Obama eligibility case lives! Supreme Court's own precedent cited in new demand for resolution.

[MACVSOG68]

Read what I wrote up thread. I have no intention of repeating it again.

 :odrama:

[Bigun]

:odrama:

I posted a very long response to something you said early on on this thread which your responses since PROVE you have not bothered to read.  No drama except what you are attempting to create.

[MACVSOG68]

I posted a very long response to something you said early on on this thread which your responses since PROVE you have not bothered to read.  No drama except what you are attempting to create.

LOL!  Bigun, I read what you posted...all of it, and it was a quick read because where ever you borrowed it from, I've read a fair bit of it before, but I'll admit I didn't go back to the 1100s.  But my question for you my friend is, did you? You listed dozens of cases, books, treatises.  Did you actually read them?   

Early on you said you come down on the side of Vattel's  definition and said the courts have never decided it.  I showed you where they in fact have.  Then you said the case had been Thoroughly discussed here and see no point in doing that all over again...until you posted the mother of all "arguments".

With all due respect, a suggestion.  If you're going to post stuff like that, least summarize what your points are and if you feel we need to go back to the Treaty of Falaise from the 12th Century, put it in context.  BTW, FWIW, William was a prisoner and simply signed it to keep his head.  It was struck down a few years later.  Again, the suggestion is made simply to advance what could be a good discussion.

[Dexter]

if you feel we need to go back to the Treaty of Falaise from the 12th Century, put it in context. 

 

[Bigun]

LOL!  Bigun, I read what you posted...all of it, and it was a quick read because where ever you borrowed it from, I've read a fair bit of it before, but I'll admit I didn't go back to the 1100s.  But my question for you my friend is, did you? You listed dozens of cases, books, treatises.  Did you actually read them?   

Early on you said you come down on the side of Vattel's  definition and said the courts have never decided it.  I showed you where they in fact have.  Then you said the case had been Thoroughly discussed here and see no point in doing that all over again...until you posted the mother of all "arguments".

With all due respect, a suggestion.  If you're going to post stuff like that, least summarize what your points are and if you feel we need to go back to the Treaty of Falaise from the 12th Century, put it in context.  BTW, FWIW, William was a prisoner and simply signed it to keep his head.  It was struck down a few years later.  Again, the suggestion is made simply to advance what could be a good discussion.

And the entire first section of what I posted earlier directly responded to your assertion.

It's obvious from your later comments (i.e that you disagreed that I had responded to your comments)  that you had not read it.

And yes I have read them! Have you?

[MACVSOG68]

And the entire first section of what I posted earlier directly responded to your assertion.

It's obvious from your later comments (i.e that you disagreed that I had responded to your comments)  that you had not read it.

And yes I have read them! Have you?

No, I certainly haven't read all those cases, books, etc, and in fact I doubt even the most ardent birther has.    I have to admit, I still can't put a liege lord's determination of "allegiance" into the context of today's natural born citizen issue.  I can see going back to England in the late 1700s because we all know what a natural born subject was...almost anyone born within the realm regardless of who the parents were.  But 600 years before that seems like a real stretch to me. 

But I have read the cases used, especially Wong, Minor, Elk, Slaughter House.  And as you've apparently seen the debate that took place here, before you signed up, you know all of the other references I read and posted.  If I post something from a case or a law, I have read it.  The reason I ask if you actually read that stuff is because I just picked one from random you wrote, "a treatise by Prentiss Webster", and I found immediately two sites with the exact same wording.  In fact, everything you posted in those huge posts came word for word from TOS, right down to the conclusions.  So you can understand why I asked if you had read that.  Anyway, guess we should probably put this one to bed. 
 

[Bigun]

No, I certainly haven't read all those cases, books, etc, and in fact I doubt even the most ardent birther has.    I have to admit, I still can't put a liege lord's determination of "allegiance" into the context of today's natural born citizen issue.  I can see going back to England in the late 1700s because we all know what a natural born subject was...almost anyone born within the realm regardless of who the parents were.  But 600 years before that seems like a real stretch to me. 

But I have read the cases used, especially Wong, Minor, Elk, Slaughter House.  And as you've apparently seen the debate that took place here, before you signed up, you know all of the other references I read and posted.  If I post something from a case or a law, I have read it.  The reason I ask if you actually read that stuff is because I just picked one from random you wrote, "a treatise by Prentiss Webster", and I found immediately two sites with the exact same wording.  In fact, everything you posted in those huge posts came word for word from TOS, right down to the conclusions.  So you can understand why I asked if you had read that.  Anyway, guess we should probably put this one to bed. 
 

Which is what I suggested we do a couple of days ago.  I'm done with it!