Free Republic

Late to this conversation and simply clarifying a single point: “Commissioners of the Code”

The Legislature enacts Acts by majority approval of bills and or resolutions. The governor approves those Acts or his veto is overridden and they become laws.

These Acts are gathered in seriatim ... not according to topic or subject, as approved.

A code takes approved, enacted statutes (existing law) and assembles them topically (thus the “Political Code”)

Sorry, Ted’s not eligible.

The thirteen original states all adopted English Common Law for the decision of legal questions. Under ECL, only persons born in the realm were natural born subjects. Parliament, by statute, extended NBS status to certain offspring born across seas, in order to allow for the descent of hereditary titles and properties. But the 13 States did not adopt ESL, only ECL. So the meaning of “natural born” inherited in the country by that adoption was limited to persons born on the soil.

By the way, in a bold strike against those who object to so called “anchor babies,” under ECL and under the law of this country resulting from the adoption of ECL, it DOES NOT MATTER what the citizenship of a child’s parents is, when a child is born here, they are a natural born citizen. The only exception would be children born here while their parents are serving in a diplomatic function for another country.

Here are links to my blog posts explaining why Ted cannot qualify:

http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2013/09/but-what-if-ted-cant-be-president.html
http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html
http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/deuces-wild-and-foreign-born-
americans.html
http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/cruz-mccain-george-romney-ineligible.html

As I’ve staked out this position, I have been treated like a heretic by birthers whose thinking is based on application of legal principles found in Emmerich Vattel’s The Law of Nations. Vattel describes citizenship and sets out principles of citizenship that require one to be born on the soil of the nation and to be the child of citizens to be a natural born citizen. Their dependence on Vattel is misguided:

http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/cruz-mccain-george-romney-ineligible.html

Long time ago post, but definitely you were barking up the wrong tree.

Sekulow was BANKRUPT before CASE/ACLJ precisely because of the somewhat Ponzi-like investment scheme that bottomed out and resulted in his personal bankruptcy. He may have lived like he was wealthy before his scheme panned, but there was nothing real to it.

I can’t find any evidence of this. In fact, I find no donations by her to Republicans for Choice, though I find them for others, and I find her donations to Republican candidates.

I worked for Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice for over twenty years, as Senior Counsel in the Washington, DC office.

My thoughts on Pat’s moronic observations: http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2013/08/former-aclj-employee-robertsons.html

The District charged Reverend Mahoney with UNLAWFUL ENTRY on PRIVATE PROPERTY. The Office of the US Attorney, which prosecutes crimes in the District, refused to prosecute the offense.

Reverend Mahoney and others plan to return to this publicly owned space in August to conduct further prayer vigil and witness activity. It will of interest whether the District continues to act ILLEGALLY by arresting demonstrators for an offense they cannot — technically, legally — commit, given that the space is publicly owned, they cannot commit trespass to private property or unlawful entry by being on that property.

The definitive answer on this issue comes from the District’s own Public Spaces Branch (part of the District’s Department of Transportation). The PSB maintains a database inventory of publicly owned property. On our request to review that inventory, three separate employees of the PSB confirmed that the District, NOT PP, owns the space in question.

You wrote, "It's supposition. "Pre-theory" if you like. Not the stuff of science class. There is a cutoff."

I want to respond to the "pre-theory" moniker and its value, but first some science 101 hated, as always, by the armchair philosophers of evolution.

Scientific investigation begins by considering a problem, an observable phenomenon, or the like, a prodding occurrence that compels the investigator to wonder:
(a) "IS this so"
and (b) "WHY is this so."
Observation, accompaning by contemplation, leads the investigator to construct an investigative approach to understand the two questions, and to seek an answer to them. As a work in progress, the investigator develops a proposed explanation, a HYPOTHESIS.

Repeated and varied testing is conducted to test the metal of the HYPOTHESIS as a working explanation and answer to the two questions. Over the course of investigation, the investigator reaches conclusions as to the two questions and the HYPOTHESIS, sometimes scrapping the HYPOTHESIS, sometimes fine-tuning the HYPOTHESIS, sometimes concluding in his/her own mind that the HYPOTHESIS is such an unvaryingly correct explanation, even against negativizing testing that he must share his research with the larger scientific community.

