RE: I predicted this.

RE: I predicted this. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

rulemylife -> RE: I predicted this. (1/27/2011 10:25:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave The rest is a mishmash of mistakes and confusion (per Marbury v Madison, every unique phrase in the Constitution must have a unique meaning. No definition of "citizen" has any bearing whatsoever on the definition of "natural born citizen". Don't feel bad. Many of the uneducated also make the same mistake). <Snicker> Speaking of the uneducated, where did you come up with your, shall we say unique, interpretation of Marbury?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: I predicted this. (1/27/2011 6:13:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff I am going to go to work toady and fire every birther who works for me. Especially the ones wearing Packer ties, no doubt.

tazzygirl -> RE: I predicted this. (1/27/2011 9:33:54 PM)
Can you believe that? Man, talk about a huge lawsuit!

jlf1961 -> RE: I predicted this. (1/27/2011 9:48:49 PM)
Uh, what about a bounty placed on birthers and truthers?

tazzygirl -> RE: I predicted this. (1/27/2011 9:50:02 PM)
A Bounty? I was talking about he man who was fired for not taking off a Packers tie.

tweakabelle -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 3:04:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Now, I predict this. The 'birther's will keep on rambling about this till they are on their respective deathbeds as they are incapable of learning. Daring! So daring! I don't wish to sound sarcastic - I happen to agree with you - but won't your next fearless prediction be: The sun will rise in the East tomorrow? I mean, your fearless prediction is pretty much a no-brainer isn't it? [:D] Edited after reading tea leaves at a party and the entrails of a spinster gnat

truckinslave -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 9:11:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Your de Vatel did NOT coin the term unless he lived over 250 years ago. Emerich de Vattel, 1714- 1767, is most noted for The Law of Nations (1758), in which he defined a "natural born citizen". Many of the Founding Fathers are known to have studied his work.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 9:19:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Your de Vatel did NOT coin the term unless he lived over 250 years ago. Emerich de Vattel, 1714- 1767, is most noted for The Law of Nations (1758), in which he defined a "natural born citizen". Many of the Founding Fathers are known to have studied his work. So. Fucking. What? You keep chattering about this as though it actually had some significance. Who gives a flying fuck what books the Framers read? The fact that one of the books that some of them read contained a certain phrase and a specific definition of that phrase has absolutely no legal relevance whatsoever. None. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

truckinslave -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 9:20:15 PM)
You're a mindreader now? SCOTUS denied cert. That is fact; the rest is conjecture and mind-reading. The reasonable conjecture, imo, is that an insufficient number found the matter under appeal- standing, and only standing- to be of sufficient weight to take up. Some of the laws under consideration seem (to me, at least) expressly designed to force not just a review of standing (they definately have standing), and not just discovery, but a SCOTUS definition of NBC.

truckinslave -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 9:23:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl A long standing Senator suddenly isnt vetted and not qualified to be a Senator? Donofrio made no such claim. He made the case that McCain is not eligible to be President. Senators are not required to be NBCs.

truckinslave -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 9:26:10 PM)
I read it. It might work for you, too, although I readily admit the odds seem long.

truckinslave -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 9:30:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda The fact that one of the books that some of them read contained a certain phrase and a specific definition of that phrase has absolutely no legal relevance whatsoever. None. The most amazingly, determinedly ignorant sentence here in months.

tazzygirl -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 9:33:20 PM)
In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said: "It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States." ............... The Supreme Court also upheld this view in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): "The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." "Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen", the majority adopted the common law of England: The court ruled: "It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."

tazzygirl -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 9:35:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl A long standing Senator suddenly isnt vetted and not qualified to be a Senator? Donofrio made no such claim. He made the case that McCain is not eligible to be President. Senators are not required to be NBCs. Read the case again. Donofrio v. Wells. He went after a Secretary of State of NJ as part of his suit. If Senators arent required, why in the hell did he expect her to be?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 9:41:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda The fact that one of the books that some of them read contained a certain phrase and a specific definition of that phrase has absolutely no legal relevance whatsoever. None. The most amazingly, determinedly ignorant sentence here in months. And if you really believe that, I say it again - you have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about. You do not know shit about the law. But hey, maybe I'm being unfair. Let's give you a chance to show what ya got, Clarence Darrow. Make your case. Tell us exactly how that would constitute a legal precedent. Tell us exactly how you would argue that in a court of law. Here's your big chance to show us your legal expertise; make it your moment to shine.

