Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
birtherreport.com/You Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 2016gopprimary; arizona; awjeez; birtherbs; california; canada; carlcameron; congress; cowabunga; cruz2016; debatingbirthers; fff; foxisnotcredible; japan; mccain; mexico; naturalborncitizen; newmexico; obama; teaparty; tedcruz; tedcruziseligible; texas; thisspaceforrent
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 601-650651-700701-750 ... 1,551-1,578 next last
To: Tau Food

The voters decide whether fetuses qualify as legal “persons” too. Right? Voters decide EVERYTHING and can never be wrong, right? Voters can never be overturned because their choice violates the Constitution, right?

That’s why the Constitution says that it can be amended by a simple majority of voters in any one national election, right? The principles in the Constitution are no more solid or binding than any one vote by the people - that’s what the Constitution says about amending it, right?


651 posted on 03/09/2013 6:22:59 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I can't even give you a case of an obvious absurdity to get you to see how absurd is your theory!

Sure you could, if your position had any basis in fact whatsoever. But birthers are often in the position of being unable to support their theories except by becoming increasingly strident in their groundless assertions.

We have too much work to do fighting the leftist agenda; don't waste your energy fighting reality.
652 posted on 03/09/2013 6:31:48 PM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: Lumper20; Old Retired Army Guy

see #645


653 posted on 03/09/2013 6:32:34 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Low calorie/information Tau Food.


654 posted on 03/09/2013 6:36:40 PM PST by TauntedTiger (Keep away from the fence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
There are Constitutional procedures for amending the Constitution and there are Constitutional procedures for electing a president. The Supreme Court is not constitutionally authorized to do either.

No one disputes that there are constitutional qualifications to be president. Does anyone seriously claim that the voters and their electors are somehow incapable of applying those standards to candidates? Does anyone seriously claim that, even though the Constitution states that the president shall be selected by the electors, that the Founders secretly meant that the electors could choose only among candidates approved by the Supreme Court?

The voters and their electors are the final judges of the candidates' qualifications. If you want to argue that a candidate is unqualified, make your pitch to the voters and to their electors. In the case of selecting presidents, they are, in the words of one of my favorite recent presidents, the "deciders."

If you don't like that process, it can be changed through constitutional amendment and you can change the constitution so as to require each candidate to be screened by the Supreme Court or by a committee of librarians. But, until its changed, please accept the Constitution's procedural rules.

655 posted on 03/09/2013 6:37:44 PM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest; Mr Rogers

“At the time of the Revolution the common law of England was “thrown off”..
___________________________________________

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Blackstone is still taught in America’s law schools...


656 posted on 03/09/2013 6:40:18 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

If the voters decided that Vladimir Putin should be the US President, would that be a violation of the US Constitution which says that only a natural born US citizen is eligible to be President, and that if a “President elect” (that is, one already chosen by the electors) fails to qualify by the beginning of the term he/she may not “act as President”?

The 20th Amendment makes absolutely clear that what you are saying is unconstitutional, because it directly provides for the situation where the voters have made their choice and the person they chose DOES NOT QUALIFY. The 20th Amendment clearly says that the person they chose - but who fails to QUALIFY - must NOT act as President.

To go with your view would allow a simple majority in a Presidential election to UNDO THE 20TH AMENDMENT - that is, to AMEND what the Constitution means, in contradiction to what the ratified 20th Amendment says. What you are saying is that a simple majority vote of the public can reverse the meaning of a Constitutional amendment.

Can a simple majority in a national vote get rid of the freedom of press, or any of the other Constitutional amendments? Because - after all - the voters are the ones given the task of interpreting the Constitution, right? All the stuff we Americans have been told about the 3 branches of government with their respective roles of making law, implementing law, and interpreting law.... is all a bunch of hooey, right? Really it’s all just the average ordinary illiterate bum on the street who is supposed to do all those things, whenever they vote. Right? ‘Cause that’s what you sure seem to be saying.


657 posted on 03/09/2013 6:49:01 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Rawle was a Loyalist ???

so what ???

the mother of George Washington was a Loyalist...

some other nice folks were Loyalists...


658 posted on 03/09/2013 6:49:39 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: TauntedTiger

Seems that way.


659 posted on 03/09/2013 6:52:34 PM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

English common law did NOT use Vattel’s definition of citizenship. Nor did Vattel write about “natural born subjects”. He didn’t ever use the phrase. Birthers quote him because of a bad translation made 10 years AFTER the US Constitution was written. Vattel used the terms “natives” and “indigenes”, not NBS or NBC.


660 posted on 03/09/2013 6:57:44 PM PST by Mr Rogers (America is becoming California, and California is becoming Detroit. Detroit is already hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Rawle’s stepdad was a Loyalist. And I may have been a bit harsh to DL, as some sources actually say that he was a Loyalist during the Revolution as well. He might have been, due to his stepfather’s influence. But he was barely 17 years old when the Declaration of Independence was signed. And the source that DL quoted stated that Rawle felt a “sense of humiliation over his family’s British sympathies.” So perhaps the bottom line is that we don’t 100% understand all of his feelings on the matter as a teenager. They may well have changed.

