The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7029
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1476

Post by Slartibartfast » Thu Jul 17, 2014 10:27 pm

I suspect that only Orly Taitz, Mario Apuzzo, Larry Klayman and[highlight]Rodney-Idiot; [class][/highlight] would score as high. :confuzzled: MichaelN would probably be in the running as long as we counted multiplicity (if I had a penny for every time he mentioned Calvin's case...) and David Farrar might score highly as well, but, in the end, I don't really think anyone would be a match for TWLITHOTU if we scored all of her pleadings and the Chaleria would be in a different order of magnitude if we counted her blog posts too also. My money would be on Nash to place and Mario to show.
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44265
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1477

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jul 17, 2014 10:49 pm

Thread on Rodney-Dale; [class] ---> http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... 20&t=10967





This is now how he "signs" his name. Note it's not in ALL CAPS nor was the signing done before a fringed flag.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7029
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1478

Post by Slartibartfast » Thu Jul 17, 2014 11:10 pm

Thread on Rodney-Dale; [class] ---> http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... 20&t=10967





This is now how he "signs" his name. Note it's not in ALL CAPS nor was the signing done before a fringed flag.Ah. In my eyes, the SovCit types have gone beyond "whacko" into something qualitatively different.





Comes now SlArTiBaRtFaSt, signing his name in colorful capital and lowercase letters of various sizes...





:towel:




Sekrit Stuffs!
There isn't a flag with a fringe in the room, but there is a bedspread... although it might have tassels rather than a fringe. :-k





Does that count?
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

obama--nation
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:27 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1479

Post by obama--nation » Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:40 am

see: Found: [/break1]wordpress.com/2014/07/22/found-the-toxic-terms-scrubbed-from-the-web/]The Toxic Terms Scrubbed from the Web


[/break1]wordpress.com/2014/07/22/found-the-toxic-terms-scrubbed-from-the-web/]http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/07/ ... m-the-web/





I was intrigued by a huge run-up in views of the [/break1]wordpress.com/2012/05/01/four-ways-to-acquirecitizenship/]most popular exposition I've written, without any explanation known to me. I went to its page and found reference to a government website that had statements fatal to Obama's legitimacy, so I clicked on the link out of curiosity, -not having visited it for years, and I was amazed to find a Bing message that said they would like to describe the missing page but the website won't allow it.





As told on my homepage, a few years ago I broke the news to attorney Leo Donofrio about having found in the INS Interpretations a mention of native and natural born citizen, plus one including naturalized citizen. He was taken aback and wrote a blog post on the subject, [/break1]wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/]located here: [/break1]wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/]http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... tive-born/





Upon finding the page, (which had already been hidden once before) missing, I spent much of a day searching for it, but I found that it not only was nowhere to be found on any government website but the entire huge collection of INS Interpretations had been removed with no mention of them in any search result . But even worse, they had also been deleted from the internet archive at the Wayback Machine website! The only capture they had was of "Page Not Found".





I finally found on the web a replica of the entire Interpretations page, (only one) in an obscure pdf page that has been long abandoned. I down loaded it, and copied and pasted to this page all of the pertinent sections and more so they will not disappear again.





Interpretations 890Kb. Key page is page 190; (shown below; key words are in Red and are easily located.)





Interpretation 324.2


Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.





(a) Repatriation


(b) Naturalization.


(c) Effect of expatriation reversals under Afroyim v. Rusk upon derivative citizenship rights.





(a) Repatriation. (1) Before and under the 1907 statute. A United States citizen woman who expatriated herself under the circumstances set forth in INTERP 324.1 could regain her citizenship prior to the Act of March 2, 1907, even though that statute was the first enactment which provided for such restoration of status. ..........








"The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a [highlight]native- and natural-born citizen[/highlight] woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship,..."





"...as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of [highlight]native-born or natural-born citizen[/highlight] (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."





