, nor was there any discussion of his parents) and how did the paragraph speaking of "indigenes" support his point?

It is the foundation of his point. How does a foundation not support that which is built upon it? Understanding the base of citizenship is necessary before the logic of a citizen's obligations and privileges can be made clear.

Chain of logic; do you speak it?

So far, I've only cited to The Venus, Minor and Wong Kim Ark.

You have proffered the conclusion that a Judge's opinion is inconsequential unless it is part of a holding; a notion that suggests some sort of magical "Ex Cathedra" transformation of a Judge's pronouncements, in contradiction to the contrary suggestion that Judges generally know what they are talking about, even when not issuing a holding.

That it is not part of a holding is irrelevant. It is still the Judge's opinion of what is the law.

Here I'm not projecting. I'm just observing and documenting what I see.

And like a projectionist has control of the projection, you are seeing what you wish to see.

Let me see if I grasp your methodology here. Are you making an "appeal to authority?" Because what I observe is you rest on that argumentative crutch whenever anyone else lists the considerable number of judges and legal commentators supporting the view you oppose. So when citation to authority is (or is not) an improper "appeal to authority" is a bit hard to figure out with you. Consistency is not your strong suit.

Or logic yours. The fallacy is one of FALSE AUTHORITY. Justice Marshall is not a false authority. As a front seat witness to the events, he is, in fact, an ACTUAL authority.

When the topic is what was the meaning and intent of the Delegates in creating Article II, Justice Marshall was in a position to know. Justice Gray was not.

"In 1788, Marshall was selected as a delegate to the Virginia convention responsible for ratifying or rejecting the United States Constitution, which had been proposed by the Philadelphia Convention a year earlier. Together with James Madison and Edmund Randolph, Marshall led the fight for ratification. "

Now that I have schooled you on the difference between false authority and ACTUAL authority, perhaps you will remember it in the future, though I suspect not.

Marshall, Story and Kent all lent their approval to Bayard's "Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States."

What exactly did they approve? From the book's "Advertisement" which you posted above:

...their approbation of the plan of the work, and the manner of its execution; and express their opinion that it is well calculated for the attainment of the object for which it was intended.

What is the plan of the work? What is the "object for which it was intended"?

To answer those questions turn to the Preface.

What is "the plan of the work"

And indeed the book does closely follow the arrangement of the Constitution

Chapter	Title	Constitution
I	The Preamble	Preamble
II	The Legislature	Art. I
III	Of The House of Representatives	Art. I § 2
IV	The Senate	Art. I § 3
V	The Powers of Congress	Art. I § 8
VI	Limitations of the Powers of Congress	Art. I § 9
VII	Limitations of the Powers of the Individual States	Art. I § 10
VIII	The Executive	Art. II
IX	The Powers and Duties of the Executive	Art. II § 2
X	The Judiciary	Art. III
XI	Miscellaneous Subjects	Art. IV, VI
XII	The Amendments	Amend. I - X

What is the "object for which it was intended"?

The book's object is to be a short and simple exposition for young persons so they may have "a more general acquaintance with the Constitution."

It is an overstatement to claim that Marshall, Story and Kent endorse the contents in their entirety. They are not co-authors or proofreaders and, with the exception of Marshall, there is nothing to indicate they read the book.

Marshall does appear to have read the book, although at what level of scrutinty we do not know. His health began declining in 1832 and he died in 1835. As his reading of the book was during his failing health his attention may not have been as focused as during his prime.

In any event, even if each of these gentleman closely scutinized the book it is not law, nor is it presented as an authoritative book useful for "professional men"

From the Preface:

In compiling it, the author has relied principally, upon the Federalist, the Commentaries of Chancellor Kent, the Treatises of Mr. Rawle, and Mr. Sergeant, and the Reports of the Decisions of the Supreme Court.

Neither the Federalist nor the Supreme Court define "natural born citizen", Rawle has been previously discussed here as has Kent. I am not familiar with Sergeant (presumably Nathaniel Sargeant of the Massachusetts Supreme Court). Bayard offers "natural born citizen" without any citing any authority, it is his opinion and it is an obvious factual error.