Rawle went to England during the War, at age 22, and toured Europe, and after spending two years abroad returned to the United States. By this time the War was certainly winding down, and if Rawle had been a Loyalist before, he certainly doesn’t seem to have been one now. Why would a Loyalist leave England to go to live forever in the United States? Doesn’t make any sense.

One author writes: “Whatever Loyalist tendencies the young Rawle had did not last. After returning from England in 1783, he expressed his commitment to the United States. George Washington even offered to make him attorney general, an offer which Rawle declined. Rawle seemed to have little interest in a career in politics, but he was a strong Federalist.”

So by 1783, it was clear that young Rawle was all in for the United States of America, and he spent the rest of his life here, becoming a respected leader. By 1787 and the summer of the Constitutional Convention, he was obviously quite thick with both George Washington and Ben Franklin.

So Rawle was EXTREMELY well positioned to know exactly what the Framers of the Constitution meant by “natural born citizen.”


661 posted on 03/09/2013 7:31:03 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
They, being born to a U.S. military member, a U.S. born citizen AND his U.S. born citizen wife are unquestionably just as much U.S. citizens by birth, NBC’s as you or I, and I’m sure many members of the military serving overseas find it insulting that you imply otherwise.

I never implied otherwise.

If what you claim was really true; that the children born of U.S. citizen military service members or those of U.S. diplomats and their U.S. citizen spouses while they were honorably serving our country overseas, are not U.S. citizens with ALL the rights that would be otherwise granted to them had they been born while their parents were serving in the very same capacity states side,

I never claimed that. You need to take a class in reading comprehension.

662 posted on 03/09/2013 7:40:36 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 493 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I think a crucial points as to Cruz’s eligibility for POTUSA, not senator, are whether or not the parents were in Canada serving USA interests and in either case the citizenship of both parents.


663 posted on 03/09/2013 7:50:14 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

We have neither. We have United States law. I have no doubt that Vattel influenced the Constitutional Congress to a very great extent but over time our definition of Natural born Citizen has been asserted through practice and SCOTUS decisions/holdings.

Natural law is very logical: a child born in a nation of citizen parents is a Natural born Citizen. No legal statute is required to determine that child’s citizenship.

James Madison was the man who wrote the U.S.Constitution, and during his Presidency he had a very definite belief in what exactly constituted a U.S. citizen: a person born of U.S. citizen parents was therefore a citizen, and just the fact of being born in one of the original thirteen colonies didn’t equal citizenship. This was the definition, in fact, written into the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The naturalization of children born to U.S. citizens overseas was dealt with by the very first U.S. congress in 1790. Unfortunately, they got it wrong!

They included in the Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department that Americans born abroad are “natural born” citizens” and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth. These children were not granted citizenship via that US statute, rather automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by immigration authorities. These children were not citizens by any other means than natural law, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.

Well, this was not a reasonable explanation. It fails to recognize that Congress only has powers over naturalization and cannot define “natural born Citizen”, which has nothing to do with naturalization.

If Congress wants to tell the State Department something, they don’t have to enact legislation to do it. But more important is that all of the following naturalization acts, 1795, 1802, etc., were also passed to naturalize the children of U.S. citizens born abroad. And the words “natural born” were repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act and never returned again. Why? Because naturalization of someone’s citizenship, requiring a legal staute, is at odds with natural law.

It took the 14th Amendment AND the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision to cement in place the idea that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States could be a United States citizen at birth no matter the parent’s citizenship.


664 posted on 03/09/2013 7:59:32 PM PST by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Natural law is very logical: a child born in a nation of citizen parents is a Natural born Citizen. No legal statute is required to determine that child’s citizenship.

Yes, natural law is both logical and simple.

The natural law that gave rise to "natural born subject" as well as the later American form "natural born citizen" was simple, and derived from the Bible.

The Bible said that people should be subject to authorities that God had put in place.

England became a Christian country, and adopted this philosophy into their law, extending it slightly to the very logical conclusion that if a person was born into a realm, then he was to be a subject OF that realm, and of the governing authority over it.

Very simple.

And THAT is where we got "natural born subject" (which became "natural born citizen" in the United States), and THAT is why it never mattered whether a person's parents were subjects or citizens or not. Just as long as they themselves were there in obedience to that authority. And if they were there as aliens in amity, with the permission of the King and under his protection, then their children, born in the realm, were natural born subjects OF the realm.

James Madison was the man who wrote the U.S.Constitution, and during his Presidency he had a very definite belief in what exactly constituted a U.S. citizen: a person born of U.S. citizen parents was therefore a citizen, and just the fact of being born in one of the original thirteen colonies didn’t equal citizenship. This was the definition, in fact, written into the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Sigh.

Madison said that when it came to allegiance (the kind of allegiance that created citizenship) there were two ways to go: place of birth, or parentage. He said that PLACE OF BIRTH was the MORE CERTAIN of the two, and that it was WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES.

The naturalization of children born to U.S. citizens overseas was dealt with by the very first U.S. congress in 1790. Unfortunately, they got it wrong!

