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.
"The umpire is of the opinion that it is not proved that the claimant was a citizen of the United States. The ground that he is so, is his own statement that he was born at New York, together with a certificate of baptism of a child who was born at New York, Beniguo being one of the names which were given to him; but it is not proved that the child then born and baptised was one and the same person with the claimant. Nor would the mere fact of his having been born at New York be sufficient evidence of citizenship. It is clear that his parents were both aliens at the time of his birth, and it is not shown that they were naturalized or that they or the child remained in the United States. The inference is to the contrary, and the umpire believes that the child in question, even if that child was really the claimant, though born in the United States, was subject to a foreign power and cannot without further proof be considered to be a citizen of the United States" History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States Has Been A Party
The Ankeny decision ADMITTED the Supreme Court didn't say what they think it meant.
And in so doing, pointed out how idiotic birthers were for thinking that was important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Then went ahead and ruled that way anyway.
Yes. They ruled as per the law, and not as per the idiotic birther theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
THAT'S idiotic.
No. That's their job. That you consider it idiotic is purely a perverse reflection of the alternate reality within which you exist. You are in fact the poster child for Doc Conspiracy's blog post today. He notes that:
Quote:
Certainly things like “you’ve lost 200 cases already,” “no competent scholar agrees with you” or “your evidence is not admissible and your experts are not qualified,” while damning observations to normal folks, are essentially meaningless to birthers. To be a birther at this late date requires the acquisition of immunity from rational objections.
And in so doing, pointed out how idiotic birthers were for thinking that was important.
Yes. They ruled as per the law, and not as per the idiotic birther theory.
No. That's their job. That you consider it idiotic is purely a perverse reflection of the alternate reality within which you exist. You are in fact the poster child for Doc Conspiracy's blog post today. He notes that:
Yes. They ruled as per the law, and not as per the idiotic birther theory.
It's NOT ruling per the law when judges rule based on nothing more than... "Well, we acknowledge that the Court didn't say this but we think this is what they might have meant, so we're going to rule this way anyway even though it contradicts the Court ruling to which we're referring."
That's patently absurd.
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.