The larger scientific community depends on the proponent for important preconditions to further testing and development. Take, for example, the cold fusion proponents that held a press conference out west a decade or so ago. In their case, what was wanted, what was needed, and what was, apparently, missing, was a carefully recorded course of investigation that could be examined by others and could be tested by others to fault and failure. The essence of error there was to propound a technological development without basic supporting scientific groundwork.

But, when the groundwork is presented along with the HYPOTHESIS, the scientific community can join the researcher in the search for the value of the explanatory HYPOTHESIS. Some join this search animated by professional jealousy: "my hypothesis, which stands in stark contrast to his, is the eminently more reasoned and sufficient explanation" or "that explanation discounts the value of scientific discoveries I, or my mentors, or my school of thought can be credited with propounding.." Others come from the basis of open curious investigatory interest. All come to challenge by testing and analysis.

When the HYPOTHESIS withstands the community's testing and analysis, in scientific didactic, it is called a THEORY. This connotes a reliability and consistency of the HYPOTHESIS as an answer to and explanation of the the answer to the two questions. THEORIES in science are not the end of the road for explanatory HYPOTHESES.

Over time such HYPOTHESES and THEORIES can be shown to be so universally operative, so durable in their application, that their explanatory value has the influence of a LAW (like the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, etc.).

Variations in the investigory model described above, seeking the early coronation of an idea that has not even been tested to hypothesis as a LAW of the universe reflect a short-cutting that is difficult to explain as an effort to improve the science. It has happened, as the cultural war developed over Darwin, over the questions related to geological timescales, and over astrophysical time spans, that some have sought to discount the critiquing of their ideas and hypotheses by premature elevation of those ideas and hypotheses to the level of highly reliable THEORY or generally governing LAW.

Now, to get to your specfic comment, which was "It's supposition. "Pre-theory" if you like. Not the stuff of science class. There is a cutoff."

One question would be "who says there's a cut-off?" Another would be, "why does that person get to decide that a cut-off must exist?"

Consider the following scenarios: a body riddled with bullets, found in a warehouse on the waterfront; tree rings indicative of stunted growth during a two or three year period of the life span of the tree; a turtle sitting on a wooded fence post. To dispose of questions that want to be asked in each of these instances as pre-theory is worse than bad science, it leads to scientific moronims ("Fred died of a sudden infusion of lead" or "Fred sprang some leaks"; "the turtle was hatched on the fencepost" or "the turtle climbed onto the fencepost").

Pre-theory, as you call it, is so much more than that. The calculation of trajectory, for example, in the forensic investigation of Fred's untimely demise is just so much make work as a pre-theory. It really doesn't help answer the question what Fred had done to upset the mob boss.

In the same way, as you have already surmised, pre-theoretical modeling that follows a trajectory back from an irreducibily complex system to the existence of designer offers a value that would only be rejected because of an unscientific bias.

an excellent justice, an excellent leader, a loss for the Nation. I hope President takes his time to select a worthy successor.

Kerry's Purple Heart:

Just so it's clear, I came up with the purple heart bandage before I saw this cartoon posted on Freerepublic.

Here's a close-up of the Kerry Purple Heart Award:

It appears that Kerry's Purple Heart was legitimately awarded to him. The Pentagon released this photo of the service ribbon given to Kerry.

Of course, the possibility exists that it fell off a car of the train that was carrying scrap metal. But, this article references Atlanta's rapid-transit system as the location of the find. I have ridden the system many times will in Atlanta for litigation. I have never observed that the rapid transit system mixes freight cars with its passenger vehicles.

Furthermore, the article states that the launcher was found on an embankment near the tracks. I suppose it is more likely than not that a training grade weapon was accidently bumped off the freight cars attached in a rare as hen's teeth moment to a city rapid transit train and that upon falling from the train the weapon bounced up from the track level ground up onto a nearby embankment.

I made clear in my initial comment that if this was a problem it was that it reflected training because practice, even for terrorists, makes perfect.

