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.
So which is it, HD, do you believe the U.S. adheres to English common law, or not?
In District of Columbia v Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion that recognized that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right and not a collective right. Justice Scalia based his argument mostly upon English common law and pointedly dismissed the recorded deliberations of the First Congress of the United States when the Bill of Rights were debated and passed by Congress.
I'll say that again: Justice Scalia specifically chose English common law over Congressional deliberations when recognizing the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Now if English common law has no standing in the United States, then what does that mean for your 2nd Amendment rights? I mean, if English common law has no standing, then you must admit that you have no individual right to keep and bear arms.
So which is it, HD, do you believe the U.S. adheres to English common law, or not?
The US adheres to Anglo-American common law. American common law incorporated English common law into our Constitution, and in the reception statutes or Constitutions of 49 out of our 50 states... hence all of English common law prior to the establishment of our own judicial branch in 1787 became our common law as well. Since then, commencing with our independence and our concomitant development of that law under the Constitution it became a version that is uniquely ours. So no, we do not adhere to English common law since English common law is now significantly (but not entirely) different from our own.
This is actually pretty basic stuff, to anyone other than the lying, despicable racists that constitute the core of the birther movement.
So apparently, one can be a citizen of the United States and also be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, even though according to InformedConsent the two must necessarily be mutually exclusive.
Apparently according to whom? By which federal law or Constitutional Amendment is someone whose circumstances of birth match Obama's (transient alien father), a U.S. citizen at all?
The DNC's admission is that Obama was born subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948, and that the British Act governed his status at birth.
By which federal law or Constitutional Amendment is someone whose circumstances of birth match Obama's (transient alien father), a U.S. citizen at all?
Those "decisions" all just circle-jerk back to the one that "tries" to claim that the U.S. adheres to 17th century English common law.
AND totally disregard the FACT that SCOTUS has onlyever referred to those born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents specifically as "natural born citizens."
In District of Columbia v Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion that recognized that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right and not a collective right. Justice Scalia based his argument mostly upon English common law and pointedly dismissed the recorded deliberations of the First Congress of the United States when the Bill of Rights were debated and passed by Congress.
I'll say that again: Justice Scalia specifically chose English common law over Congressional deliberations when recognizing the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Now if English common law has no standing in the United States, then what does that mean for your 2nd Amendment rights? I mean, if English common law has no standing, then you must admit that you have no individual right to keep and bear arms.
If English common law has standing in the U.S., why aren't we all subjects instead of citizens?
No. You lost. You are a birther. You have lost more than 300 decisions in more than 200 cases, including about 25 times at the Supreme Court. In 33 cases specifically, your idiotic theory was argued and 100% of the time it was rejected as false and frivolous.
If English common law has standing in the U.S., why aren't we all subjects instead of citizens?
We are both.
From Wong Kim Ark:
Quote:
Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
If English common law has standing in the U.S., why aren't we all subjects instead of citizens?
Think very carefully about that...
Obviously English common law has influence with the Supreme Court of the United States and Supreme Court justices will use such law in delivering their rulings. And hey, thanks for ducking the question I posed to you.
Regarding the citizen vs subject concept: all of us are citizens of the United States and are also subject to the laws of the nation, at the national, state and local levels.
Historically, sovereignty in the North American colonies was held by the king of England due to the divine right of kings. After 1776 sovereignty was held by the various state governments due to the rejection of the divine right of kings and the acceptance that the state governments now held sovereignty, said right being derived from the consent of the governed (Declaration of Independence). After 1789, the ratification of the Constitution of the United States split sovereignty between the state governments and the federal government but that sovereignty was and still is derived from the consent of the governed. So yes, we are citizens with rights guaranteed and we are subject to the jurisdiction of the federal, state and local governments. It's a republic, not an anarchy.
So what are you saying, InformedConsent? That you aren't subject to the laws of the United States nor to the state and local laws?
No, my name isn't in any of the lawsuits. That said, the U.S. lost.
Those "decisions" all just circle-jerk back to the one that "tries" to claim that the U.S. adheres to 17th century English common law, thereby trying to convince us that we're subjects of a monarchy instead of citizens of a Constitutional Republic.
AND they totally disregard the FACT that SCOTUS has onlyever referred to those born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents specifically as "natural born citizens."
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.