Yes, our prominent early leaders were all a bunch of goofups, weren't they? I seem to hear this pretty regularly from birthers. Like when DL attacked William Rawle.

It took the 14th Amendment AND the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision to cement in place the idea that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States could be a United States citizen at birth no matter the parent’s citizenship.Only in the case of blacks. By the time of US v Wong Kim Ark, the government had begun to wander from its earlier principles, and the Wong Kim Ark decision brought it back to the way Founders and Framers set things up.

665 posted on 03/09/2013 8:41:13 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 664 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; All

Yeah, I’ve consistently maintained from almost the very beginning of the Obama Citizenship debate that the “intent” of Our Founding Fathers is more important than the legal interpretations of the phrase, “Natural Born.”

Since Our Founding Fathers put the Natural Born Clause in the Constitution to help insure that the President has complete, undivided allegiances to the Citizens of the United States, the true litmus test for who is and who isn’t a Natural Born citizen should always be weighted heavily towards one’s loyalty.

For me, Obama gave up any claim he had to Natural Born citizenship when, having had dual citizenship, he tacitly demonstrated his fealty to his father’s homeland by jetting over to Kenya and inserting himself into Odinga’s 2006 presidential race!

I found that odd since the purpose of Obama’s trip was supposedly to raise awareness for AIDS, nothing else politically, that I am aware of. Yet, there he was, railing against the then current government and helping his buddy Odinga move into power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/world/africa/26obama.html?_r=0

That certainly didn’t fit in with the underlying intent of undivided loyalties when the Founders drafted that Natural Born Clause!

Ergo, NOT Natural Born.

As for Cruz, if he shows himself solely loyal to the Citizens of the United States, then I have no problems extending to him my Natural Born blessings, even though I know, legally, his Born Abroad status is problematic, at best.

Like I keep harping on in this comment, it’s the Framers’ intent of the law that counts the most, not the letter of the law.

I think if more Freepers were to embrace that notion, there’d be a heck of a lot less virtual blood spilled between we few, we happy few, we band of brothers.

Cheers!


666 posted on 03/09/2013 9:02:57 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“Again, for the purposes of this argument, what is important is this:”

Nope. For the purposes of the discussion on this particular thread - Sen. Cruz is a dual citizen. Dual citizenship was not legal under US law OR English common law (since you keep focusing on such) at the time the Constitution was signed in 1787.

Dual citizenship is still not legal - strictly speaking - under current US *NATURALIZATION* laws either. It is tolerated.

Mr. Cruz, who I happen to admire tremendously, is a dual citizen through no fault of his own. His birth circumstances can never be changed, so his eligibility under Article ll can never be changed.

You must at the very least concede that there was absolutely NO Act, law or provision for dual citizenship at the time the Constitution was signed. It did not exist as an OPTION.

Not in English common law, or any law in the new U.S. either. If you can find such a law ........... but one does not exist. Particularly NOT at the time the Constitution was signed.


667 posted on 03/09/2013 9:22:10 PM PST by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You think that YOU are smarter than every Member of Congress, Every Governor, Every Election Officer of Every State, Every Judge in the country, every immigration attorney and, well, I guess you are the smartest person on the planet in Your eyes aren't you?

NOBODY is on YOUR side, yet you have the nerve to call ME stupid?

668 posted on 03/09/2013 9:42:08 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Your post makes no reference to natural born citizenship, and no one is arguing the children born abroad to U.S. citizens are not also U.S. citizens. Quite the contrary, in fact. I find no reason in this to see fault in the first hand military experience of others.


669 posted on 03/09/2013 9:47:23 PM PST by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest; Mr Rogers
You must at the very least concede that there was absolutely NO Act, law or provision for dual citizenship at the time the Constitution was signed. It did not exist as an OPTION.

Yet another misconception. Dual citizenship does not disqualify a person from being President. In fact...

According to the usages and understanding of all nations a man may have all the rights of a naturalized citizen or subject in his adopted country, and yet retain all his relations, civil and political, in his native country. For instance, the Marquis La Fayette was naturalized in the United States, but retained every such relation to France. So Mr. Jefferson was naturalized in France and there made a French citizen, and had he gone there would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen, but he certainly retained all his relations to the United States, his rights and duties as a native citizen, and was in fact after such naturalization, elected President of the United States."

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our third President, was a dual citizen when elected President of the United States. There is no record that he ever repudiated his French citizenship, so he was a dual citizen of the United States and France while he was serving as President.

A General Abridgement and Digest of American Law, published 1824.

This "undivided loyalty" requirement that birthers are fond of talking about DID NOT EXIST.

They only wanted to guard against royalty native to other countries sweeping in and taking over.

They didn't even require the President to spend more than 14 years of his LIFE on American soil.

670 posted on 03/09/2013 9:49:38 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Well, contrary to what other “experts” on the internet might tell you, Vattel DID use the term “Natural Subjects.”

I found it years ago in a 1770ish French copy.

It’s in section XVII, and NOT the Natives and Indigenes section that everyone seems to promulgate and dissect, ad nauseam.

Here’s what I found in the original:

[...] Les fujets naturels d’un Prince lui font attachés [...]