Of course the device may have been sourced elsewhere, and represent no danger to Atlanta's rapid transit (and freight???) system. And, of course, not every box-cutter put on board an airliner is intended to facilitate a terroristic attack.

This article suggests that President Bush and Senate leadership have reached an agreement that will allow twenty-five noncontroversial judicial nominations to go forward. The price? Bush agrees to make no more recess appointments to the bench this year.

The overall effect of the agreement will be to insure that at least 25 Bush-selected nominees get final votes, and likely that means they will be installed in the federal courts. This is a positive outcome, as experience in the area of public issue litigation teaches me that we are loads better off with Republican judges deciding partial birth abortion, gay marriage, PATRIOT Act, immigration and other controversial cases, than having Democrat judges doing so.

On the other hand, this agreement virtually guarantees that the most excellent and highest qualified of the Bush nomineees will not be seated this year. Judges from the high courts of California and New York, brilliant younger judges like Brett Cavanaugh, and other potential future justices of the Supreme Court will not be putting federal judicial experience under their belts this year. That is a negative result.

Post WWI German trained an army with wooden guns. Reports after the WTC attacks indicate good reason to believe that the murderous bastards that killed 3000 + Americans engaged in dry-runs of their planned routes and attacks.

Now we are told that the discovery of a training-style rocket launcher near Atlanta's rapid transit system, on a hill looking down on the tracks, "was no cause for public alarm." When will we learn. Even terrorist follow the precept that practice makes perfect.

Eric,

The point of inserting the phrase was not to establish a key point of difference between the US and the USSR but to HIGHLIGHT that difference.

You say that our Constitution omits reference to deity. I agree that there are no patent references to deity. And that could answer the question.

But our Declaration of Independence, the organic document by which the Nation was founded explicitly references Deity, just one, and makes that Deity the source of fundamental rights of life, liberty and property.

Now some will say, yes, and that was the Declaration of Independence and we live now under a Constitution.

To that I respond, and before that we lived under Articles of Confederation.

Meaning that, in fact, "we" have lived under one form of government or another since "we" established ourselves as a free and equal nation among the peoples of the earth in response to uncounted injustices that were unredressed by the Crown. "We," the people of the Nation borne of the Declaration, have chosed a framework for our governance according to the Constitution, but that tells us our "shape" not our "identity;" our identity as a free and independent nation derives from our proclamation of that independence in the declaration.

And, by the way, to this day, the Supreme Court of the United States adheres to the view (if imperfectly executed) that the meaning of the Constitution is derived by examining it through the lens of the Declaration.

So, by adopting "under God" Congress HIGHLIGHTED a key point of difference of the political philosophy that gave birth to this Nation.

You recall correctly.

The state office that records marriages refuses any application or license that has been altered.

HOWEVER, the license or application defect can be cured, if rejected by the state office, if an unaltered replacement is supplied within a time period specified under state law.

The changes made to the form are revealing.

Apparently neither of the guys in a two guy marriage wants to the "bride" and none of the gals in a two gal marriage wants to be a "groom."

The link has streaming audio of a 48 minute program broadcast on the night following the pledge argument. I think it is worth the listen (not just because I am a guest) because of the breathlessly admiring way in which "reporters" talk about Herr Doktor Newdow's argument, and because First Amendment Professor Chemerinsky makes it clear that once "under God" is barred from the official version recited in classrooms, then the next step will be to prosecute students who verbalize the phrase when they are compelled to say the denuded pledge.

Newdow was never about the right not to say "under God." He was always about silencing others.

The DC federal and local police do not own the street.

If you would like to work on obtaining a resolution of this problem that insures that it is not repeated, you should be in contact with legal counsel.

A variety of organizations exist to defend free speech rights in just this context. I know. I work for one, The American Center for Law and Justice (http://www.aclj.org). And in that capacity I have sued DC police and federal officers on a number of occasions for just this sort of nonsense. If you would like assistance, please feel free to contact me via a private reply.

Jim Henderson

religion has nothing to do with reality or reason?

screed-wise, your dialectic is admirably lean on justification or substantiation.

of course, that may be because you have an unformed or uninformed understanding of the role, value and meaning of religion.

Jim Henderson