Aylee -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 10:11:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Just as a matter of curiosity, IF 0bama0 were to be found not to be a NBC, would the bills he signed still be law???? ....and, as a matter of curiosity, if Obama were found to actually be an NBC would you and the rest of the birthers apologise for your rudeness? What proof would you accept? Would you be prepared to apply such a proof to all candidates for POTUS, regardless of political party? I know that you are not talking to me, but I remarked about this on another thread. At this point the issue has gone off into conspiracy-land. It will never make any difference what any findings are. This is in the realm of "Who shot Kennedy?" and "Did we land on the moon?" I kept an eye on an early test case about this (the officer in the Army) because I thought some sort of statement would have been made by President Obama or the White House. I mean, really, a statement seemed to be made everyday or at least every other day. There was nothing that I ever heard. Not that I really searched hard. Army dude is here in Kansas now. (I am referring to Leavenworth.) And the whole issue has become another conspiracy.

truckinslave -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 10:25:20 PM)
tg, thanks for an intelligent disagreement. I had not seen the Madison quote. I quite think that everything Madison said should be given weight, but it is certainly hard to say that everything he said is dispositive, Wong appears to many to be on point, but some of us think that appearance to be deceiving. The undeniable fact is that the Court was deciding simple citizenship, not eligibility for the Presidency. Marbury remains dispositive to the idea that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" cannot mean the same thing. I would just like to see a clear definition from SCOTUS, and really enjoy the emotional flailing and vituperation that some people suffer for this. Talk about vitriol.... If the wiki author (and you, presumably) are correct, that Wong is on point, that a baby born fifty feet inside the US Border to illegal aliens and subsequently raised in Mongolia is a "natural born citizen" eligible to the Presidency, that that's the only thing the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, and made being a natural born citizen a separate and distinct* qualification.....* well, then, I'll hush. BTW, the wiki post from which your quote was pulled seems to me to be written by a clever someone with a dog in the fight. I especially admire the ease with which he dismisses Vattel, using a "fact" very much not in evidence and ignoring the fact that many of the Founders were fluent in French.

truckinslave -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 10:30:53 PM)
"Donofrio v. Wells. He went after a Secretary of State of NJ as part of his suit. If Senators arent required, why in the hell did he expect her to be? " I don't follow the above. Donofrio, as I remember, sued Wells to force her to keep McCain and 0bama0 off the Presidential ballot. Nowhwere mentioned were the qualifications of Wells to be SecState NJ, or McCain to be a Senator from Az. Or the qualifications of 0bama0 to hold office in Kenya. That was not part of the suit. [:D]

truckinslave -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 10:36:53 PM)
TDP, if SCOTUS takes up a case that involves a determination of what the Founding Fathers meant when they used the phrase "natural born citizen", it seems to me that the definition extant at the time, the definition they read elsewhere, and understood, the definition to which they agreed, the definition which led them to use the phrase in the first place, would be entirely dispositive. Your position appears to be that they pulled the phrase out of thin air and had no idea what it meant. Which I think is either the Scotch or OWS doing the thinking.

tazzygirl -> RE: I predicted this. (1/28/2011 10:37:11 PM)
quote: If the wiki author (and you, presumably) are correct, that Wong is on point, that a baby born fifty feet inside the US Border to illegal aliens and subsequently raised in Mongolia is a "natural born citizen" eligible to the Presidency, that that's the only thing the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, and made being a natural born citizen a separate and distinct qualification..... well, then, I'll hush. Thats not what the Court ruled. It ruled that someone born within the US is a citizen. And that since no where does the Constitution make the distinction between citizen and natural born citizen, they went with English law.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875