Now, let me bring that up-to-date for you by getting rid of Ye Olde style of spelling:

[...] Les sujets naturels d’un Prince lui font attachés [...]

Now, let me translate it for you:

[...] The natural subjects of the Prince are attached to him [...]

Pretty cut and dry.

So, to say that Vattel NEVER used the phrase “Natural Born Subjects” is a bit deceptive and doesn’t really hold up to close scrutiny. After all, can one legitimately argue that the phrase “natural subjects of the Prince” doesn’t convey the idea that they were born in a kingdom with fealty to the Prince of that kingdom?

Just my two cents.

That being said, in keeping with Our Founding Fathers’ original intent, it is one’s loyalty to his country and her people that is the true litmus test for Natural Born.

I see nothing that Cruz has done which goes against that litmus test. Ergo, even though I have doubts as to if Cruz actually dotted all the “i’s” in his Natural Born-ness paperwork, his loyalty to America does indeed seem to pass the Original Intent of the Natural Born requirements for a President. And, barring any unforeseen trips to Canada wherein he stumps for Canadian politicians, I’ve got no problem voting for him if he wins the primaries.

On the other hand, Obama... Well, let’s just say that Obama is the very One Our Founding Fathers warned us about and is why they felt so motivated to insert that Natural Born Clause!

Cheers!


671 posted on 03/09/2013 9:50:02 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog
That certainly didn’t fit in with the underlying intent of undivided loyalties when the Founders drafted that Natural Born Clause!

See 670.

Sorry to break the news to you, but you've been had. The birther doctrine of "undivided loyalties" is a myth.

They simply didn't care whether a person's parents came from another country.

(William Rawle, friend and colleague of both Franklin and Washington: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.")

They didn't care whether a person spent his entire life in a foreign country, except for a minimum of 14 years.

(Article II, Section 5, United States Constitution).

Heck, they didn't care whether a President was a dual citizen.

(Thomas Jefferson, author of Declaration of Independence and 3rd US President, 1801-1809).

They just wanted to keep the British and other European royalty out.

Crash. Bang. That was the entire birther meme of "undivided loyalties," collapsing in a heap on the floor.

672 posted on 03/09/2013 10:05:07 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

Obama Sr was NEVER an American citizen. So why are you not parading with a protest placard in front of the white house?


673 posted on 03/09/2013 10:08:28 PM PST by entropy12 (The republic is doomed cuz people have figured out they can get free stuff by voting democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Marie

The US Embassy is NOT the final arbiter on your son’e eligibility. DO not lose faith!


674 posted on 03/09/2013 10:10:51 PM PST by entropy12 (The republic is doomed cuz people have figured out they can get free stuff by voting democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Well, then. Back to the original wording of the US Constitution: ““unless he now be a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

That was changed.

Cruz is a dual citizen. Dual citizenship is not OFFICIALLY a class of citizenship in the US, it never has been. THERE IS NO US LAW which officially recognizes dual citizenship.

We are discussing US laws here, right? Not some “honorary citizenship”.

You SHOW US a US law that states we have provisions for dual citizenship as a official class of US citizenship.

US CITIZENSHIP. Was Mr. Jefferson BORN a dual citizen? NO.


675 posted on 03/09/2013 10:10:57 PM PST by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: mylife

You make a brilliant point. If 2nd Amendment is not sacrosanct, the the 14th is also not sacrosanct. Can’t have it both ways, all you self appointed scholars on NBC.


676 posted on 03/09/2013 10:15:37 PM PST by entropy12 (The republic is doomed cuz people have figured out they can get free stuff by voting democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

Are children born to illegals on US soil NBC?


677 posted on 03/09/2013 10:17:46 PM PST by entropy12 (The republic is doomed cuz people have figured out they can get free stuff by voting democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the chart or not. It is an accurate representation of what "natural born citizen" does and does not mean, as stated by every single real authority in the entire history of the United States.

I'm sorry, but I still disagree with your assessment of that chart. I've done enough reading on the subject to know that it's at odds with the Framers' understanding of the phrase, Natural Born Citizen.

Simple logic dictates that a person born on the soil of a country, to two citizen parents, will most likely have the greatest degree of unshakeable loyalty to the country of their birth. This is the fundamental point here, and is something which I believe the Framers easily processed with simple reasoning.

Further, I firmly believe that it was their intent to encode that simple logic and reasoning into our Constitution, in Article II, Section I of that document.

Using your understanding of the NBC clause, it would be just fine with the Framers if we put a man in the Oval Office who was raised outside this country and its history and culture, simply because he laid claim to having been born on our soil.

Wait.....oh my....we did that in 2008, didn't we?

678 posted on 03/09/2013 10:36:53 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog; Mr Rogers
So, to say that Vattel NEVER used the phrase “Natural Born Subjects” is a bit deceptive and doesn’t really hold up to close scrutiny. After all, can one legitimately argue that the phrase “natural subjects of the Prince” doesn’t convey the idea that they were born in a kingdom with fealty to the Prince of that kingdom?

I am a huge fan of Mr Rogers, and have seen an awful lot from him that is just SPOT ON.

