Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#126

Post by MichaelN » Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:46 pm

Fact is, according to Lord Coke, to be an English 'natural born subject', one must be born BOTH jus sanguinis AND jus soli.What the English call an alien born male visiting in amity is a 'natural subject' & an issue from this male person 'subject' is called a 'natural born subject'.One must be a 'subject/citizen' to produce, in the land, a 'natural born subject/Citizen'What the US might rightfully call a male visitor to US (if per legal entry) is a welcome guest alien, a legal alien.What the US might rightfully call a male visitor (if per illegal entry) is an unwelcome alien, an illegal alien, a law-breaker.UNLIKE England, in US, neither of these alien type of male visitors are 'natural citizens' to US,or any kind of US citizen, but in England they would be 'natural subjects' and their issue, if born jus soli would be an English 'natural born subject'.Not so in US, where the alien visitor to US must apply & be approved by due process to become a citizen of US.So to be consistent & in keeping with English common law, it is impossible for the alien visitor to US to produce a 'natural born' unless he becomes a US citizen FIRST.It's really very easy to grasp.



MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#127

Post by MichaelN » Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:10 am

[quote name=gentrfam]English Common Law (See The English Common Law (Calvin’s Case, or the Case of the Postnati. 1 - Sir Edward Coke, Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke, vol. I [1600])


states that to be an English 'natural born subject', the father must FIRST be an English 'natural subject' and is considered a 'subject' (albeit the alien born)




Wrong.





Do you want to actually see Calvin's Case before you point people there?





1. An alien in England, even temporarily, owes the King allegiance, and is, therefore, within the legiance of the King:




And is therefore a 'natural subject' if in amity.





a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject;




And is furthermore if he had a child in the sovereign's dominion, then the child would be a 'natural born subject'





for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori52 he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia)




[quote name=gentrfam]The third is ligeantia localis wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other.




2. The local allegiance owed by a foreigner in the country temporarily is enough to make a natural subject if that foreigner has kids:




It's not IF he had kids that the alien born would be a 'natural subject, but rather because he is a 'natural subject', his kids would be 'natural born subjects'.





[quote name=gentrfam]Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum; for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject: a fortiori he that is born under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which as it hath been said, is alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to be a natural born subject; for localis ligeantia est ligeantia infima et minima, et maxime incerta.




You know, MichaelN, it's not like no one has ever looked at Calvin's Case in the 410 years since it has been written. Dozens,




Yeah, I know.





[quote name=gentrfam] if not hundreds of judges and scholars have written about it. Why is it that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM got it wrong, only to be corrected by you?




I dunno .............. maybe they had a monopoly on the law libraries and thought they could get away with the deception .............. or they just didn't read it properly.





Btw, are you aware of what a logical fallacy is, yes?





Hint: hundreds of people thought the earth was flat.





[quote name=gentrfam]I mean, we could take the word of MichaelN and his infinite wisdom, or William Blackstone: "The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."





Blackstone has been quoted by our Supreme Court hundreds of times. How many times has MichaelN been quoted?




I don't think I differ with Blackstone per the quote you post, Blackstone was generalizing with his 'generally speaking', you wanna know how this is so?





Well here's an example of an alien whose child, if born in the land is not a 'natural born subject'.





And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies [ my comment - aka a form of alien] should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.




[quote name=gentrfam][quote name=MichaelN]Problem is, US doesn't automate citizenship of aliens as did the English its subjects.




England didn't automate citizenship, either.




Well not 'citizens' but they did 'subjects' ............ you only just said they did with the quotes you posted (above)





You haven't been smokin' some of that silly stuff have you?





[quote name=gentrfam]Aliens in the country owed a temporary allegiance to the King, but they were still aliens. They couldn't own land, etc. They weren't subjects, or denizens, but aliens who owed a temporary allegiance to the King.




Correction, they were alien born, then, if visiting in amity, they were 'natural subjects' & ONLY then their kids were 'natural born subjects', IF born in the dominion of the sovereign.





[quote name=gentrfam]Are illegal immigrants allowed to disobey our laws? Are they allowed to plot against the government? No? Then they owe our government the same temporary allegiance that the alien owed the King in England. That's what WKA decided. That was confirmed in Plyer v. Doe.




They may well owe a temporary allegiance to the sovereign state, but the problem is that US (unlike England) doesn't FIRST deem these aliens (legal or illegal) as 'citizens' so their kids might be 'natural born' as the English do & if they were illegal aliens then they were not in amity either, because they committed crime against the state.





For a US 'natural born Citizen' to come anywhere near the equivalent to an English 'natural born subject' and within the definition per Common Law, then the father of the child born in US, must FIRST be a 'citizen', but because US doesn't automatically give US citizenship to ANY legal or illegal alien, then the child of such an alien cannot be a 'natural born'.





