The flak is the heaviest when you are over the target.
You're not saying that you resemble the statement ... are you?
Posted on 08/27/2013 10:44:47 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
Citizenship depends on some nation existing. Otherwise, you’re just alive on the face of the earth, and the whole concept of “nation” is irrelevant.
So, given the rise of something called a nation, there is only the question of what is its governing authority and the power they exert on people.
Moses said to Pharaoh: “Let my people go.” Pharaoh didn’t dispute that by saying, “No they’re Egyptians.” Instead, his interest was in the slaves’ and their work quotas.
So, now you think you are a naturall born pigeon and holder of the status of a dual species posessing the natural born right to be considered as and behave like a pigeon on a chessboard.
Citizenship as the word origin indicates existed before there was such an entity known as a nation. The association with cities was carried forward from the days when it signified membership in a class of people who who possessed certain rights and were subject to certain obligations as a consequence of being a member of that class of people associated with the city. This class of membership in a society of humans was a higher level of association superimposed on the previously existing family, band, clan, tribal, and confederation relationships. The word, “citizen”, is also being used improperly by confusing and/or conflating the various definitions for the word that belong to similar and different usages dependent upon the context of related terms. For example, Some persons born in the United States jurisdictions are not born with or as a person with the rights of a U.S. Citizen, yet they are to be considered as citizens of the United States in common parlance despite actually holding a status as nationals and not citizens of the United States. Negligent usage of the terminology in these debates serves to mislead and deceive readers who may be unfamiliar with and/or uninformed about the existence and consequences in these differences in word definitions and word usages.
The flak is the heaviest when you are over the target.
You're not saying that you resemble the statement ... are you?
So, are we to understand you do indeed intend to maintain the falsehood and lie that Thomas Jefferson was an actual citizen of France with all of the rights and obligations which entail from such citizenship similarly incumbent upon another person who was born in Metropolitan France with French parents and had never left France?
No, it simply appearedd that you had such an intimate familiarity and fascination with the subject matter, you must have been talking about yourself and your Master you included in your intimate portrait photograph together.
We would be talking about city-states, the precursors of nations, iirc. Good info, whiskey. Thanks.
“How many individuals from that generation can you quote to the effect that we must confine ourselves to Vattel’s treatise (written in French) to provide meaning to the “natural born citizen” clause?”
My answer is.....(drum roll, please)
We know that the framers of the Consitution were familiar with Vattel’s work and that Vattel defined natural born citizen as born in the country to citizen parentS. Two who were intimately familiar with the term were Supreme Court Justices John Marshall and Henry Brockholst Livingston.
Now, how many individuals from that generation can you quote to the effect that we must NOT confine ourselves to Vattel’s treatise (written in French) to provide meaning to the “natural born citizen” clause?
“Thus, if a child is born on foreign soil to an American mother and is thus an American citizen at birth, his eligibility to someday serve as our president should not be made to depend upon whether the government of that foreign country chooses or to extend citizenship to the child or chooses not to extend citizenship to the child.”
To paraphrase Master Oogway, “Should not, should, doesn’t matter. What matters is that it is.”
“If that American child is then raised and educated in the United States, that child owes nothing (no taxes, no allegiance, no loyalty, no nothing) to that foreign government.”
While I agree with you on the taxes, I’m not sure how you get comfortable making statements about what children learn behind closed doors in any home in the US.
... and who pray tell, is to tell us what a "natural born Citizen" is? Of course The SCOTUS is empowered to enforce absolutely nothing. Its constitutional task is to take appeals and decide them by interpreting the Constitution.
Suppose a candidate's eligibility were challenged by Congress and they declared him ineligible. How would that candidate appeal that decision? Yes only Congress can enforce the rules of the 20th Amendment, but only The SCOTUS can interpret the meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments, when properly asked.
In order to decide which of us is correct, The SCOTUS would have to accept an appeal, or let stand the verdict of a lower court. In the specific instance of defining "natural born Citizen" in regard to the candidates now under discussion, they have done neither.
Not necessariy. Nations became generally superimposed upon city states as the span of control of the sovereigns expanded across multiple city states to combined into one sovereign state. Before the advent of the cityies and city states, however, a tribal confederation of a nomad society could be said to have comprised a nation, if and when the society could claim some more or less well defined boundaries to their place of occupation.
In other wrods, the so-called legal definitions for the word, “nation”, are ill defined and comprise a multitude of alternative definitions dependent upon the context of time, place, and usage. Consequently, resort must be made to using additional words and concepts to reeine and narrow the intended meaning of the usage/s.
BTW, did either of those two claim that we must confine ourselves to Vattel's treatise (either English or French version) to provide meaning to the "natural born citizen" clause?
To paraphrase Master Oogway, “Should not, should, doesn’t matter. What matters is that it is.”
Good for you. Yes, indeed, what does exist does matter.
So, I guess the fact that we have a sitting president who does not conform to what you claim would have been Vattel's definition of "natural born citizen" is what is. "Should not, should, doesn't matter. What matters is that it is." So much for Vattel. What does Oogway's wisdom do but short-circuit this matter and unfairly prejudice your claim that we should adopt a standard that doesn't conform to what currently is?