That said, DoctorBulldog, I do believe you have at least a small point here. (See, I'm not totally one-sided!)

I would have to side with DoctorBulldog on this and say that a reasonable translation of "sujets naturels," in English, would be "natural born subjects." So technically well, a point for DoctorBulldog.

That said...

I have just searched the French text of Vattel's book. The sentence you mention is the ONLY time he mentions either "sujects naturels" or "sujet naturel" (the singular form) in the entire book.

Aside from that, the ENTIRE POINT, the ENTIRE CLAIM of birthers is that "natural born CITIZEN" is (against all reason and sense) something totally different from "natural born SUBJECT."

And Vattel NEVER mentions "citoyens naturels" (plural) or "citoyen naturel" (singular). Not once.

And he ONE time he mentions "sujets naturels," he shows no sign at all of talking about his his "natives," or "indigenes."

So even Vattel, it appears, knew the difference between a "natural born subject," and "natives, ou indigenes."

Point: DoctorBulldog. Next point, game, set, and match: Mr Rogers.

679 posted on 03/09/2013 10:38:34 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: Ladysforest
US CITIZENSHIP. Was Mr. Jefferson BORN a dual citizen? NO.

Doesn't matter in the slightest. You said:

Dual citizenship was not legal under US law OR English common law (since you keep focusing on such) at the time the Constitution was signed in 1787.

If you're doing anything, you're just playing with words here.

It is clear that dual citizenship existed in the very early days of the United States.

It is clear that our THIRD PRESIDENT was a DUAL CITIZEN, AT THE TIME HE SERVED AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

If the Framers of the Constitution had been so opposed to "divided loyalty" as you claim, don't you think they would have made such an outroar that Jefferson would have been forced to renounce his French citizenship?

Remember, this was just a dozen years after the Constitution was written, and less than that after it was ratified.

And yet... no one... gave... a royal flip.

Are you like the rest of the birthers? In that you're going to believe in birtherism even if the facts are all against you? Because I have sole title to a fine, fine bridge that is set to hugely appreciate in value. I need to sell in order to raise cash for a sick Dalmatian.

680 posted on 03/09/2013 10:47:01 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
Are children born to illegals on US soil NBC?Debatable. There is an argument to be made (and one of the conservative think tanks makes it) that such people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And that's a credible argument.

What the courts would decide, I don't know. I do know what they "would" decide regarding children of legal immigrants, because that is settled law. Such children are natural born citizens.

681 posted on 03/09/2013 10:49:53 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; All
CCLXXXVIII.: Charles Pinckney in the United States Senate. 1 – Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 3 [1911]

"They [the framers] well knew, that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes [as presidential electors] in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible"

Well, considering that Charles Pinckney's signature is on the U.S. Constitution, I would think that he'd know what he's talking about.

Reading it as is, my comprehension of what he's saying is that maturity, along with loyalty to the United States, is of paramount importance and, as such, guided the Framers in drafting all the requirements for the office of President.

Ergo, I think the birthers are on the right track concerning this one.

Just my two-bits worth. Take it or leave it.

Cheers!
682 posted on 03/09/2013 10:53:02 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: Windflier; Mr Rogers
I'm sorry, but I still disagree with your assessment of that chart. I've done enough reading on the subject to know that it's at odds with the Framers' understanding of the phrase, Natural Born Citizen.

Then you haven't done enough reading yet.

Depending on the amount of reading you've done, you might well disagree. If you do a lot more reading, including original sources, and what's been written on both sides, then you will see that every argument that you have believed is built on sand.

Simple logic dictates that a person born on the soil of a country, to two citizen parents, will most likely have the greatest degree of unshakeable loyalty to the country of their birth. This is the fundamental point here, and is something which I believe the Framers easily processed with simple reasoning.

Except they never said any such thing. On the contrary, Madison said that place of birth was what counted in the United States, and William Rawle, who met regularly with both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, two of our very top founders, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, was CRYSTAL CLEAR that "natural born citizen" INCLUDED the children born on US soil of ALIEN parents.

Crystal clear.

Also, as noted a few posts back, the "undivided loyalty" meme collapses completely. It's just a claim that birthers made, that the Founders had this goal of "undivided loyalty." it does NOT match history. It does NOT match what they said. It does NOT match what they did.

Further, I firmly believe that it was their intent to encode that simple logic and reasoning into our Constitution, in Article II, Section I of that document.

You're welcome to beleive whatever you like. You're welcome to believe that the Founding Fathers made George Washington King George I, or that John Adams invented the steamboat. All major authorities disagree with you.

Using your understanding of the NBC clause, it would be just fine with the Framers if we put a man in the Oval Office who was raised outside this country and its history and culture, simply because he laid claim to having been born on our soil.

That's precisely what they specified. Age 35, natural born citizen, 14 years a resident of the United States.

Now why do you think they said fourteen years? Why not FIFTEEN? Or TWENTY?

Why not some round number? Mmmmn?

I'll bet Mr Rogers can give a good guess... as to why, exactly, precisely...

FOURTEEN.