"but to restore the person to the status if [highlight]naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen[/highlight], as determined by her status prior to loss."





see: Found: [/break1]wordpress.com/2014/07/22/found-the-toxic-terms-scrubbed-from-the-web/]The Toxic Terms Scrubbed from the Web





Gee, Beaver,... it looks like native-born citizens and natural born citizens are not the same thing after all! Yeah, Wally, I guess the obamination is unconstitutional after all! Well whaddya know! :wave:

User avatar
everalm
Posts: 1885
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:45 am

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1480

Post by everalm » Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:09 am

Yawwwwwwn, Wong Kim Ark.....Ankeny......220+ Obama lawsuits, you lose, by-bye

ballantine
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:21 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1481

Post by ballantine » Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:24 am

Gee, Beaver,... it looks like native-born citizens and natural born citizens are not the same thing after all! Yeah, Wally, I guess the obamination is unconstitutional after all! Well whaddya know! :wave:An interpretation by a bureaucrat that doesn't define the terms is, of course, not proof of anything. Such does not trump the Supreme Court (and pretty much all other legal authority) which has repeatedly said native born citizens are eligible to be President and hence are natural born citizens. That does not mean that there are certain non-natives who are considered natural born citizens but who are not native born citizens such as Cruz and McCain. The terms are often conflated but I think everyone understands that natural born is a broader term as even under English law some foreign born were natural born. Now, try to find someone who has actually said that the native born are not natural born. Doesn't exist in any mainstream authority. Here, I will help you get started in your research:Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913) (“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.") United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) ("Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.")Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944)(“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency”); United States v. Macintosh, 283 US 605, 624 (1931) ("The alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born (Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22); but he acquires no more"); Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)("Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country "save that of eligibility to the Presidency"). Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(Justice Miller Dissenting)(“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.)” "No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President." Elliot's Debates --DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, pg 195-196 (statement of future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, July 30, 1788)."That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,..." St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES (1803)"As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…."Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States... " James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)"The president must, by law, be a native born citizen; so that none need aspire to that high calling, but those who might emphatically be termed natural sons of America." Joseph Dennie, John Elihu Hall, The Port Folio, pg. 199, (1822)"It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital [the presidency] to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution...." Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1840 ed.)"Citizenship" ....Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president." Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 265 (1843)"No person can be elected president who is less than 35 years of age, who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United Stales..." John Ramsay McCulloch, Daniel Haskel, M'Culloch's Universal Gazetteer: A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical, and Historical, of the Various Countries, Places, and Principal Natural Objects in the World, pg. 994 (1844)"No person can be President or Vice-president who is not a native-born citizen, of the age of thirty-five years, ...." Richard Swainson Fisher, The progress of the United States of America: from the earliest periods. Geographical, statistical, and historical, pg. 9 (1854)"The executive power is vested in a president and vice-president; each chosen for a term four years each to be a native born citizen.....Emma Willard, Abridged history of the United States, or, Republic of America, pg. 254 (1856)"They declared by that solemn compact, that the President of the United States should be a native born citizen, ... Samuel Clagett Busey, Immigration: Its Evils and Consequences pg. 10 (1856)"One of the qualifications of President of the United States is that he must be a native born citizen, and incontestibly were it not for this provision a naturalized citizen might, if elected, hold that high position." White v. Clements, Georgia Supreme Court (1870)"The qualifications for president and vice-president by this clause are made the same. They must, therefore, be native born citizens of the United States, or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, and been fourteen years citizens of the United States, and thirty-five years old." John King, A Commentary on the Law and True Construction of the Federal Constitution, pg. 206, (1871)"The President was required to be thirty-five years of age, and native born, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution." Richard Hildreth, The History of the United States of America, pg. 521 (1880)"The President and the Vice-President, (and hence their Electors also), are required, however, to be native-born citizens of the United States. Here we have a clear inclusion of all the States as to their native-born, and a clear Delusion of all foreign-born citizens." Meeds Tuthill, The civil polity of the United States considered in its theory and practice, pg. 83 (1883)"As the president and vice-president are elected at and for the same time, the right to be chosen to both offices is dependent upon the same conditions (12th amendment). To be eligible, it is necessary to be a native-born citizen of the United States,...Hermann Von Holst, Alfred Bishop Mason, The Constitutional Law of the United States of America" pg. 84 (1887)"If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who has been naturalized and then become a citizen of the United States will be eligible to the office of President;" Sen. Howard, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)"The Constitution of the United States declares that no one but a native-born citizen of the United States shall be President of the United States. Does, then, every person living in this land who does not happen to have been born within its jurisdiction undergo pains and penalties and punishment all his life, because by the Constitution he is ineligible to the Presidency? Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2901(1866).“I told him that that I thought a man was eligible for the office of President or Vice President even if he was a citizen of the Territory of Tenne
ssee if he was a native born citizen of the United States.” Rep. Broomall, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.468 (1865)"The Constitution requires that the President must be a native-born citizen of the United States." Sen. Sherman, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1035 (1869) "No one who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or a citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution, can be voted for." Sen. Johnson, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.552 (1865)"that the President and Vice President must be native born." Rep. Clarke, Congressional Globe, 2nd session, 40th Congress. 1105 (1868)."One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen." Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16586
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1482