The main point is that it is an overstatement to claim that Marshall, Story and Kent endorse the contents in their entirety. Rather, they lauded the plan and object of the book.

So, you're in solid company when you point out that exacting principles of logic have never played more than a limited (albeit very important) role in the course of our legal development.

My primary issue with legal methodology is that it relies too heavily on prior opinion, and not nearly heavily enough on deriving a result from fundamental principals.

It operates much like a compound equation in which subsequent iterations will yield results which are increasingly wrong. Errors are expanded over time, rather than resolved.

This is how we got "Anchor Babies"; A nonsensical creation by the judiciary which has simply allowed the compound errors to pile up to the point of absurdity.

Modern legal method often relies so heavily on a string of prior precedent that it becomes a rickety creation which cannot withstand the slightest jostle.

As I have said before, "If Architects built buildings the way Judges administer law, the first woodpecker which came along would destroy civilization."

I don't know about "kook" per se, but I've called him a "beast worshiping darksider" more than a few times, as well as "deceiver" based on his acts here.

Still...I've gotta put him in the "Forgive them, they know not what they do" category and go from there, in spite what he's doing.

The truth will come out...

I personally believe Jeff is motivated by either emotional or economic interest in the issue. The topic applies to someone near and dear to him or it is part of his job because he works for a political agency in which it is doctrinaire. It might be both.

The Republican party officials (currently dominated by the blue blood moneyed interests) long ago came out with a "let's embrace the foreigners" position, believing it will benefit themselves politically, and everyone in both Parties (Republican and Democrat) have adopted this as their official policy. The rank and file in their employee have since been following this party line, and I suspect Jeff is among them.

This is about political expediency, not truth. Not good policy. Only winning. For whatever reason, they think embracing the foreigner is a "winning" strategy.

We see this manifested lately in the "Amnesty" issue as well.

Yep, I can see that's a possibility and it's why I called him a beast worshiping darksider and a deceiver.

Choosing to follow any agenda other than truth, especially to build whatever sort of all powerful beast that's rising up from what they are creating, and all while hiding behind this LIE, is, to me, wearing the beast's mark proudly, and is every bit of the end times stuff I've been researching.

What I've found has scared me silly and I'm very convinced that this is an especially bad time to be playing badly. Oh well...his choice.

I'm sure that belief probably makes me the kook in his and many's eyes, but he should be searching for and reading the quotes I've been researching rather than those for this game he's playing. Holy Yikes, Batman!

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”—Article III, Section1, U.S.Constitution.

As of August 1, 2013, the total number of President Obama appointed Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 202, including two Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 38 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 160 judges to the United States district courts, and two judges to the United States Court of International Trade. The number of federal judicial nominations currently awaiting Senate action is 45. There are currently 16 vacancies on the United States Courts of Appeals, 68 vacancies on the United States district courts, and 19 announced federal judicial vacancies that will occur before the end of Barack Obama’s second term. President Obama has not made any recess appointments to the federal courts.

Science and Engineering do not use opinions, they use facts, derived from first principles.

Having watched from the sidelines here for a while, it's all-too-obvious that what you say and what you do are two different things.

Let's ask: "What is the first principle?" As to the question of eligibility as it entails citizenship, the first principle is the choice of words the Framers used: natural born citizen. A few observations about that and how this has proceeded in the Courts:

1. When the Framers chose that term, there was an already existing usage in which the term "natural born citizen" was being used interchangeably with the term "natural born subject." (See, e.g., the Massachusetts naturalization statutes and the Vermont Constitution of 1777 (which terms those in the new State who have just cast off the shackles of England as "natural born subjects.))

2. And the term "natural born subject" in its English common law original to apply to persons born within the English realm of alien parents. The foremost authority on the ECL during the period leading up to American independence and the framing of the Constitution was unquestionably Blackstone. And the point at issue he writes succinctly: "THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally fpeaking, natural-born fubjects, and entitled to all the privileges." Commentaries on the Laws of England, I, 10.

3. By contrast, there is no documented usage of the English term "natural born" up through the establishment of the Constitution by which it conveys the meaning of "of two like (citizen or subject) parents."