683 posted on 03/09/2013 11:00:26 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog
Ah! Thank you for digging up that quote by Pinckney. I knew there was another Framer who had something to say about it, but I couldn't recall who it was.

Attachment, yes. But how much attachment?

See my last comment to Windflier & Rogers. And tell me, if you can, how just fourteen years' residency in the country, can provide the kind of attachment you're talking about.

Also tell me, if you can... why FOURTEEN years?

684 posted on 03/09/2013 11:04:57 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Yes, I agree.

Vattel didn’t use “sujects naturels” in the section on indigenes and natives. And, that seems to be the one section EVERYONE thinks they’re an expert on.

However, I’ve studied the whole damn book! Read it in the original old-style French, backwards and forwards. It’s certainly an interesting book and well worth reading.

And, I’m fairly confident that I’m more of an expert on that little book than most birthers or after-births.

So, it just gets my dander up whenever someone who obviously hasn’t read the entire book regurgitates the deceptive statement that Vattel never used the the phrase “Natural Born Subjects.”

Anyway, thanks for awarding me that point! LOL!

Cheers!


685 posted on 03/09/2013 11:12:14 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; DiogenesLamp; DoctorBulldog

DL makes an argument on another thread that Rawle’s view was not the authoritative view, and it is a point worth considering. Rawle’s personal friendship with Washington, Franklin etc is not to be lightly dismissed, but neither is it decisive. At the founding, there was a transition underway that left a crazy quilt of conflicting definitions for citizenship, as DL’s post here describes:

http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-bloggers/2821875/posts?page=119#119

Nor is Jefferson’s presidency determinative, as the NBC clause specifically grandfathered in the founding generation as a second category of eligible persons. This was a matter of necessity, as it might be difficult to fill the office of president if the stricter rule were applied during that transitional period at the beginning. Indeed, there would have been no need for the grandfathering loophole if the NBC criteria could be easily met by the political luminaries in that first American generation.

Bottom line, this is in fact a very complicated question, and it is best answered by those whom we have granted the authority to say what the law is, our judiciary, and they have not yet spoken with finality on the exact facts of this case.


686 posted on 03/09/2013 11:12:48 PM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Well, my understanding of the 14 year requirement comes from a faulty memory of my Constitutional Studies courses almost 30 years ago. From what I remember the professor saying, it seemed to have had something to do with wanting the first President to have been physically in the United States before the War of Independence started.

So, let me see... 1787 - 14yrs = 1773...

But still, it doesn’t make sense as to why it wasn’t grandfathered out and a much stricter residency requirement eventually kick in.

Anyway, the professor might of been blowing smoke, or I might be mis-remembering it, but that’s my memory of it and I’m sticking to it! LOL

Cheers!


687 posted on 03/09/2013 11:29:06 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

Thanks! I’ll check it out.

Cheers!


688 posted on 03/09/2013 11:30:10 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
If the voters decided that Vladimir Putin should be the US President, would that be a violation of the US Constitution which says that only a natural born US citizen is eligible to be President, and that if a “President elect” (that is, one already chosen by the electors) fails to qualify by the beginning of the term he/she may not “act as President”?

Well, most of us are living in the real world and in the real world, the voters would not find that Vladimir Putin is qualified to be president. But, I will entertain your imaginary hypothetical long enough to say that if the American people did find him qualified and did vote for him and their electors did choose him, then he would become president. The Congress could then remove him.

In the same spirit, maybe you should consider a hypothetical. Suppose that space aliens were to inhabit the bodies of each member of the Supreme Court and that they were bound and determined to destroy our constitutional framework. Under those circumstances, would you still think that the Supreme Court should have a major role in reviewing the qualifications of all presidential candidates?

Maybe we're wasting our time imagining hypotheticals that involve Putin and space aliens.

I know you sincerely believe that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be president, although it's never been real clear to me why you are so certain of that belief. If you were afforded a courtroom to prove your case, I don't believe you would show up with so much as one witness who could competently testify that Obama was born anywhere but in the United States and I don't believe you would show up with so much as one witness who could testify as a witness to his conception. I don't think you really know where any of our presidents were born or who their fathers were other than what you've read in books written by people you don't even know.

The harsh reality is that the voters and their electors heard the arguments that Obama was not born in the U.S. and heard the arguments concerning his paternity and its relevance and after hearing all that, the voters and electors rejected your theories and facts. You are entitled to believe that they were wrong to reject your claims, , but the important fact is that they did not think they were wrong and they were entrusted by the Constitution to make the call.

If it is of any consolation to you, try to remind yourself that, aside from what you've read or heard, you haven't got the slightest idea whether any our prior presidents were "natural born citizen" no matter how you define that term. Uncertainty may be uncomfortable at times, but it's an unavoidable aspect of our human experience. Uncertainty is unavoidable, but you choose the level of misery that you experience because of it.