Post by Suranis » Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:30 am

I finally found on the web a replica of the entire Interpretations page, (only one) in an obscure pdf page that has been long abandoned. :link: Or is spending money on a fake web page too much effort for the usual proof free brand of idiocy.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1483

Post by BillTheCat » Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:11 pm

I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE HERE, SERIAL LIAR CRAZY PERSON. Oh that's right, you're a fucking liar, what was I thinking. :crazy:
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15556
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1484

Post by Reality Check » Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:38 pm

I haven't and probably will not read Nash's latest schlock but will comment on the terms natural born and native born. Even though bodies up to and including the Supreme Court multiple times have used the terms interchangeably they really are not. Native born persons are a large subset of natural born citizens. The natural born also includes a small group like Ted Cruz who acquired citizenship at birth having been born abroad to one or both parents who are American citizens. I would suggest that Nash and read John Woodman's excellent 7 part series on the history of the term natural born citizen. This is Part 1:[/break1]obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/07/the-hist ... p-to-1787/]http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www ... p-to-1787/Of course he will not and would not understand it if he did.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 7029
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1485

Post by Slartibartfast » Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:11 pm

I will note that Mr. Nash referenced an actual source this time (even if he failed to include a link to it... :roll: ). I think it is clear why Mr. Nash, and birthers in general, try to avoid this. Nash found one source that, while consistent with his interpretation, did not explicitly support it---in other words, it is evidence on his behalf, just not very strong evidence and Ballantine replied with 28 sources which explicitly support the anti-birther position, all but 5 of which came before the so-called "error" by Attorney General Griggs that Mr. Nash claims to be the origin of the misunderstanding of citizenship. One small step forward, twenty-eight giant steps back. This, in the nomenclature of the birthers, is great progress.Here is a little bit of misogyny that the abomination threw out at Mario's blog:There is no statutory allowance for women to be President, nor any constitutional provision defending such a privilege. There is only the fundamental principle of citizenship equality, and it was only finally embedded in the Constitution via the 14th Amendment.Before the passage of the 19th Amendment, women could not vote, and certainly could not seek the presidency or any such high office.Consequently, there was no real-world difference between a female native-born American common law citizen and a female natural born citizen, since neither had any right to serve as President.The wickedly dishonest obama defenders would have everyone believe that when it came to national security, the framers were willing to allow sons of aliens to be President, when they would not allow their own mothers, wives, sisters and daughters to be President. Just ask yourself, who would you trust more to babysit your small child, a female relative or a total stranger? Or to be a trustee of your parent's will and estate?Or to watch your back when under attack?If the framers would not allow their own flesh and blood to be President, how much more would they not allow the flesh and blood of strangers to rule over them?
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 3246
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1486

Post by Jim » Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:29 pm

Before the passage of the 19th Amendment, women could not vote, and certainly could not seek the presidency or any such high office.I wonder how bad Mr Nash's scorecard would look if we kept track of all the different opinions he has that are just plain wrong..."In the 19th century, Victoria Claflin Woodhull was many things: a clairvoyant, a businesswoman, an advocate for women's rights and sexual freedom, and a magnet for media attention and scandal.But she is best known as the first woman to run for president. Her 1872 campaign came at a time when most women did not even have the right to vote."http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... 79577Which was, of course, many years before the passage of the 19th amendment in 1920. "1917 Jeannette Rankin, a Republican from Montana, entered the U.S. House of Representatives, the first woman ever elected to Congress. She served from 1917 to 1919 and again from 1941 to 1942; a pacifist, she was the only lawmaker to vote against U.S. entry into both world wars."http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/ ... sts.phpARN has gotten so bad, you can almost read anything he writes and assume he's wrong. =))

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44265
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1487

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:31 pm

Slarti, the next step in your recovery will be to avoid Apuzzo's blog.

