Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a dollar bill to sell you that's worth a million dollars. It'll only cost you $10,000. Give me $10,000 for my awesome deal, or you're being prejudicial since you can't prove that that I'm full of crap before you uncover it in court after I've ripped you off... and the taxpayers have paid for the court costs.
... You may not like Obama, but the arguments against him not being a natural-born citizen were shown to be dumb over, and over, and over, again.
I have a dollar bill to sell you that's worth a million dollars. It'll only cost you $10,000. Give me $10,000 for my awesome deal, or you're being prejudicial since you can't prove that that I'm full of crap before you uncover it in court after I've ripped you off... and the taxpayers have paid for the court costs.
... You may not like Obama, but the arguments against him not being a natural-born citizen were shown to be dumb over, and over, and over, again.
I don't trust the factually challenged, whether it be by design or otherwise.
You don't come off to me as a trusting person, either.
Cute response, but the Supreme Court ignored you for being obtuse, not me.
Me?
The Supreme Court didn't ignore me. It ignored its constitutional responsibility, especially when it dicta-phoned that the logistics of the obvious findings would prove more catastrophic than if not found.
Not much of the Constitution remains, so there is little left of Article III.
Look at Clarence Thomas. He's representative of what remains.
Yes, the current Constitution is a joke, but I'm not finding it funny.
Just saw Billie Jeff Clinton on Colbert tonight. Now, there's another joke I don't find funny.
And yet, 22 different Article III courts have done so, thus proving your preferred interpretation to be wrong.
You are still having a problem with logic there Frank.
Quote:
Fallacy: Appeal to Common Practice Description of Appeal to Common Practice
The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:
X is a common action.
Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.
Appeal to Popularity
Also Known as: Ad Populum Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
Anyway, we all know that's your style, lash out with fallacies when you can't cut it.
Getting back to the Wong decision which was based on the single question, and how all those elements of the single question caused a single answer for a single person.
"for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely,whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."
All the elements in the single question were essentially true, for the resulting answer to be yes.
The SCOTUS had no business with any other question that might be worded in any other way.
The single question and single decision was singularly peculiar to Wong Kim Ark.
The question before the court was not only if Wong should have citizenship because of native-birth, there were OTHER FACTORS or FACTS that were taken into consideration to reach the ruling of the court.
It was another matter, not before the court and still yet to be solved, if it were the case that any one of the elements which were grouped in the single question for Wong, were to be absent from the single question and were to be brought to SCOTUS for hearing and determination.
Simply, it would not be the same question before the court.
It was the PARENTS, that the SCOTUS held must be taken into consideration to achieve "subject to the jurisdiction" status for Wong.
Like I have been showing you all along Frank, it's always been about the PARENT'S allegiance.
When the 14th Amendment speaks of "subject to the jurisdiction", it is referring to the allegiance of the PARENTS, and we all know that Gray had ignored the legislators' intended meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" and invented his own meaning.
We also know that Gray relied on the English common law with regard to natural born subjects, not for the purpose to establish that the English rule also determined US natural born citizen, but rather to bend the meaning of allegiance in the case of alien PARENTS, sufficient to give them some semblance of unofficial allegiance to the US, using the long-time domicile, community involvement and business activities of the PARENTS, all this in light of the court's favorable citing of the Minor DECISION, where it was held that the 14th Amendment did not define US natural born citizen and the court's favorable citing of Binney's TWO types of born US citizens.
Gray had the golden opportunity right there and then, to define US natural born citizen as native-born without regard to parents citizenship, after all the examination and citations, quotes, etc, Gray gave Wong's citizenship no such qualification.
Just for another laugh Frank, tell us about how a native-born child in England makes his alien father a subject because the child is a natural born subject........ that was one your most hilarious creations yet.
Last edited by MichaelNo; 04-16-2013 at 01:52 AM..
The Supreme Court didn't ignore me. It ignored its constitutional responsibility, especially when it dicta-phoned that the logistics of the obvious findings would prove more catastrophic than if not found.
Not much of the Constitution remains, so there is little left of Article III.
Look at Clarence Thomas. He's representative of what remains.
Yes, the current Constitution is a joke, but I'm not finding it funny.
Just saw Billie Jeff Clinton on Colbert tonight. Now, there's another joke I don't find funny.
Before the Supreme Court hears your case, it judges whether your case is worthy of its time and, more importantly, the precedence a ruling would set. That's the order of things... it wasn't particular to the case you supported; it's the way it' works.
Your wrong about Article III, by the way. Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president, and then vetted by Senate, to make decisions like, "This isn't worth our time." That's part of their job.
Before the Supreme Court hears your case, it judges whether your case is worthy of its time and, more importantly, the precedence a ruling would set. That's the order of things... it wasn't particular to the case you supported; it's the way it' works.
Your wrong about Article III, by the way. Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president, and then vetted by Senate, to make decisions like, "This isn't worth our time." That's part of their job.
Yes, Supreme Court justices are political appointees.
22 different Article III courts have declared it proved that Obama is eligible for the Presidency.
All they've "proven" is that they cited a case that doesn't even apply to Obama.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