689 posted on 03/09/2013 11:30:31 PM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I think that you are forgetting that it is the vote of the Electors that decides who is President. In 2000 no candidate received a simple majority of the popular vote. Gore had more popular votes than Bush, but Bush won in the electoral college with a majority of the Electors.
There have been a few other elections where no candidate got a simple majority. You need a majority of the Electors, then you need to have your Electoral votes certified in a Joint Session of Congress where one Representative and one Senator can raise an objection to Vladimir Putin’s Electoral votes. I’m betting that Rand Paul and Michelle Bachman, at the very least would object to Vladimir Putin claiming to be born in America.
Barack Obama, on the other hand has two verifications of his birth in Hawaii from Dr. Chiyome Fukino, former Hawaii Director of Health, one confirmation from Loretta Fuddy the current Director of Health, three Letters of Verification from Dr. Onaka, Hawaii state Registrar, confirmations from former Governor Linda Lingle and current Governor Neil Abercrombie, a House of Representatives Resolution stating that he was born in Hawaii which passed the House 378-0 (H. Res. 593, 111th Congress, 2009) and ten state and federal court decisions explicitly or implicitly declaring him to be a natural born citizen. Here’s an excerpt from one of the ten:
Rhodes v MacDonald, US District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.
All told, there have been 201 original jurisdiction challenges to Obama’s eligibility, 70 state and federal appellate level rulings and 24 appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States, no ruling has found Obama to be ineligible or to not qualify as a natural born citizen.

I sincerely doubt that Vladimir Putin could amass that much support for his status as a natural born citizen.


690 posted on 03/09/2013 11:32:31 PM PST by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
DL makes an argument on another thread that Rawle’s view was not the authoritative view, and it is a point worth considering. Rawle’s personal friendship with Washington, Franklin etc is not to be lightly dismissed, but neither is it decisive. At the founding, there was a transition underway that left a crazy quilt of conflicting definitions for citizenship, as DL’s post here describes:

I understand, and I have read DL's earlier post. His points are not new.

By the way, the fact that DL attempts to argue against Rawle (and a bunch of other evidence) is a clear sign of his commitment to the birther fantasy.

Here we have a man who was VERY close to both Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. He met with them in Franklin's home, regularly, just prior to the Constitutional Convention.

He says, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that the US-born children of aliens are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

And here you have DL trying to argue against him.

And with what?

If birthers had an equally strong statement, from an equally strong authority, that would allow them NOT to prevail, but just to PULL EVEN.

But they don't.

Here we have clear evidence that President Thomas Jefferson was a DUAL CITIZEN... WHILE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Well, we can just dismiss that as well.

On what basis? Well... mumble, mumble. Because we don't like it.

And so they try to dismiss real evidence, after real evidence, after real evidence.

And replace it with what? "Vattel says..." SO WHAT? Show me where ONE FOUNDER, ANY Founder, said that he ever listened to vattel on citizenship.

Yeah, but Ben Franklin said he liked Vattel.

So? I like cream cheese. It doesn't mean I read the packet for the definition of natural born citizen.

And meanwhile Vattel says we absolutely MUST restrict the right to keep and bear arms to the elites and the military ONLY. Well, isn't that what the liberals are arguing when they say the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms to the state, and not to individuals?

So if the Founding Fathers listened to Vattel on citizenship, then why the hell didn't they listen to him on the right to keep and bear arms? Or did they? So I guess we need to hand in all of our guns. Because the liberals are right.

Because Ben Franklin "liked" Vattel. Because Ben Franklin said a polite "thank you" for three books.

I'll answer DL's nonsense in the thread you mentioned in another post.

691 posted on 03/09/2013 11:44:13 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog
So, let me see... 1787 - 14yrs = 1773...

Ah. Nice theory.

But it doesn't add up, does it? You're 2 to 3 years off.

So why 14? Why not 11 or 12?

692 posted on 03/09/2013 11:46:13 PM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Why does the 14th mention ‘naturalized citizen’ and draws a distinction between them and ‘citizens’?


693 posted on 03/10/2013 12:01:53 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

“In the Founders’ and Framers’ days, I can only assume that travel from afar was rare, the few sailing ships of the time used for commerce or warfare between England and France, and that people assumed that native citizens (people born here) were, by definition, born to parents who were already here, and not some border-crosser who arrived within days of producing a child. Any infidelity that produced a child would still have been between two existing citizens of the country, and not a temporary already-married student visiting for a few years.”

Key word here, “I assume”

This is all just speculation. What does native mean? Born in the United States. What evidence is there for a distinction drawn that you are drawing here? Absolutely none.


694 posted on 03/10/2013 12:04:51 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer
So first, in the link you provided, DL here just brushes William Rawle off. Never mind his close connection with 2 of our top half dozen or so Founders. And never mind the fact that he has no equal quote from any equal authority to even pull even. And never mind that no other early American legal expert ever said William Rawle was wrong.

We don't like Ben Franklin's friend. We don't like George Washington's friend. So we can just tell him to kiss off.

By the way, don't ever believe that birthers are friends of the Founding Fathers. They aren't.

So kiss off, Will. We don't like what you have to say.

So then he gives four supposed examples to try and prove his point.

His first is Jefferson. Well, that's a mistake, because Jefferson contradicts him as well. Let's see what Jefferson has to say, in that 1779 law. Here's the part that's relevant:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly,

that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth

and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act,

and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth;

and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother,

shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed:

And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

So Jefferson lists a bunch of categories of people who all get to be citizens. Let's take out all the superfluous categories and cut to the chase:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly,

that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth...

shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed.

