Don't you think you should find out before you start apeing his story? Because its entirely possible that you're reciting yet another delusion from a man that has asked to be put into mental hospital.
I believe he is referring to his application for an en banc hearing in which the Circuit Judges take a poll as to whether they want to re-hear the case. Any case, even the most frivolous case, can ask for such a hearing. It is kind of pathetic that anyone thinks this is news. Pretty much every pro se frivolous appeal asks for such a re-hearing. And he actually misspells "en banc." Comically, he argues that since the previous court was so harsh and disparaging in dismissing his silly claims, they must be biased. Seriously, that is his argument. It never occurs to him, a layperson without training in law, that the judges were harsh and disparaging because his argument were frivolous and comical. Can't you birthers pool your money together to hire a real lawyer to file an actual complaint rather than just saying that hundreds of judges are corrupt or stupid. Has it really never occurred to you that the bithers bringing these suits, including the idiot birthers who have some kind of law degree, have no idea what they are doing.
hey you're pretty good... care to weigh in on the grandfather clause, natural born, or wong kim ark ?
Wong Kim Ark is not that hard. I suggest you go to a real Constitutional lawyer or look at a real Constitutional treatise that can explain it to you. The birther interpretation, which has been rejected and laughed at by court after court after court, I believe it is 11 at this point, just makes you people look stupid. Every modern court and mainstream legal scholar has said the birther interpretation is wrong, but such doesn't matter to you people. Just like the sovereign citizens, you will keep saying everyone is wrong and you are right because you say so, which means nothing. If you are not smart enough to read the long majority opinion, you can read the dissent which summarizes what the majority said before it disagreed with it. The dissent said it disagreed with the majority that both the NBC clause and the 14th Amendment were based upon the English definition of natural born subject. Of course, that is exactly what he majority said as well as all subsequent case law on the subject. Anyone who says the court distinguished between an NBC and a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment never read, or is not smart enough to understand, the case. If you cannot understand that, go hire an actual attorney to explain it to you.
i think i just did. again thank you.
hey obama's a constitutional lawyer, could he explain WKA or minor v hapersett ??
You don't need to be a constitutional lawyer to explain these cases. I would think anyone who went to law school could do a simple case outline as such is what law students do. Not sure why everyone is so confused about Minor. First of all, the case doesn't discuss Virginia Minor's citizenship. Such was a stipulated fact conceded in the original pleadings. Hence, there is nothing in the record of the court, or the courts below, about the circumstances of her birth. It is pretty common for cases determining the rights of citizens to presume citizenship if such has been conceded. So what was Waite discussing? Minor's primary argument was that she was a citizen under the 14th Amendment and hence had the right to vote under the Amendment's privileges and immunities clause. Waite's response was:
(1) Women have always been citizens as evidenced by:
(a) women have always been in the class of persons everyone agrees were natural born citizens,
(b) women have always been naturalized,
(c) women have always been treated as citizens for state laws of descent
(d) women have always been citizens for jurisdiction purposes
(e) women have always been citizens for Homestead Act purposes.
(2) Voting was never a privilege of citizenship
(3) The 14th amendment adds no privileges that did not exist before
(4) Therefore, the 14th Amendment does not bestow the right to vote on citizens
Not the strongest argument in the world for he gave no explanation as to why the 14th Amendment added no new privileges, the most import thing said in the case. Anyway, Waite did not have to definitely define who was a natural born citizen to make this argument and hence why it is dicta. It was just one example of women always being citizens so it clearly wasn't necessary to discuss at all. Nevertheless, he said it was unnecessary to determine the status of children of aliens as it was sufficient to show that women were included in the class of persons there was no doubt about for his purposes. Hence no legal authority has ever cited Minor with respect to the status of children of aliens other than to point out that the court declined to address such status. Hence, the losing side in Wong Kim Ark cited Minor to argue the issue was open to doubt. No one involved in such case suggested that Minor had defined the term with respect to children of aliens and no one ever will.