User avatar
wavey davey
Posts: 1492
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:01 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1488

Post by wavey davey » Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:58 pm

I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE HERE, SERIAL LIAR CRAZY PERSON. Oh that's right, you're a fucking liar, what was I thinking. :crazy:He can't stay away. This is the only place he can play "Hit Me" and have anyone actually hit him.On the one hand, his verbose screeds are tedious. But on the other hand, of all the inhabitants of Fema Camp 7 1/2, he's been our Best Birther Bitch ever. No matter how many times we hit him, he keeps coming back for more.

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7767
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Edmonds. WA
Contact:

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1489

Post by PatGund » Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:47 pm

Sounds like he's pretty much joining Gordon Epperly and Paul Guthrie's camp when it comes to women.Maybe they can put up a "No Girls Allowed" sign by their tents and indulge in manly activities for manly men together.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12244
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1490

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:08 pm

ARN has gotten so bad, you can almost read anything he writes and assume he's wrong. =))ALMOST??? Maybe it's just old age and failing memory, but I'm really not coming up with anything.Actually, I think Gnish Gnash is WRONG yet again, well still really. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says ONLY that to be eligible; "you have to be a [highlight]natural born Citizen[/highlight], attained the Age of [highlight]thirty five Years[/highlight], and [highlight]fourteen Years a Resident[/highlight] within the United States". Nowhere is there ANY mention of either sex, or being able to vote, nor does it say you have to be propertied or a member of the established church, or Christian, as was the requirement in most of the former colonies of the time. Now while it may have been assumed, there is nothing saying it was, and in this case, I don't think there can even be a fall back to common law since electing your national leader was to the best of my understanding never contemplated in the common law, and in fact in the US had to be created as a function by legislation.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

obama--nation
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:27 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1491

Post by obama--nation » Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:08 pm

"The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a [highlight]native- and natural-born citizen woman[/highlight] who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship,..."





"...as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of [highlight]native-born or natural-born citizen[/highlight] (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."





"but to restore the person to the status if [highlight]naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen[/highlight], as determined by her status prior to loss."





see: [highlight][/break1]wordpress.com/2014/07/22/found-the-toxic-terms-scrubbed-from-the-web/l]Found: The Toxic Terms Scrubbed from the Web[/highlight]





[/break1]files.wordpress.com/2014/07/interpretations.pdf]https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ations.pdf 896 Kb 466 pages


[/break1]files.wordpress.com/2014/07/interpretations.pdf]INTERPRETATIONS of Supreme Court rulings by the U.S. Attorney General.





Ivory tower, insulated pontificating bloviators knew nothing about the reality of Federal executive policy, nor law for that matter. Only States allowed common law, jus soli citizenship; the national government did not recognize it until forced to by the Wong opinion.





The national naturalization acts provided citizenship only to children of naturalized aliens dwelling in the United States. If they were not naturalized, then Washington considered them to be subject through their foreign father to a foreign power, and thus not even considered citizens by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 nor the 14th Amendment.


All of you boneheads need to get your FACTS straight. It is not a matter of opinion but of historical facts and federal perspective, not State perspective.





Washington was under no constitutional mandate to recognize the unnatural citizenship allowed by the States, and it did not. It recognized the children of citizens as the only citizens other than the naturalized and their children. No dual-nationality was allowed by the national government and its naturalization rule.


Just try to prove that's wrong.





And btw, thanks someone for doing the research for me about the opportunities of women pre-19th Amendment. I'll keep that info in mind in the future. But you did missed the point entirely, -which was not about the specifics of the ban against women's civic rights, but about the nation-wide general situation, in particular that which was in place when the constitution went into effect.





[/break1]files.wordpress.com/2014/07/interpretations.pdf]https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ations.pdf 896 Kb 466 pages


[/break1]files.wordpress.com/2014/07/interpretations.pdf]INTERPRETATIONS of Supreme Court rulings by the U.S. Attorney General.





