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.
What lie is it that you imagine you caught me in? Exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Not if you actually know how to use Bouvier's dictionary, no.
The purpose of the dictionary (in the pre-Internet age) was to connect the user to different citations that they could then use to understand the legal history of the term in question. As such you should have noted just from the single entry on "citizen" that he provides all the definitions of citizen, even those that are not part of American law.
You are presenting his citations to French and Roman law... not to American law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by red red rose
Are you able to read?
Gee, that doesn't look French or Roman to me...
Massachusetts
New York
Texas
Mississippi....
Slaughter-House Cases, US Supreme Court
US v Wong Kim Ark, US Supreme Court
They are citing American Law - US Supreme Court cases.
Do you think that people are too stupid to read something for themselves? I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by red red rose
I caught you in a lie, and you try to wriggle out of it.
Quite amusing.
You said that I was presenting his citations to French and Roman law... not to American law. Anyone who can read can see that the citations were to American law.
The dicta is clear; the children of aliens born on American soil are natural born citizens, unless those aliens are foreign diplomats or members of a hostile occupation force.
Could you show me anywhere in law or statute where it says that the children of aliens born on American soil are "natural born citizens"?
It was the Wong decision that answered the question before the court, "Is Wong a citizen"?
There was no question put before the court asking whether Wong was a natural born citizen per the constitutional qualification for president of the U.S.
Dicta ain't Cit!
Agreed.
"A SCOTUS opinion ...
It begins with a question, continues with DICTA, and ends with the decision. The only two parts that are relevant are the question and the decision. The dicta is an explanation of the reasoning AND NOT the decision."
Dicta - Expressions in court's opinion which go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of authorof theopinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent." Black'sLaw Dictionary, 1991
"Respondents nonetheless contend that because the dictum appears to be an expression of the opinion of the supreme court regarding the meaning of the phrase, it should be followed. But this court recently noted that a supreme court dictum is not controlling.Dicta are expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are the individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases."
And there are only two types of citizens in the US, Naturalized and thos born here (aka natural born / native born). That is the ONLY two types of citizens that are recognized by the US Constitution and by US Law.
Since Wong Kim Ark was born in america, to immigrant parents, and because of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, Wong Kim Ark couldn't have been a naturalized citizen. THAT only leaves one other type of citizen.
The fact that you twist and split hares on the usage of Citizen within law and the Constitution shows how desperate you birthers are and are just grasping a straws
And there are only two types of citizens in the US, Naturalized and thos born here (aka natural born / native born). That is the ONLY two types of citizens that are recognized by the US Constitution and by US Law.
Since Wong Kim Ark was born in america, to immigrant parents, and because of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, Wong Kim Ark couldn't have been a naturalized citizen. THAT only leaves one other type of citizen.
The fact that you twist and split hares on the usage of Citizen within law and the Constitution shows how desperate you birthers are and are just grasping a straws
Are you trying to remove the two words, "natural born", from the Constitution?
You trying to replace those two words with the word, unnaturalized?
Exactly the same yet DC said somebody else scanned it and e-mailed it to him, now he
takes a photo of it with his cell phone camera .....something stinks.
Haha..again..the first photos were from my cell phone..the book cover pic was ok..but the definition was not clear..later went to town..with the book (not in my possession)...the guy scanned it highlighted the definition..and sent it to my e mail.
Page 833 was posted..with the highlighted definition. Then the personal attacks began, because..the definition shows Obama is not a legal President.
To show I have the book in my possession..I took pics of it from my cell phone and posted them. The dictionary is small print..the 2.0 camera will not take clear pictures of the words.
The pictures do show the dictionary is in my possession. Page 833 with the definition of native, native citizen is factual.
Threads like this need to be heavily monitored. And people posting inflammatory statements against the president due to a birther claim need to be monitored as well. I do not support letting the crazies have all access to free speech.
Haha..again..the first photos were from my cell phone..the book cover pic was ok..but the definition was not clear..later went to town..with the book (not in my possession)...the guy scanned it highlighted the definition..and sent it to my e mail.
Page 833 was posted..with the highlighted definition. Then the personal attacks began, because..the definition shows Obama is not a legal President.
To show I have the book in my possession..I took pics of it from my cell phone and posted them. The dictionary is small print..the 2.0 camera will not take clear pictures of the words.
The pictures do show the dictionary is in my possession. Page 833 with the definition of native, native citizen is factual.
No one is personally attacking you. We're just pointing out that the book page in reply #2360 that you posted here has an obvious photo shopped section. Your highlight explanation cannot explain away the fact that the column width of the photo shopped area is narrower than the text on the rest of the column above it. Your highlight explanation also cannot explain away the vertical shadow line along the left edge of the section that was pasted in place. I spent 10 years doing text and photo paste-ups for copy machines in the days before computers and I could tell you the technique used for making the vertical shadow disappear but I won't.
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.
