Free Republic

You aren’t a conservative. You’re a twit who can’t read one single case and get it right. Heck, you can’t get ONE SENTENCE right!

Talk about a bunch of Rocket Scientists!!!

I tell you what. I’ll save Jim the trouble of zotting me. I had hoped to make a dozen years, but what the heck. As long as you idiotic Birfers are loose to make this place look like some kind of Art Bell Halfway House, I don’t want my name, uh er uh, screen name, associated with it.

Jim should have spanked Birfer Butt a long time ago and made you idiots behave. You have been terrorizing the threads too long and calling anybody who disagrees with you trolls and whatever. Should have been stopped a long time ago.

So, I tell you what. Jim Rob made you, and Jim Rob can have you. He can give you a bottle at 3:00 am when you wake up crying with a poopy diaper!

Until then, I ZOTTTTT! myself. The door ain’t hitting me in the ass on the way out. . .

parsy, who . . . . .bows, and takes his leave. (Applause)

You aren’t a “true Constitutionalist.” You’re somebody who can’t read a legal case and wants to get rid of anybody who can. If I get zotted over this,it’s worth it.

YOU are a prime example of what’s wrong with Birfers. You can’t defend an argument and you go running off whining when anybody tells you so.

BTW, maybe you should go after Chuck DeVore, too. He doesn’t call you “true Constitutionalists” either. He calls your theories “crazy”. He wouldn’t even appear at the same function as Orly Taitz.

Here. Read it and weep:

In the article, a representative Orange County’s top tea-partier, Chuck DeVore, bashes Taitz.

“I can say emphatically that the Chuck DeVore campaign and Chuck DeVore himself strongly disapproves of Orly Taitz and the crazy theories she continues to advance,” said Josh Trevino, a DeVore spokesman.”

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/orly-taitz-uninvited-to-tea-pa/

parsy, who, if he does get zotted, at least won’t have to be around sorry excuses for freepers like yourself!

It doesn't CONTRADICT the holding. You didn't put in the ENTIRE sentence. You said: "We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief;..." It was all a dog and pony show of contradictory dicta. The ACTUAL sentence reads: "We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite THE FACT THAT THEY WERE BORN ABROAD." [caps added to show what you left out.] That's the REAL COMPLETE sentence. It gets followed by: That question was not properly presented to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty united states is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status. " This comes from footnote 14 and 15 found at the bottom of pages 17 and 18 of the decision which can be found here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf (Very simple. No contradictions. The Ankeny Court didn't deal with foreign born citizens. It just dealt with those born in the United States. Just as the Wong Court did with poor Wong, who was born in the United States. That does not, in any way, contradict the Ankeny Court's holding about those born IN THE USA. Not even talking about the same thing.) Now, lets look at your last statement: ""We believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. " Lets rewrite that a little so that its all in one place. . . "We believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments [ that . . ."there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born citizen.’(page 12)"] fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." And, what does the Ankeny Court say, again: "Based upon the language of Art. II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “Natural Born Citizens” for Art. II, section 1. purposes, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.” (Page 17)" Its a published case. The Vattel two-citizen parent theory is NOT good law. The Ankeny Court shot it down in flames. parsy

ONE: If a court cites a treatise, it does not necessarily incorporate everything in the treatise. Look at a treatise. You usually have topical sections with multiple sub-divisions. There might be a part of Dicey, a court finds relevant and good, and another part either not-relevant, or not good, or a combination thereof. For example, some treatises argue BOTH sides (sometimes more than 2) of an issue. Clearly a court can not adopt ALL sides.