It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BIG NEWS- Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent'

page: 51
120
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


I have done the work and all the facts you guys have presented have been wrong.

But that's what I get for discussing things with irrational people.




posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Show me the law that requires a BC to be filled out in all caps, you can't.

And not ancient Roman Law either, because it does not apply to the United states Constitution.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


en.wikipedia.org...




Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that federal courts did not have the judicial power to create general federal common law when hearing state law claims under diversity jurisdiction. In reaching this holding, the Court overturned almost a century of federal civil procedure case law, and established the foundation of what remains the modern law of diversity jurisdiction as it applies to United States federal courts.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Show me a certified birth certificate that isn't written in all capital letters; and that's your proof that it exists.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 



The Supreme Court had held that the federal courts need not also apply the court-made common law of the states.


Read the ruling again.

It found that federal courts could not apply FEDERAL COMMON LAW, but instead would rely on the enacted state statute relative to the jurisdiction of the filing.

The court ruled the exact opposite of what you seem to think.

Read it again.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Look at Obama's his is written in all capital letters. Mine is, yours is, all of ours is. Show me a legitimate US birth certificate that isn't.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


This has been brought up with the mods and owners in the past. They do not recognize it as a derogatory term. It is merely a descriptor. It is easier than saying "a person who does not believe President Obama is eligible to be President of the United States for a number of different reasons all pertaining to circumstances of his birth." It has no inherent connotation associated with it (as opposed to a term like truther which has a clear positive connotation associated with it.) If birther has picked up any negative connotations it is due to the actions of those that bear the label. However, feel free to report anyone that uses the term. The sooner the mods see how far off topic this thread has gone the sooner they can get it back on track.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Then show me a certified Birth Certificate that doesn't spell the persons name in all capital letters..You can't.


Show me the law in the US Code that says it matters



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


ROMAN LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CONSTITUTION AND HAS NO INFLUENCE ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Constituion is influenced by ENGLISH COMMON LAW.


God... I was soooooooo hoping that someone would post those quotes about the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
You obviously didn't read all of it, nor did you attempt to understand exactly why it was written, but hey...

Your mistake.

THANK YOU for posting the very thing that will prove you wrong.

Since you seem to understand that they US Constitution was originally intended to be under common law jurisdiction, what exactly changed this in the Tompkins v. Erie Railroad SCOTUS decision?


a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that federal courts did not have the judicial power to create general federal common law when hearing state law claims under diversity jurisdiction.


Go ahead.
I am waiting for you to take the rope around your neck and tighten it.


Of course the court cant create federal law. Thats not what courts do.

So, where is this law on the books, anyway? We're all still waiting.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I don't have to. The Constitution is taken as the Supreme Law of the Land and operates under Common Law. Common Law and Civil Law share the same provisions of the law regarding property, contracts, and tort. Those are the facts. Capitis diminutio maxima was Roman law in regards to slaves, and slaves are property, and this would be included in the common law provisions.

Your birth certificate is a contract, signed by your parents, detailing ownership of you and is filed away at the Bureau of Vital Statistics under the Department of Commerce. They hold your Birth Certificate indicating that they own possession of what it details; you.
edit on 22-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)


Noooo, these are not facts.

The fact is this:
The phrase law of the land is a legal term, equivalent to the Latin lex terrae (or legem terrae in the accusative case). It refers to all of the laws in force within a country or region, including both statute law and common law.

The Law of the Land does not operate within common law; it is the reverse. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, with the supreme court being the supreme authority to interpret the law.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



Of course the court cant create federal law. Thats not what courts do.

So, where is this law on the books, anyway? We're all still waiting.


I am going to tell you, but to clarify, I didn't state that the courts create federal law.

This entire argument is based on the difference between a citizen and a Citizen.

Let's look at chapter 21 of the United States Code.


A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it.

link to source

We all know that, as natural born Citizens, we are granted unalienable rights that are granted by God and not by law.
So, then why does this state EXPLICITLY that our civil rights, which only apply to citizens (lower case c), are granted by law.