4. Alexander Hamilton (one of the foremost of this generation) indicates the interpretative framework for the Constitution is the antecedent usage found within English statutes. ("But how is the meaning of the Constitution to be determined? . . .[W]here so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.")

5. Naturally, the Courts have discerned and applied these first principles (Smith v. Alabama; Wong Kim Ark) and followed Hamilton's lead, stating the interpretative principle in like measure: the meaning of Constitutional terms is to be understood in light of the language and history of the English common law. Legal principle follows first principles.

In short, this has proceeded exactly how you posit it should have proceeded.

Except you don't like the result. Because for you the "first principle" is in fact the latter principle, that "anchor babies" and "birth tourism" are detestable things. (Hey, I don't like them either.) From there you project backwards to find a different assumed "first principle" that has FAR less support historically and legally. That is your M.O. Not the one you posit as the ideal.

There is so much wrong with your postulates and your reasoning that to answer them all would simply be an undertaking not worth my time.

1. When the Framers chose that term, there was an already existing usage in which the term "natural born citizen" was being used interchangeably with the term "natural born subject."

Yes, "King" and "President" are exactly alike.

2. And the term "natural born subject" in its English common law original to apply to persons born within the English realm of alien parents.

I'll wager I know more about this than do you. Children born to Aliens in England could not hold public office, they could not inherit land, and they had to pay special alien taxes.

They were IN FACT, second class citizens, and yet here you and your ilk come along and claim that not only should our Standard for citizenship be based on English Feudal law, but we should EXCEED IT in STUPIDITY!

The British Ruling elite never used the Jus Soli standard for Electing public officials. It was ALWAYS based on Blood. They wouldn't even allow them to hold municipal office.

You either need to get some more knowledge, or some intellectual Honesty. When you can show me a Ruling English King who did not follow a Royal bloodline, then you might have a point.

As of August 1, 2013, the total number of President Obama appointed Article III judgeship nominees to be confirmed by the United States Senate is 202, including two Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States, 38 judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, 160 judges to the United States district courts, and two judges to the United States Court of International Trade. The number of federal judicial nominations currently awaiting Senate action is 45. There are currently 16 vacancies on the United States Courts of Appeals, 68 vacancies on the United States district courts, and 19 announced federal judicial vacancies that will occur before the end of Barack Obama’s second term. President Obama has not made any recess appointments to the federal courts.

And every one of them guaranteed to be either a f***ing idiot, or communist ideologue, but none of which will not be granted the @$$licking respect of Nero Germanicus.

As has been said of dogs, "You are lucky, for your gods walk among you."

Once again, it is a STRANGE conservative who seems to rejoice in the Judicial appointments of the child king.

Yes, my own f***ing eyes are lying to me. And you wonder why people think you're a kook.

You can't counter the reasoning presented in this thread. Marshall simply wasn't saying what you claim he was saying. He was providing no definition of citizenship at all, much less any definition of NATURAL BORN citizenship. The case doesn't even use the words "natural born" one single time.

And yet you insist that Marshall was giving us a definition not only of citizenship, but of natural born citizenship.

That's just idiotic. And anybody can read the case for himself, and if he's not a birther, he can plainly SEE that your point is idiotic.

And I have NEVER, EVER failed to distinguish the meanings of "citizen" and "natural born citizen."

Oh yeah? So which one did Wong Kim Ark decide?

You seem unable to read an entire case and to understand it.

The Court in Wong clearly decided that Wong was a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. This is CRYSTAL CLEAR in the ENTIRE RATIONALE AND REASONING OF THE CASE.

And this is not controversial. There's not a judge or any major legal scholar anywhere who says anything different. Not in conservative circles. Not in liberal circles. Not in moderate circles. Nowhere.

The entire United States Congress, to the extent they've thought about it at all, accepts this and agrees on it. The Congressional Research Service agrees on this. Every court, every judge, every Supreme Court Justice who has ever had anything to say about the case - including the DISSENT from that same case!!! - agrees on that.

The only people in the entire world who don't agree are yahoos on the internet, most of whom have no legal training at all.

All natural born citizens are citizens. They are a TYPE of citizen. So if you're a natural born citizen, then you are also a citizen.

