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.
Just for fun... let's take a look at how IC manages to do contortionist back-flips and try to make the completely opposite argument. As early as 01:23 PM this afternoon, she is insisting that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Two children. Siblings. But the two have VERY different rights.
She comes back with the same assertion again and again and again:
01:41 PM, In response to my assertion that, “Those rights are identical.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
No, they are not.
03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Their rights are NOT identical.
...
Same time and place of birth; DIFFERENT rights.
What caused the rights of individuals born in the same place at the same time to be different?
Then suddenly... just over one hour later without so much as missing a beat or wavering, she explodes back on-line making the exact opposite claim:
04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Both children's rights are identical.
05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Both children's rights are identical.
I mean seriously? It is one thing to be wrong. It's another to have the rhetorical integrity of a coelenterate
Just for fun... let's take a look at how IC manages to do contortionist back-flips and try to make the completely opposite argument. As early as 01:23 PM this afternoon, she is insisting that:
She comes back with the same assertion again and again and again:
01:41 PM, In response to my assertion that, “Those rights are identical.”
03:28 PM
Then suddenly... just over one hour later without so much as missing a beat or wavering, she explodes back on-line making the exact opposite claim:
04:39 PM
05:04 PM
I mean seriously? It is one thing to be wrong. It's another to have the rhetorical integrity of a coelenterate
And...with this post H'dude puts as fine a point as possible on the attempts by IC, to turn herself into a human pretzel...
Will this be the end of IC, and her lunatic ravings? One can only hope...
Just for fun... let's take a look at how IC manages to do contortionist back-flips and try to make the completely opposite argument.
I'm sure HistorialDude was class projectionist throughout middle school and high school years.
In college, he learned to project without a mechanical projector.
This guy is a projectionist's projectionist.
IC maintains, and so do I, that the citizenship status of the example of two sons, one born before and the other born after their father's denizenization had different lawful statuses, where the one born before had fewer rights than the one born after.
A denizenized person at that time and place, in England, is similarly comparable to today's naturalized citizen.
A Naturalized Citizen in today's United States has more rights than an alien; though not more than a Natural Citizen, as Natural Citizens require no naturalization process for possessing U.S. citizenship, because Natural Citizenship is passed on at birth by parental citizenship.
A person born in the United States of naturalized (denizened) parents has more rights than if born of non-naturalized foreign parents, in that the person born of naturalized parents is qualified to be president of the United States, on the condition that the person born of naturalized parents is also born on U.S soil.
Another kind of Natural Citizen of the United States is one born of un-naturalized U.S. citizen parents, i.e., one born of Natural Citizen parents.
A person born in the U.S. of foreign parents (aliens) is not a Natural Citizen of the United States, and therefore lacks the first essential quality for the the status of Natural Born Citizen per constitutional presidential qualification. The second essential quality is that the person be born on U.S. soil.
Any person possessing the dual status of having been born, 1) of U.S. citizen parents and, 2) born in the United States, meets the constitutionally required birth status for being elected president of the United States. This dual birth circumstance (status) is what the framers of the constitution referred to as a Natural Born Citizen.
Last edited by Nonarchist; 04-23-2013 at 01:54 AM..
See? I told you you would run away from the question.
It seems to have totally escaped your attention that not only did I bait the trap, you blindly charged into it headfirst (an egotistical over-estimation of one's abilities frequently causes one to do so ).
I got you to admit that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Those are statutes. They have nothing to do with the common law
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
The father's status was different. That is the difference in their circumstances. The children's rights however are identical.
Even in England, which was 'supposed' to have a "common law" in which everyone born in England was a 'natural born subject' , different parental circumstances yielded different results for their offspring.
In 13th-19th century England.
In the U.S., which you yourself insist follows Engand's example.
The circumstances of Obama's birth is an exact case of what you yourself just proved to be true...
Two sons, born in Hawaii on the same day. One has U.S. citizen parents, the other has an alien father. The former is a citizen according to the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause's author and the Judiciary Committee Chairman, but the latter ISN'T a U.S. citizen. Both children's rights are identical. The father's status was different. That is the difference in their circumstances.
It seems to have totally escaped your attention that not only did I bait the trap, you blindly charged into it headfirst (an egotistical over-estimation of one's abilities frequently causes one to do so ).
You set no trap. You placed no bait. Your argument simply collapsed under the weight of its ignorance and hypocrisy.
In a single post you began arguing the exact opposite of what you had been arguing for days, proving beyond doubt that you have no integrity, no legitimate arguments at all... only an irrational hatred for this president that runs so deeply it has blinded you to reason.
You stand exposed as the naked hypocrite you are, and it's not a pretty sight.
No matter the father's circumstances, the children's rights are identical. No matter the different outcomes, the children's rights are identical. They are both natural born US citizen, and both eligible for the Presidency.
You say that , but I got you to readily admit that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Those are statutes. They have nothing to do with the common law
And...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
The father's status was different. That is the difference in their circumstances. The children's rights however are identical.
Even in England, which was 'supposed' to have a "common law" in which everyone born in England was a 'natural born subject' , different parental circumstances yielded different results for their offspring.
In 13th-19th century England.
In the U.S., which you yourself insist follows Engand's example.
The circumstances of Obama's birth is an exact case of what you yourself just proved to be true...
Two sons, born in Hawaii on the same day. One has U.S. citizen parents, the other has an alien father. The former is a citizen according to the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause's author and the Judiciary Committee Chairman, but the latter ISN'T a U.S. citizen. Both children's rights are identical. The father's status was different. That is the difference in their circumstances.
No matter the father's circumstances, the children's rights are identical. No matter the different outcomes, the children's rights are identical. They are both natural born US citizen, and both eligible for the Presidency.
The fathers' statuses were different.
The childrens' "rights" are identical.
The childrens' statuses are different.
The status of one child comprised eligibility as a Natural Born Citizen consistent with constitutional requirements for presidential eligibility.
The status of the other child was restricted to 14 Amendment citizenship.
And, as we all know, the Court of Wong Kim Ark ruled that Wong Kim Ark held 14th Amendment status only, as a person born on U.S. soil of non U.S. citizened parents, but permanently domiciled in the United States.
I don't even know why I'm arguing with HistorialDude. He's only a 14th Amendment citizen, anyway.
Definitely not capable of Natural Born Citizen trustworthiness.
The status of one child comprised eligibility as a Natural Born Citizen consistent with constitutional requirements for presidential eligibility.
The status of the other child was restricted to 14 Amendment citizenship.
And, as we all know, the Court of Wong Kim Ark ruled thatWong Kim Ark held 14th Amendment status only, as a person born on U.S. soil of non U.S. citizened parents permanently domiciled in the United States.
Parents permanently domiciledin the U.S.at the time of WKA's birth.
You say that , but I got you to readily admit that...
You got me to "readily admit" that your argument was irrelevant. Congratulations.
And you didn't even need to contradict yourself to do so. But you contradicted yourself anyways.
Again... the status of the father doesn't matter. Children of aliens and children of citizens both have the identical rights of natural born US citizenship. The outcomes do not matter. A natural born citizen could be president, or they could be a janitor. But they have the identical rights of natural born US citizenship. The differences in their circumstances still leaves them both natural born citizens.
Parents permanently domiciledin the U.S.at the time of WKA's birth.
Just like Obama's.
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.
). 
, different parental circumstances yielded different results for their offspring. 