|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 10:41:10 GMT -6
|
|
ián txáglh
člověk/doutetoca/crastiun
Posts: 500
Talossan Since: 6-27-2012 (or earlier)
|
Post by ián txáglh on Jan 15, 2013 10:43:40 GMT -6
Read what Admiral Tim wrote again. He is spot on. The SoS issues citizenship grants. If he does so on incorrect grounds, he can be relieved of his duty or taken to court, but no-one can willy-nilly just revoke the grants. Oh please, you're only supporting it because you got what you wanted- a blatant disregard for the law and the process of immigration. that is called argument ad hominem. totally useless heap of words. could we skip doing suchs? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 10:45:01 GMT -6
Oh please, you're only supporting it because you got what you wanted- a blatant disregard for the law and the process of immigration. I struggle to see the logic and reason in arguing thus. The amount of times you've called Miestra out on getting personal, I would have thought you would have avoided doing so yourself. What? I can't take a cue from my republican friends on how to act on Witt? Miestra was practically calling the SOS a dictator yesterday and crying that the masses would rise up against him and you said nothing. So do not lecture me for following the precedent you have allowed your side to set. |
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jan 15, 2013 10:48:53 GMT -6
I struggle to see the logic and reason in arguing thus. The amount of times you've called Miestra out on getting personal, I would have thought you would have avoided doing so yourself. What? I can't take a queue from my republican friends on how to act on Witt? Miestra was practically calling the SOS a dictator yesterday and crying that the masses would rise up against him and you said nothing. So do not lecture me for following the precedent you have allowed your side to set. And you expect me to dictatorially police members of my party concerning their own personal opinion? You think behaving like that by dismissing another's argument is justified because he's a republican and some other republican did something you don't like? Don't be ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 10:49:03 GMT -6
The state refused to recognize the marriage. Even AG Spitzer, a support of marriage equality, refused to recognize the marriage as they were not legal under NYS law at the time. (http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-03/justice/ny.samesex_1_marriage-law-issue-marriage-licenses-marriages-and-civil-unions?_s=PM:LAW) They village could have performed them all they want (with possibility of facing criminal charges) but the State refused to recognize them. (Funny, considering NYS would recognize same sex marriage performed outside of its borders. But that is neither here nor there.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 10:50:05 GMT -6
What? I can't take a queue from my republican friends on how to act on Witt? Miestra was practically calling the SOS a dictator yesterday and crying that the masses would rise up against him and you said nothing. So do not lecture me for following the precedent you have allowed your side to set. And you expect me to dictatorially police members of my party concerning their own personal opinion? You think behaving like that by dismissing another's argument is justified because he's a republican and some other republican did something you don't like? Don't be ridiculous. I'm really enjoying your do as we say not as we do logic here. |
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Jan 15, 2013 10:57:20 GMT -6
You seem to think there's an "us and them" culture here, which really concerns me. I'm assuming you're thinking in terms of party allegiance, which is understandable, but (a) Johan isn't a member of the ZRT and (b) even if he was, I wouldn't have thought you should hold a grudge against him for something that another has done. For example, I wouldn't hold a grudge against you for something another royalist (or in terms of party allegiance, a RUMPer) had done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 10:57:43 GMT -6
While you are correct that they were never invalidated, they were worthless. "Still, the marriages afford no legal status: gay couples cannot file a joint tax return or collect each other’s Social Security." It is still true today that we cannot collect Social Security as that is a federal function, we can, in fact, and must file a joint tax return in NYS. The state did not recognize those marriages. So fine, if you want to use this as precedence, then they can be a citizen but aren't afforded any of the rights and responsibilities that come with Kingdom citizenship. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 11:01:49 GMT -6
I have explained my rationale, I have provided relevant examples from other quarters of the world. You have not addressed what I have said about US Citizenship requiring court action to denaturalize or the erroneous issue of state licenses.
I suspect you are unhappy with my ruling and that is your right. I can assure you, however, that I made my decision based upon the laws of this realm and have not, at any point, chosen to "disregard immigration law."
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 11:04:47 GMT -6
Much like my feelings towards Talossa, I'm over it. Wonderful job! Getting what you want by pushing others out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ián B. Anglatzarâ on Jan 15, 2013 12:15:48 GMT -6
Read what Admiral Tim wrote again. He is spot on. The SoS issues citizenship grants. If he does so on incorrect grounds, he can be relieved of his duty or taken to court, but no-one can willy-nilly just revoke the grants. Oh please, you're only supporting it because you got what you wanted- a blatant disregard for the law and the process of immigration. Difficult to say. We all like to rationalize our decisions and thoughts. Of course we're more inclined to agree with reasoning that supports the outcome we favour, that's basic psychology. However, I do think the Admiral's reasoning is very sound and also very much safer for individual liberties. I may be rationalising, but I'm not consciously choosing to agree with him just because I like the result. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 15, 2013 13:45:00 GMT -6
V, calm down. I spent like two hours last night making the exact same arguments, and I am not a fan of republicanism and do not even really know either of the afflicted. Please realize that personal attacks are not the way to go.
I also emphasize that their retention of their citizenship protects the rule of law, it doesn't destroy it. The SoS may indeed not have been supposed to issue their citizenship, but that can't change the fact that he did. The grants were posted, the writs were writ. The SoS is not given the power to take those back, anywhere. He has no policing power. It's just like you yourself said: if you want to challenge those grants, then the Cort has to make a ruling that strips them from the two citizens.
Otherwise, the SoS would have far too much power. Imagine if the SoS could unilaterally kick anyone out of the country if he found any flaws or typos in their application or any other point of the process! We need a check on such power: only the SoS or King grants citizenship, and only the Cort can remove it.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jan 15, 2013 14:23:04 GMT -6
I'm glad to note that the people did rise up against this nonsense, and that "the people" here includes sensible RUMPers. Once again, great work Tim and Alex.
And this is sound legally. The SoS gave citizenship; the SoS can't take it away because he decided he made a mistake. Only the Cort can do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 14:33:38 GMT -6
I'm glad to note that the people did rise up against this nonsense, and that "the people" here includes sensible RUMPers. Once again, great work Tim and Alex. And this is sound legally. The SoS gave citizenship; the SoS can't take it away because he decided he made a mistake. Only the Cort can do that. The grant of citizenship was illegal. No grant can be given without the proper process being followed. It wasn't. Therefore, he COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN THE WRIT. Still total and utter bullshit. You cannot issue something that the law clearly states you do not have the right to issue. |
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Jan 15, 2013 14:37:32 GMT -6
You don't get to say what the Law is, Viteu, the Cort gets to say that. Did I see you threatening to walk out because the legally appointed Cort Justices have a different opinion to you on what the Law says? In the US, certain nutbars think that abortion and Obamacare are unconstitutional, but as long as the SC disagrees with them, they're wrong.
|
|
