Posted on 07/19/2011 3:20:36 PM PDT by rxsid
We haven't. That's why we can still think straight. :)
Sure, If you just take the words as the sum of their equivalent English components, but they are more than that. They are a synergistic term of art created by the founders for a sole purpose; To Prevent foreign influence in the Highest office of our government.
Once that is understood, it is readily apparent that the simple English interpretation of the words is a misdirection.
Unless he was a Slave or an Indian. The exception kinda breaks the rule.
You may have missed it, but we threw off that "subject" stuff. We specifically rejected it with vehemence, And it's English Law accoutrements too.
Or the latest crop of ignorant nitwits.
Ooohhhh!!! Good point! Would you happen to have some sort of a link? I can use that bit of information. PM me if necessary.
Actually, no. Unless you live in Louisiana, the common law is still the basis of our legal system.
Even American revolutionaries still had much respect for Blackstone and the English common law. Certainly John Adams did.
Those who were critical of Blackstone and the common law, like George Mason and (in some of his many moods) Thomas Jefferson, found them too conservative and weren't apt to substitute more restrictive European ideas for traditional English ones.
If the founders had really wanted to put Vattel's idea of les naturels ou les indigenes in the Constitution they would have been more specific about it.
You guys have a theory. You like it. It says what you want to say. It may even be beautiful.
But it's not demonstrably proven to be true. It's not even more likely to be true than other theories. And if it ever was widely believed to be true (which is highly debateable) it isn't anymore.
Just explain WHY ALL those mentioned will NOT discauss the issue. ALL other issues are freely debated and discussed except for this one, huh???
I really get fatigue every-time I see Bernie straps on knee-pads to satisfy BOR!!!
Seems Glenn Book had enough of the Murdoch "playbook"???
“After the Kenyan birth theory degenerated into low farce, the goal posts were moved to substitute the Natural Born Citizen theory.”
I still believe GrandMa. Perhaps SAD was able to contact her. I know that GrandMa Sarah said she was present for the birth. Bite that. I choose to believe that she was already GrandMa, no need to make things up. I believe GrandMa.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
“The old-time Bircher conspiracy theorists pale in comparison to the new generation of ding-dongs.”
I got your ding-dong baby...
I have begon to discover that the Birchers were right!
This bozo probably never was born in Hawaii (one of those speculations that some believe could have qualified the usurper)
Either come with evidence of why we are wrong, or stop being one of our fellow FReepers that spout nonesense as gripping ridicule.
Wasn’t that the initial part of the Declaration of Independence where the states threw off the shackles of being colonies of the King?
>>Neither did any of our nation's Founders
You get that out of the home skeweled revisionist history curriculum did ya?
1743-1826
Virginia House of Burgesses, Representing Virginia at the Continental Congress
Born: April 13, 1743
Birthplace: Shadwell, Virginia
Education: William and Mary College (Lawyer)
Work: Admitted to Virginia bar, 1767;
FAIL again.
In the Table of Contents at the linked location go to Commentary D and click on the sections about Executive Powers
His biography is important because it indicates that he knew the Framers and was in their circles. Born in the colony of Bermuda he immigrated to these colonies and fought on our side in the Revolution. After that he taught law, including natural law as the law of nations was called at William and Mary for years. Along the way he married into one of the founding and framing families when he married the widowed mother of John Randolph of Roanoke, by who he had two children.
His authority is such that he is cited in Supreme Court opinions into modern times.
Lincoln was a lawyer, too, who never attended law school.
In those days, ( even Lincoln), bright and ambitious youth **read** the law, apprenticed under another lawyer, and then after some years became a member of the bar.
Even American revolutionaries still had much respect for Blackstone and the English common law. Certainly John Adams did.
I am not disputing that much of English Common law was adopted by the States. I am saying that we specifically rejected the English Common law concept of Subject and perpetual allegiance for something that was at that time new and different. "Citizen."
The English disagreed with us in the war of 1812, which was started over the dispute about the allegiance of the Sons of English Fathers. The English argued they owed allegiance to Britain, while we argued that they did not.
If the founders had really wanted to put Vattel's idea of les naturels ou les indigenes in the Constitution they would have been more specific about it.
How about citing it in the notes of the Convention? How about it being Cited by the US Supreme court during that contemporary period? They didn't mention the Magna Carta in the US Constitution either, but it is generally accepted that the principle for our document was evolved from that one.
You guys have a theory. You like it. It says what you want to say. It may even be beautiful.
Even better, we have no contradicting evidence for it. The only thing proffered as contradicting evidence are the non-contemporaneous proclamations of various courts regarding "citizens", which is a distinctly different thing. Even those subsequent court decisions support our theory if you read them closely.
But it's not demonstrably proven to be true. It's not even more likely to be true than other theories. And if it ever was widely believed to be true (which is highly debateable) it isn't anymore.
Since it is the only theory on the table which seems to comport with the facts, i'd say it's odds of being the truth are radically superior to any other theory. Whether or not people today have become ignorant is irrelevant to the point of what is the truth.
Our founding document is nothing but a set of principles or concepts set down on paper through the crude medium of the English Language. It is the principles involved that are of primary importance, not the extent of what interpretations may be wrung out of various meanings of the individual words. The principle involved is clear; Avoidance of Foreign Influence in the Highest office of our government.
The door is completely closed, not partially open.
Because the media has thrown the "Kook", "Racist" blanket over it. Even our side's "luminaries" don't want their social status ruined by these labels. We let those people of the News and Entertainment (79% Obama voters in New York City, a MAJOR hub of Media companies.) industries decide what is socially acceptable to discuss, even for our side.
You're not looking for it. So far as I can see you're not looking for actual evidence for your theory either.
You're looking for and finding references to Vattel in the Founders and Framers, but do any of them directly address the question of "natural born citizens" ("les naturels ou les indigenes")? And what about all the references to Blackstone in the writings and speeches of the Founders and Framers? By what I can make out there are more references to Blackstone than to Vattel in their works.
Our founding document is nothing but a set of principles or concepts set down on paper through the crude medium of the English Language. It is the principles involved that are of primary importance, not the extent of what interpretations may be wrung out of various meanings of the individual words. The principle involved is clear; Avoidance of Foreign Influence in the Highest office of our government.
Principles can help us to interpret the Constitution but principles conflict and how far does the Constitution go in enshrining one principle rather than an alternative or competing principle? You have to look at the actual words to do that. Otherwise all you're doing is imposing your own judgment on the document.
The door is completely closed, not partially open.
You'd better hope the door is still open. If it's completely closed you're completely out of luck.
I agree with you that Corsi may never recover. Having said that, I think an honest appraisal of history will demonstrate that he chose the right battle, and others who should have sided with him failed to do so.
I wanted to put as much in one location as I could because there is simply too much information out there and it can be difficult to find on a "moments notice."
I intend to add to it, clean it up a bit when I find some time :]
Indeed.
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.