xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, oleroule said: see #2 in the post above yours. Your number 2 is wrong. That’s the point. Courts can and do interpret laws that are vague such as in the Constitution. That interpretation is considered law until a higher court says otherwise. The SC cannot write law, but their interpretation does hold the weight of law. Sorry. “The end” as you said... Do you understand what Common Law is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, oleroule said: the korematsu v. united states and dred scott v. sandford mistakes have been overturned. Has the precedent making you a natural born citizen been overturned? Nope. Until it has, its fucking law. The end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oleroule Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: Your number 2 is wrong. That’s the point. Courts can and do interpret laws that are vague such as in the Constitution. That interpretation is considered law until a higher court says otherwise. The SC cannot write law, but their interpretation does hold the weight of law. Sorry. “The end” as you said... Do you understand what Common Law is? what law defined natural born citizen that they interpreted? none, there isn't one...i believe you already stated that. the end Edited February 13, 2019 by oleroule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, oleroule said: what law defined natural born citizen that they interpreted? There was never anything that described what “natural born” meant in the Constitution. It was vague. US v. Wong Kim Ark. set the precedent that expanded on it and being born in the US two non-US citizens made you a natural born citizen. The court decided. That’s the point. Until a time in which the court overturns that ruling, its the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted February 13, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: There was never anything that described what “natural born” meant in the Constitution. It was vague. US v. Wong Kim Ark. set the precedent that expanded on it and being born in the US two non-US citizens made you a natural born citizen. The court decided. That’s the point. Until a time in which the court overturns that ruling, its the law. Exactly...I was just going to cite that case but don't expect any agreement....he is just one of those guys. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/fourteenth_amendment_citizenship.php Edited February 13, 2019 by Jimmy Snacks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oleroule Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 11 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: There was never anything that described what “natural born” meant in the Constitution. It was vague. US v. Wong Kim Ark. set the precedent that expanded on it and being born in the US two non-US citizens made you a natural born citizen. The court decided. That’s the point. Until a time in which the court overturns that ruling, its the law. it's not law, the courts can't make law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oleroule Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 9 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said: Exactly...I was just going to cite that case but don't expect any agreement....he is just one of those guys. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/fourteenth_amendment_citizenship.php thanks for the compliment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted February 13, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, oleroule said: it's not law, the courts can't make law. 3 minutes ago, oleroule said: thanks for the compliment. Trust me...it ain't a compliment. Edited February 13, 2019 by Jimmy Snacks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, oleroule said: it's not law, the courts can't make law. Courts interpret the law. Their interpretation changes/adds/removes from that law. They absolutely make law. Not in the same way as a legislative body, but they absolutely make law through interpretation. If you can’t agree to that, you have no business in this conversation. It’s fact. It’s not for debate. You can not like it, but that doesn’t change it. I’ll ask again... Do you know what common law is? If not, you should google it. It will explain this for you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oleroule Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 14 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: Courts interpret the law. Their interpretation changes/adds/removes from that law. They absolutely make law. Not in the same way as a legislative body, but they absolutely make law through interpretation. If you can’t agree to that, you have no business in this conversation. It’s fact. It’s not for debate. You can not like it, but that doesn’t change it. I’ll ask again... Do you know what common law is? If not, you should google it. It will explain this for you... you may like the use of english common law but it was something the founders were adamantly against, for good reason. giving the judiciary that much power is one of the things they were breaking away from. probably why it's not one of the powers in article three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, oleroule said: you may like the use of english common law but it was something the founders were adamantly against, for good reason. giving the judiciary that much power is one of the things they were breaking away from. probably why it's not one of the powers in article three. Omg. No. We operate on common law. Fuck, look it up. This isn’t for debate. You can’t make shit up just because you’re getting khashoggi’d in here. Bahahahaha are you so against having to admit you were wrong that you need to blatantly lie. It’s 2019, google is not your friend if you’re full of shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/lawschool/pre-law/intro-to-american-legal-system.page https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law/Comparisons-of-modern-English-American-and-Commonwealth-law 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 @oleroule Just admit you were wrong and move on. No harm in it. I’m a millennial, I know everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 I'd love to go back and see what all this fuckery was about. But as I've seen the terms "Birther", "Natural Born citizen" and "derp" several times at a glance. I can assume XLT is on the wrong side of an argument again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 1 hour ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: @oleroule Just admit you were wrong and move on. No harm in it. I’m a millennial, I think I know everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtralettucetomatoe580 Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Zambroski said: I'd love to go back and see what all this fuckery was about. But as I've seen the terms "Birther", "Natural Born citizen" and "derp" several times at a glance. I can assume XLT is on the wrong side of an argument again. This time I’m not. Read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted February 14, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 14, 2019 3 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: This time I’m not. Read it. Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 6 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said: This time I’m not. Read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said: Good luck with that. Boo hoo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 1 minute ago, DAVE said: Boo hoo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.