User avatar


obama--nation





Posts: 152


Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:27 pm

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16586
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1492

Post by Suranis » Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:23 pm

[BBvideo 425,350:qv3ml4nm][/BBvideo]Reminds me of someone...
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Estiveo
Posts: 7917
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1493

Post by Estiveo » Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:47 pm

Nash is all Broke-back; he just can't quit us.Sekrit Stuffs!
Although I wouldn't fuck him with MichaelN's dick.
Image Image Image Image Image

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1494

Post by BillTheCat » Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:07 pm

lol :lol: 466 pages... The very definition of tl;dr
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16586
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1495

Post by Suranis » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:06 pm

Washington was under no constitutional mandate to recognize the unnatural citizenship allowed by the States, and it did not. It recognized the children of citizens as the only citizens other than the naturalized and their children. No dual-nationality was allowed by the national government and its naturalization rule.Just try to prove that's wrong.Ok. Challenge accepted.In 1906, a memorandum, prepared in the Department of State by its law officer, was sent by the Acting Secretary of State, Robert Bacon, to the German Ambassador [307 U.S. 325, 333] as covering 'the principles' upon which the Department had acted. In this memorandum it was said:6'Assuming that Alexander Bohn (the father) never became a citizen of the United States, Jacob Bohn (the son) was born of German parents in the United States. According to the Constitution and laws of the United States as interpreted by the courts, a child born to alien parents in the United States is an American citizen, although such child may also be a citizen of the country of his parents according to the law of that country.'Although there is no express provision in the law of the United States giving election of citizenship in such cases, this department has always held in such circumstances that if a child is born of foreign parents in the United States, and is taken during minority to the country of his parents, such child upon arriving of age, or within a reasonable time thereafter, must make election between the citizenship which is his by birth and the citizenship which is his by parentage. In case a person so circumstanced elects American citizenship he must, unless in extraordinary circumstances, in order to render his election effective, manifest an intention in good faith to return with all convenient speed to the United States and assume the duties of citizenship'...Young Steinkauler is a [highlight]native-born American citizen[/highlight]. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he [highlight]can become President of the United State[/highlight]s; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws,has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of the opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of [307 U.S. 325, 331] the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of twenty-one years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be right reason' and I think it is law.I'd give you a link but you don't need one. ;;)Challenge fulfilled.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

obama--nation
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:27 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1496

Post by obama--nation » Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:54 pm

Suranis failed to meet my challenge by not understanding it.





I wrote: "Washington was under no constitutional mandate to recognize the unnatural citizenship allowed by the States, and it did not. It recognized the children of citizens as the only citizens other than the naturalized and their children. No dual-nationality was allowed by the national government and its naturalization rule.


Just try to prove that's wrong.That is in the context established earlier, -pre-Wong opinion. Pre-A.G. Griggs interpretation of the SCOTUS reinterpretation of the 14th A.


You fail unless you can show the same sort of message before the late 1890's. Don't bother trying, but if you do, you might find an outlier or two that reflected a more immigrant-oriented, immigrant-pleasing administration that was normal. Or the policy may have never changed until Wong.


But comments that are not made by the executive branch of the federal government don't even count because only it had power over the issue of American nationality (as apposed to State citizenship).

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44265
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1497

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:14 am

The abomination has written another nonsense post. And his challenge is incomprehensible.

Somerset
Posts: 4086
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:52 am
Location: Silicon Valley
Occupation: Lab rat

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1498

Post by Somerset » Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:43 am

Suranis failed to meet my challenge by not understanding it.





I wrote: "Washington was under no constitutional mandate to recognize the unnatural citizenship allowed by the States, and it did not. It recognized the children of citizens as the only citizens other than the naturalized and their children. No dual-nationality was allowed by the national government and its naturalization rule.


Just try to prove that's wrong.That is in the context established earlier, -pre-Wong opinion. Pre-A.G. Griggs interpretation of the SCOTUS reinterpretation of the 14th A.


You fail unless you can show the same sort of message before the late 1890's. Ah, you're back with more convoluted gobbledygook. I thought you were done here and were't coming back. Obviously, self-discipline isn't one of your strengths.





Once again, you fail because you can't seem to grasp a very simple concept: Theories start off as unproven until there are facts, evidence or data to either prove or disprove. The lack of data to either prove or disprove does not automatically make the opposite true.





Someday, when you grow up, you'll understand this.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12244
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1499

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:43 am

Someday, when you grow up, you'll understand this.My but we're awfully optimistic today!!!
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
LM K
Posts: 8290
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:59 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: College Professor

The Theories of A. R. Nash: Are they the craziest in birtherstan?

#1500

Post by LM K » Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:40 am

Slarti, the next step in your recovery will be to avoid Apuzzo's blog. =))
"The jungle is no place for a cello."
Take the Money and Run

Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”