English 'natural born subjects' are those who are born of a 'natural subject' (under the principle of jus sanguinis) AND in the dominion of the sovereign (under the principle of jus soli)





The only 'natural subjects' that the US has, are called 'citizens of the United States', acquired by either born in the land or naturalized under due process of law.





It follows, and in keeping with this criterion in Common Law, that to be 'natural born' in US, one must be born of a US 'natural subject Citizen', i.e. one that is deemed or formally accepted in amity, by due process of law, as a US 'citizen'





Basically the primary requirement is jus sanguinis, i.e. born under the allegiance & obedience of the subject citizen father.





And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born




Are you suggesting that US must follow English practice and give US citizenship to every legal or illegal visitor?





Weird!



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 17037
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#128

Post by Suranis » Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:20 am

Michealn, you do realize that diatribe you just posted basically proves that President Obama is an NBC?Can't you even read what you write?


Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#129

Post by Epectitus » Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:57 am

So... Since it is too much effort for too little return to take him off ignore, I'd appreciate it if somebody told me when MichaelN accepts the debate challenge of so many months ago.


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 17037
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#130

Post by Suranis » Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:59 am

I'll certainly pass it along if he does. Over to you, Micheal old bean. :twisted:


Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#131

Post by mimi » Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:39 am

So... Since it is too much effort for too little return to take him off ignore, I'd appreciate it if somebody told me when MichaelN accepts the debate challenge of so many months ago.Nope, he's still playing the cut & paste thing. He still hasn't agreed to debate you. Still the chicken.As far as I know Orly still hasn't agreed to the debate she was challenged to many months ago either.And Mario still trolls other blogs while refusing to allow comments on his own blog.Still the same. Birfistan is still the same.



gentrfam
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#132

Post by gentrfam » Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:09 pm

Correction, they were alien born, then, if visiting in amity, they were 'natural subjects'No, they were aliens in amity. The operative word there is alien.





See, there were aliens of two types, enemy aliens and aliens in amity. Then, there were denizens and subjects. You could become a subject through naturalization, or through birth.





An alien didn't "become a subject" by coming into the country, even if they were there in amity. They were still aliens.





Let me quote from the case:





Every man is either Alienigena, an Alien born, or subditus, a subject born. Every Alien is either a friend that is in league, &c. or an enemy that is in open war. &c. Every Alien enemy is either pro tempore, temporary for a time, or perpetuus, perpetual, or specialiter permissus, permitted especially. Every subject is either natus, born, or datus, given or made: And of these briefly in their order. An alien friend, as at this time, a German, a Frenchman, a Spaniard, &c. (all the Kings and Princes in Christendom being now in league with our Sovereign, but a Scot being a Subject, cannot be said to be a friend, nor Scotland to be solum amici165 ) may by the Common Law have, require, and get within this Realm, by gift, trade, or other lawfull means, any treasure, or goods personal whatsoever, as well as any Englishman, and may maintain any action for the same: But Lands within this Realm, or houses (but for their necessary habitation onely) Alien friends cannot acquire, or get, nor maintain any action real or personal, for any land or house, unless the house be for their necessary habitation. For if they should be disabled to acquire and maintain these things, it were in effect to deny unto them trade and traffique, which is the life of every Island. But if this Alien become an enemy (as all Alien friends may) then is he utterly disabled to maintain any action, or get any thing within this Realm. And this is to be understood of a temporary Alien, that being an enemy may be a friend, or becoming a friend may be an enemy. But a perpetual enemy (though there be no wars by fire and sword between them) cannot maintain any action, or get any thing within this Realm. All Infidels are in Law perpetui inimici perpetual enemies (for the Law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potentia, a remote possibility) for between them, as with the devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christian, there is perpetual hostility, and can be no peace; for as the Apostle saith, 2 Cor. 15. Quae autem conventio Christi ad Belial, aut quae pars fideli cum infideli, and the Law saith, Judaeo Christianum nullum serviat mancipium, nefas enim est quem Christus redemit blasphemum Christi in servitutis vinculis detinere. Register 282. Infideles sunt Christi et Christianorum inimici. And herewith agreeth the Book in 12 Hen. 8. fol. 4. where it is holden that a Pagan cannot have or maintain any action at all.See: Subjects = Born or made


Aliens = Enemy or Amity





4 categories, and you don't become a made subject simply by entering the UK!





Subjects = buy and sell real estate


Aliens in Amity = buy personal property, can sue in courts


Enemy aliens = cannot buy or sell goods, cannot sue in courts





Let's see. Can aliens buy and sell property in the United States? Yes. Can they sue in our courts? Yes. I guess we have "automated citizenship" in the same way that England "automated" subjectship.