The question the Court was asked was "Is Wong Kim Ark a citizen?" Nobody cared whether he was specifically a natural born citizen eligible to be President. They asked whether he was a citizen.

So at the end, the Court, having found that he was clearly a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, answered in the affirmative: "Yes, Wong Kim Ark is a citizen."

Only an idiot would keep saying stupid things like "You mix up 'citizen' and 'natural born citizen,' or 'The Court only found Wong to be a 'citizen,' they didn't find him to be a 'natural born citizen.'"

Because they very clearly did. That's obvious to anyone with half a brain who impartially studies the case.

Hell, as I said - even the DISSENT recognized the ruling was that Wong was eligible to be President.

Tell that to the conservatives in the U.S. Senate. Some of Obama’s judicial nominees have been confirmed unanimously. For example, just yesterday:
AUGUST 01, 2013
Senate Confirms New Federal Circuit Judge

The Senate unanimously confirmed Raymond Chen to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday.

Chen, the deputy general counsel for intellectual property law and solicitor for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office since 2008, is the second judge confirmed this year to the Federal Circuit.
and, Obama has nominated some federal judges who have the enthusiastic endorsement of conservative Republicans. Such as:

Wyoming Attorney General Greg Phillips sailed through his U.S. Senate confirmation on a unanimous 88-0 vote to earn a seat on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals based in Denver.

Both of Wyoming’s conservative Republican U.S. Senators, Mike Enzi and John Barrasso, spoke on the Senate floor in support of the nomination of the 52-year-old former Evanston resident.

“I can personally attest to Mr. Phillips’ qualifications to serve as a federal judge,” Enzi said, according to a release from his office. “Greg was on the Senate Judiciary Committee when we served together in the Wyoming Legislature. On the Senate floor, we sat across from each other.”

Phillips represented Uinta County as a Democrat in the Wyoming Senate.

His nomination by Republican-elected officials, despite the difference in political parties, was cited as an indicator of his qualifications to be a judge and the respect he has in the legal community.

Enzi said Phillips will be an outstanding judge to follow another longtime friend of his, Terrence O’Brien, who is retiring from the circuit judgeship.

“Terry and I, when he was a Wyoming district court judge and I was in the Wyoming state Senate, used to have dinner together to solve the world’s problems. Then I became a U.S. senator, and he became a U.S. circuit court judge. I know his successor will honorably fill the seat,” Enzi said.

Barrasso said of Phillips, “The breadth of his experience, his understanding of the law and the role of a judge, as well as the thoroughness with which he approaches his responsibilities, will serve him well. I have no doubt that as his career continues, he will become a successful and respected member of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal.”

Gov. Matt Mead said he has known Phillips, his former law partner, for nearly 30 years.

“He has a great legal mind, common sense, the highest ethical standards, and a work ethic second to none,” Mead said in a release. “This is a rare combination of attributes, which will serve Wyoming and our country for years to come. In my mind, there is no one better to sit on the 10th Circuit of Appeals than Greg Phillips.”

President Barack Obama nominated Phillips for a seat on the appeals court in January. Phillips has served as Wyoming’s attorney general since March 2011. He was appointed by Mead, a Republican.

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Phillips’ nomination by a unanimous voice vote on April 18.

Phillips grew up in Evanston and served as a Democratic state senator from Uinta County from 1993 to 1998. He’s a graduate of the University of Wyoming College of Law and worked for two years after graduation for U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson in Cheyenne.

Before becoming Wyoming’s attorney general, he served seven years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Wyoming, handling criminal prosecutions and appeals. He has extensive experience arguing in federal court including taking nearly 20 cases before the Tenth Circuit.

Carl Tobias, Williams professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, monitors Senate judicial appointments.

“The Senate overwhelmingly confirmed Phillips because he is highly qualified [and] non-controversial, and had the strong support of the Wyoming senators.” Tobias said in an e-mail. “I expect that he will be an excellent judge on the 10th Circuit.”

The Denver-based 10th Circuit covers Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and Yellowstone National Park.

Renny MacKay, spokesman for Mead, said Monday that the governor had no announcement yet on whom he will choose to replace Phillips as attorney general.