While I agree with you on the taxes, I’m not sure how you get comfortable making statements about what children learn behind closed doors in any home in the US.
Beyond taxes, we're talking about national allegiance and loyalty. My point is that allegiance and loyalty emanate from the individual and not from some foreign government. If someone wishes to question Ted Cruz's national allegiance or loyalty to the Untied States, then they should make that case to voters and their electors. He's an American citizen and I know of nothing that he's done to suggest that he feels that he owes Canada any taxes, any allegiance, any loyalty, or anything at all.
But clearly using your logic, only God has the power to determine if Cruz is eligible. So why are you trying to play God?
Both these statements identify you as someone not reasonable enough to take seriously. They are ad hominem, rationalized and strawman.
And you accuse me of vapidity?
“So, we have two individuals...”
So, off the top of my head I named two individuals. Do you really expect me to go back and name them all? By the way, I’m still waiting on your response to my question about naming people who did NOT.
“...did either of those two claim that we must confine...”
I don’t know about you, but if there’s a definition of a word or term, don’t you have to “confine” your interpretation to that definition? It used to be that way back in the day, but, if you live in the world of liberalspeak where we live now, there is no specific definition to any word or term. Words just mean what you want them to mean at the time you use them. It doesn’t really matter what the definition of “is” is.
“So, I guess the fact that we have a sitting president who does not conform to what you claim would have been Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” is what is.”
Yes, and you see the results. Doesn’t mean that we can’t try to change it.
” He’s an American citizen and I know of nothing that he’s done to suggest that he feels that he owes Canada any taxes, any allegiance, any loyalty, or anything at all.”
Well, as long as you “feel” that he “feels” that that way, I guess that’s all that really matters.
“””if a child is born on foreign soil to an American mother and is thus an American citizen at birth, his eligibility to someday serve as our president should not be made to depend upon whether the government of that foreign country chooses or to extend citizenship to the child or chooses not to extend citizenship to the child. I believe that how the government of that foreign country chooses to view the child is irrelevant.
Any loyalties that the child feels emanate from the child and not from the foreign government. If that American child is then raised and educated in the United States, that child owes nothing (no taxes, no allegiance, no loyalty, no nothing) to that foreign government. He didn’t ask for any gratuitous offer of citizenship by the government of that foreign country and he owes nothing for it.”””
****************************************************
Nice sentiments, but we all know citizenship doesn’t work that way in reality. Just two examples...
1) The War of 1812 was precipitated by England’s refusal to recognize the right of British citizens to renounce their citizenship and to be American citizens only. Based on that, the English impressed American citizens into the Royal Navy on the grounds they still owed allegiance to the King.
2) The IRS is currently targeting “accidental Americans” who live abroad for taxes and penalties: “The IRS is making a worldwide push to squeeze money from Americans living abroad and from anyone who holds dual citizenship, whether they know it or not. It doesn’t matter if the “duals” want US status, have never set foot on US soil, or never conducted business with an American.”
Much more on that second example, here (http://mises.org/daily/5666), but you get the drift.
Citizens do in fact owe legal obligations to the countries of which they are citizens, regardless of how that citizenship came to be.
I encourage everyone to develop his own views and to present as effectively as he can his NBC pitch to the voters/electors, the folks who select our presidents. It's obviously an important issue.
Good luck. ;-)
And that you keep asserting his opinion is correct even though it has been PROVEN WRONG is what makes of you a liar.
Dane is WRONG. Get it through your F****** head! Stop repeating the LIE that Dane is correct.
There’s no denying that, because it’s in black and white.
There is no denying that Dane said something which is incorrect. However, YOU ARE DENYING IT!
Unless, of course, you’re an idiot birther.
If you’re an idiot birther, it’s a “lie,” and anyone who points it out is a “liar.”
No Jeff, you aren't a liar because you believe us to be idiots, you are a liar because you keep repeating things which have been proven untrue and you KNOW they have been proven to be untrue. BUT YOU KEEP REPEATING THEM ANYWAY.
Nathan Dane alleges Thomas Jefferson is a naturalized citizen of France. Nathan Dane is FACTUALLY WRONG. So are you.
No, it is your arguments that are vapid.
Your appeal to Natural Law without reference to any Natural Law right being a God given right is vapid. If Citizenship is a God given right. then all men are endowed with Natural Born Citizen rights.
Your contention that it is not a privilege granted by the soverign nations completely undermines any argument that any body of human beings has the authority to determine whether or not someone is entitled to that privilege.
It’s unfortunate when our side will not except the results on an election and we turn into the equivalent of the Truthers on the left. That’s not to say there is no corruption among politicians and elections, but that is a different debate.
I do enjoy reading through these threads because I leanrn a lot. And I appreciate those here who take the time to research and intelligently rebut the quackery that is birtherism.
“I’m satisfied that your responses...”
I’m glad you’re satisfied. That’s been on my bucket list for quite a while now.
Tuesday garbage long elephant, errant. :~)
(That means “Good luck to you, too.” in liberalspeak because that’s what I want those words to mean. The smiley face means “smiley face”.)
Minor versus Happersett is already precedent - Born on soil to Two citizen parents. This either is or is not the condition of the President Elect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.