You've created a whole new category of subject (which, by the way, suggests that aliens in amity, as "natural subject" jump ahead of aliens who are granted denizenship, which is a lesser status than "subject") which does not comport with the rubric set forth in the case you claim to have found this new class. It is a new category unrecognized in all of English law, and which has no legal or philosophical meaning.





It is entirely the work of MichaelN, and, so, I ask again, how many times has MichaelN been cited by US or UK courts on the issue of citizenship? Or any issue, at all.





Hint: hundreds of people thought the earth was flat.Hint: Corporations aren't really people, even though the law says they are.


Hint 2: If 51% of people in Kansas voted tomorrow to say that the Earth was flat, then, in Kansas, the law would say that the Earth was flat.





Well here's an example of an alien whose child, if born in the land is not a 'natural born subject'.Yes, an enemy alien, who was never "under the protection of the King."





Protection of the king = temporary allegiance = children who were natural born subjects.





Did Barack Obama Sr. declare war on the United States? If so, I missed that part.





If you can show that Barack Obama Sr. was a diplomat, or at war with the United States, or otherwise outside the allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States (as defined by WKA and Plyler v. Doe), then you might have a case.





Wong got ruled as 'citizen' only.Wong got "ruled as a 'citizen'" because natural born citizen meant the same as natural born subject. Wong is a citizen because he's a natural born citizen.





If you disagree, tell me what logic Justice Gray used to make WKA a citizen?





Cite the case, please.



A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#133

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:47 pm

But even if the Fourteenth Amendment had in fact "changed the law that we'd received from England," it would still be the law.





The stated basis of the decision was the Fourteenth Amendment. The fact that it comported with English common law seems marginally relevant, to me. If it HADN'T comported with common law, it would still have superseded the common law.I must point out that if the Fourteenth Amendment was in derogation of common law, that it would be subject to the canon of construction which argues that enactments in derogation of the common law are to be interpreted narrowly. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment merely articulates law already existing at the time of its enactment is actually critical to how canons of construction are applied to it. Therefore, if the Fourteenth articulates previously existing common law, it is to be interpreted broadly, as enforcing already existing law that was mistakenly ignored by SCOTUS in decisions like the much-loathed Dred Scott. However, if the Fourteenth states new law, which actually derogates from the true common law, as stated in cases like the very same Dred Scott, it is to be interpreted narrowly.





Also, I have a PM to send to you, but for some reason, am forbidden from doing so for not having participated enough. Apparently, Noz and MichaelN have more rights to communicate with you than I do, because I have not yet posted enough idiocy. Should I post a lot of really stupid things to get PM privs? Because otherwise, I am unable to inform you of forum rules I am breaking at this very moment.



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#134

Post by mimi » Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:52 pm

It's a 3 post rule. It's an Anti-Spam thing. Some folks were selling pharmaceutical aids. The 3 post rule has halted that.ETA: I didn't know it stopped PM's. I guess it does.



A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#135

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:54 pm

It's a 3 post rule. It's an Anti-Spam thing. Some folks were selling pharmaceutical aids. The 3 post rule has halted that.Yes, I know that. I was just being snarkastic. Maybe this gets me over the hump.



User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#136

Post by mimi » Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:55 pm

It's a 3 post rule. It's an Anti-Spam thing. Some folks were selling pharmaceutical aids. The 3 post rule has halted that.Yes, I know that. I was just being snarkastic. Maybe this gets me over the hump.They let you in. oy. :P



User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#137

Post by Plutodog » Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:13 am

Cite the case, please.Sorry, it wasn't available for cut n' paste. =; :roll: =))


The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#138

Post by MichaelN » Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:37 am

From Calvin's Case





What do you make of it?





so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions.'subject born'?


'natural subject''?


'natural born subject'?





Two types of born subjects?



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34969
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#139

Post by realist » Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:54 am

This thread is for discussion of:





Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)





Try this one: http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... ip#p188450





Or this one: http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... ip#p188450





Thank you.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

gentrfam
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#140

Post by gentrfam » Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:15 am

Sorry, I've taken my response to MichaelN there. Anyway, Ankeny. Still dead? Yep. Still dead.



MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#141

Post by MichaelN » Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:06 am

Correction, they were alien born, then, if visiting in amity, they were 'natural subjects'No, they were aliens in amity. The operative word there is alien.The operative word is 'subject'.





The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance,"Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is alocal ligeance of the subject’s part. And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 forhe owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, isstrong enough to make a natural subjectPoint is, US doesn't recognize aliens as subjects citizens for them to be able produce 'natural born subjects Citizens'.





Ergo: To be a 'natural born subject' of England, one must be born of a 'subject' AND in the realm of England.





Jus sanguinis AND jus soli.





Ergo Mk I: The dicta in the Horace Grey court for WKA was in error to put forth and accept the notion that a US 'natural born Citizen' is one born of an alien to US.