I am going to let you think about this for a second.
edit on 22/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.


link


edit on 22-7-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



Note: Please add personal commentary, 'ex' tags and a link to external content
edit on 22/7/12 by masqua because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Except that since you claim that all English Common law is overridden with your pet SC Case, then that means there can be no civil rights because the BoR draws on English Common Law to define the civil rights.

So do you really want to continue along that assumption?

It also means that Obama doesn't need to be a citizen to be eligible to be president because there is no Constitution since all English Common law has been overridden.

Funny how that works.

You guys defeat yourselves.


edit on 22-7-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Okay where were we...

Now that we have shown that the US code proves without a doubt that civil right apply to only citizens, we need to explore this idea.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, natural born citizens of the united States of America were NOT citizens of the federal government.
The federal government had begun acquiring territories and those born in these territories to parents who were NOT State Citizens were kind of left in limbo.

International states that citizenship is bestowed upon individuals by location, the nation of their birth.

And the united States was NOT a nation.
The federalist paper no. 39 will explain this to you if you doubt me.

And if you further doubt me then look up and read the Organic Act of 1871.
This established an incorporated municipality in the District of Columbia.

If we had been a nation, then there would have been no need for this.
People might argue that all the Organic Act did was establish local DC government, but that is not true.

Due to the 14th Amendment, all citizens of the United States are so by being a citizen of this District of Columbia.
The local government in DC is Congress.
They didn't have a mayor until 1987 and the only authority who signs of on bills passed by their local house of representatives, which is Congress, is a governor.
And their governor is appointed by the President and is always the sitting Secretary of the Army.

Some people claim that we are still under military rule and the maritime powers enacted by Lincoln were never repealed.
The evidence for this is the gold fringe around the flag, which is a military flag, and the governor of DC being the Secretary of the Army, but I digress...

Where were we?
Oh yes. Proving you wrong evilclone guy.

When the 14th Amendment was passed, it was a way of giving rights to citizens of the Federal government and because these rights, also known as civil rights, were given by law and not by God they had to be accepted by contract.

The phrase Citizen of the United States as it is found in the opening of the US Constitution does NOT mean the same thing as the phrase citizen of the United States as it is found in the 14th Amendment.

This was seen in the Dred Scott ruling.
It is because of this ruling that the 14th was enacted.
The 14th created a second class of citizen with rights given by law and not God, as was seen in the linked US code.

A natural born Citizen as required for the office of President can only mean a natural born state Citizen endowed with God given unalienable rights.
At the time these requirements were written a 14th Amendment citizen did not exist.

I will let you think about all of this for a second.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


en.dogeno.us...
mrotha.com...

Google US Birth Certificate and you'll see most aren't all caps... mine isn't



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


This is sooooooo wrong in so many different ways... makes the head spin how silly this is...

The whole freeman movement is just about as retarded as birtherism...

rationalwiki.org...
edit on 22-7-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 



Except that since you claim that all English Common law is overridden with your pet SC Case, then that means there can be no civil rights ebcause the BoR draws on English Common Law to define the civil rights.


Wrong again.

The Bill of Rights was not written to give us civil rights.

You are mistaken.

You are wrong.

You have been lied to.

The Bill of Rights was written to place limitations on the Federal Government and only originally applied to the Federal government.
This was noted in the Cruikshank and the Barron cases.


The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone.


link to Barron v. Baltimore

I tried to warn you.

You will lose this argument with me because you have no idea what you are talking about.
edit on 22/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Except that you claim that English Common law has been overturned everywhere in the Nation, which means that there can be no civil rights because the Constitution's BoR draws on English Common law to further define how civil rights are applied.

So much for your theory.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


no, it is you who have no idea what you're talking about and I have proven you wrong every step of the way.

Do stop the hyperbole if you want me to take you seriously.

As it stand now, you haven't made one factual statement.



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join