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.
Where in English law is derived the principle that Subjects may become independent?
Oh my.... look at who has joined us from Free Republic? The deeply deluded uber-birther "Diogenes Lamp."This is of course under assumption that you're not just Steve back, having stolen DL's UserID. If you really are DL, you should know that birthers usually flee in the other direction, from CD to Freeperville. The Steve to whom I refer was banned here, and posts as "Cold Case Posse Supporter" now on Freep.
To your question: Don't know don't care. It is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Irrelevant. The Judges know what is the law, regardless of what is the case to which they are applying it.
Absolutely relevant, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted:
Quote:
It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.
That is pretty much the situation with modern courts. They are all applying false precedent, so of course they will all arrive at incorrect decisions.
There is no such thing as a "false precedent" under the common law. There either is precedent, or there is not. Until such time as the court chooses to reverse a precedent (something vanishingly rare) it is the law... regardless of your opinion of its "correctness."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes_Lamp
I put no stock in court decisions.
So your participation in this thread moves from merely amusing to completely inexplicable.
Not even close. We don't know for sure what his "natural citizen" status is, because we can't get any definitive answer from Hawaii ( a place where they will give you a birth certificate even if you aren't born there.) and not a single election official in any of the 50 states bothered to verify whether or not he was qualified. It's mostly an open question.
Except of course for two official statements by the Director of Health, and the two formal verifications from the State Registrar.
Except for those four definitive answers, we have nothing.
That is pretty much the situation with modern courts. They are all applying false precedent, so of course they will all arrive at incorrect decisions. I put no stock in court decisions. The courts have been badly screwed up since Roosevelt/Truman appointed so many kook judges to the Federal Judiciary. Decisions like Wickard could have only occurred as a result of idiot/lunatics on the bench.
Law of Relative Law, man.
Even if it crashes, there will be more to come along and repeat it.
It is much easier to correct precedent to precedent than to correct accumulated precedent to virgin law.
It's got a life of its own, man!
It's ALIVE!
And, IT IS BREEDING!
Anarchy, man.
It's cool, man.
It's like living in Whimsy Land. The land of arbitrary capriciousness!
More like malicious arbitrariness via tyrannical caprice.
Its virulence perpetuates its inherency.
Can't wait for the crash - That's why I came to the air show!
Oh yes, the losing attorneys ALWAYS determine the meaning of the Court ruling. Pull the other one.
did you miss the part that the DISSENTING JUDGE agreed that it made Wong eligible to be President. Last I looked, Judges are the ones who determine the meaning of law and court rulings.
Quote:
Yes they did, but why did it take them a year to do so?
Argued March 5, 8, 1897
Decided March 28, 1898
1 year is nothing. The court can take up to 2 years to decide on an issue.
Average rulings throughout the Supreme Court History, is 81 days.
And this was an issue that would decide the status of the thousands of American born Chinese (and applied to all immigrants with children born in the US). Something that could sweepingly challenge a law that forbade Chinese to ever become citizens, can't just be decided without full research; what the Majority decision on Wong did do.
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.