I know it's difficult for you to accept, but you will have to get over it and learn to live with it.



MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#142

Post by MichaelN » Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:18 am

This thread is for discussion of:





Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)





Try this one: http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... ip#p188450





Or this one: http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... ip#p188450





Thank you.Translated: I can't face the truth.





OK, in Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.), they got it WRONG to follow the dicta of the Horace Grey court in WKA and any other case that represents the same absurd notion regarding English Common Law about 'natural born subject'.





And YOU if you are in the legal profession, should be seriously concerned that such a travesty has been perpetrated for so long in the court systems.





So you might regret sprouting that Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.) is some sort of break-through in establishing a right ..............in reality Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.) is an abomination, a disgrace & an embarrassment to the legal profession as was WKA dicta and all that followed the disastrous error, like a pack of Lemmings.



MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#143

Post by MaineSkeptic » Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:00 am

And YOU if you are in the legal profession, should be seriously concerned that such a travesty has been perpetrated for so long in the court systems.Very well put. You acknowledge that your position is at odds with long-standing U.S. legal tradition.And, of course, it's because you are right and everyone else is wrong.Good little birfer!



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 16172
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#144

Post by ZekeB » Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:13 am

Ya Skeppy. The mind of a non-legal person is an awesome thing to watch when it pretends to have the legal answer. Of course a huge majority of the people, in his small circle of friends, think the same way. So of course he is right.


Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.

gentrfam
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#145

Post by gentrfam » Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:24 pm

I know it's difficult for you to accept, but you will have to get over it and learn to live with it.Perhaps you should work on learning to live with the fact that you have a unique view of the law not shared by anyone who actually practices the law or who has practiced the law in the 402 years since Calvin's Case was decided, or the 660+ years since the term "natural born" was first recorded in English law. If you learn to live with that, you can then work on learning to live with the fact that Wong will never be overturned, that despite your personal grudges against it, it is well accepted by the legal community. (It has been cited by all but one or two of the current SC justices.) Of course, you'd also have to recognize that Ankeny isn't some "sort of break-through in establishing a right" but a clear statement of what the legal community has long known, that those born here, even to aliens, are eligible to be President!



ducktape
Posts: 5334
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#146

Post by ducktape » Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:40 pm

Perhaps you should work on learning to live with the fact that you have a unique view of the law not shared by anyone who actually practices the law or who has practiced the law in the 402 years since Calvin's Case was decided, or the 660+ years since the term "natural born" was first recorded in English law.But but but .... if he keeps repeating his posts, and claps and prays REAL HARD, surely Jeebus will change the world for him so he'll be right and everyone else will be wrong.Mommy did it when he screamed loud and long enough, right?



User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 29122
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#147

Post by Foggy » Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:47 am

[alert]Once again, this is leaning toward personal attacks. Insult the argument, not the person who makes it.[/alert]


I put the 'fun' in dysfunctional.

MichaelN
Posts: 550
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:07 am

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#148

Post by MichaelN » Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:48 am

And YOU if you are in the legal profession, should be seriously concerned that such a travesty has been perpetrated for so long in the court systems.Very well put. You acknowledge that your position is at odds with long-standing U.S. legal tradition.And, of course, it's because you are right and everyone else is wrong.Good little birfer!'Legal tradition'? .............. legal abomination and abuse allowed to fester for far too long, is more apt descriptionYour reliance on fallacy fails to address the point raised, is it because you are afraid of the truth that you resort to such ad hominem riddled drivel?I suppose you can point-out where the Frenchman (referred to in Calvin's case) is not considered a 'natural subject'?a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject:Then maybe you can explain how it is that there are two qualities for one to qualify as a 'natural born subject' i.e. 'nature & birthright'?There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright,bearing in mind.And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#149

Post by TollandRCR » Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:31 am

Sorry, I've taken my response to MichaelN there.





Anyway, Ankeny. Still dead? Yep. Still dead.Isn't the Birfers' problem that the Ankeny decision is very much alive and bothering the dickens out of them? The case is dead; the court's reasoning is vital (in both senses of that word).


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

MaineSkeptic
Posts: 5295
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm

Ankeny v Gov State of Indiana (Ind.)

#150

Post by MaineSkeptic » Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:02 pm

And YOU if you are in the legal profession, should be seriously concerned that such a travesty has been perpetrated for so long in the court systems.Very well put. You acknowledge that your position is at odds with long-standing U.S. legal tradition.And, of course, it's because you are right and everyone else is wrong.Good little birfer!'Legal tradition'? .............. legal abomination and abuse allowed to fester for far too long, is more apt description..Exactly, you have proved my point. Just as I said, "You acknowledge that your position is at odds with long-standing U.S. legal tradition."You have disparaging words for the long-standing U.S. legal tradition, but that doesn't change the facts.



Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”