Now have I done any violence to this text? No, I have not. I just removed a bunch of categories to focus on the one category that's really relevant.

Jefferson says ALL WHITE PERSONS BORN IN VIRGINIA get to be citizens of Virginia.

This is STRAIGHT JUS SOLI. Absolutely no citizen parents required. ALL WHITE PERSONS born in Virginia are citizens.

So Thomas Jefferson goes for straight jus soli. That is a complete contradiction to DL.

In other words, Thomas Jefferson says his idea is idiotic.

Okay, that's his first example. Example two.

He talks about James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in the William Smith case. Notice what words of Madison he doesn't boldface:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."

So Madison says BIRTH AND NOT PARENTAGE is WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES. Now to be sure, later on he mentions Smith's parentage as well. But he's already said: BIRTH, NOT PARENTAGE, IS WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES.

So James Madison goes for straight jus soli as well, which is as much as saying DL's idea is idiotic.

Gee, DL here is batting zero for two. Well, let's go on to the third example.

He correctly mentions Lynch v Clarke as "a (state)court ruling which decides that anyone born in New York of alien parents is a citizen." Good for him. In fact, Lynch v. Clarke is absolutely devastating to his claim. Lynch v. Clarke, BY ITSELF, MURDERS his birther claim, unless he has EQUALLY STRONG evidence that says the exact opposite. Here's what Lynch v. Clarke says: "Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not."

Does he have ANYTHING comparable? No, of course not. But he doesn't like Lynch v. Clarke. So we'll sweep it under the rug.

By the way, do you notice how many things we're sweeping under the rug here? It's every damn bit of evidence. But let's go on.

He claims "the New York Legislature shortly thereafter passed a law to plug this particular hole [the fact he personally doesn't like Lynch v. Clarke, just like he doesn't like James Madison or William Rawle] in their citizenship laws."

So let's look up this law. Ah, here it is, in this book here.

And there's a very odd thing. That says on one of the front pages that the Commissioners of the Code were appointed on April 6, 1857. So that appears to be the date when they appointed people to write this law. And the book on it was actually published in 1859.

So you have Lynch v. Clarke, in 1844. And they responded to that... in 1857? Really? Thirteen years later?

So like, this gun control legislation that Dianne Feinstein is trying to push through now. That's a response to something that happened back in 2000, while Bill Clinton was still President?

Such an idea, that a particular law is a response to something 13 years earlier, is pretty idiotic, don't you think? I mean, really. Hey, we've got an immigration problem here. Well then, why don't we wait until the year 2026, and then do something about it?

So the only thing DL has really done here is bring up Lynch v. Clarke, because the idea that the New York Code he references is a response to that case is just preposterous.

And as we've seen, Lynch v Clarke takes a log and beats im over the head with it.

Well, let's try his Example 4.

He says, correctly, that the State of Maryland passed a law declaring the Marquis de Lafayette and all of his male descendants, forever, to be "natural born citizens" of the State of Maryland. And he says this is jus sanguinis. Well, he's right there.

But notice what they DON'T require.

Anybody here need to be a resident of the State of Maryland?

Wait a minute. I thought the purpose here was to prove that you had to be born on US soil AND have citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

That's not what the State of Maryland told the Marquis de Lafayette.

So even his example number 4 says: In this case, at least, ONE means of getting citizenship - in this case, jus sanguinis - is enough to make a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Funny. That's pretty much what I've been saying all along.

So let's go for the bonus round. Finally, he brings up the Venus. Well, I don't have to shred that to little pieces. Mr Rogers has already done that for us, earlier in this thread.

So this is all the stuff that he's supposedly bringing as evidence for HIS claim. And guess what? EVERY SINGLE DAMN THING IS AGAINST HIM.

And every single time, he sweeps it under the rug and trys to use the crumbs as "evidence" for his birther claim.

And in reality, it's all against him. Not to mention William Rawle and the fact that Vattel never, EVER talks about "natural born citizens," and the fact that states used "natural born citizen" in EXACTLY the same way they used "natural born subject" before the Revolution, and all the rest of it.

So he doesn't have a case. But like all birthers, he keeps making it anyway. Because there's nothing that beats reality... like fantasy.

695 posted on 03/10/2013 12:40:38 AM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

And do you know what the birther MO is?

Any time you have an argument that falls to pieces, pretend it didn’t happen. Don’t blush. Just act like it never happened.

If you have 5 arguments in a row that are total and complete nonsense, hey, that’s no sign that your theory is cracked, or that you are wrong or incompetent. Just switch to something else. Let’s talk about some other guy for a while.

And you NEVER RETRACT any of the stuff that is just total nonsense. You just save it for another day, when another audience may not know that it’s been kicked to pieces so many times you can’t even find all the pieces.

So it’s not about the truth. It’s just a game. See how many times you can recycle the same debunked arguments. See how many more people you can fool. I have no doubt DL can do it for another 5 or 10 years.


696 posted on 03/10/2013 12:55:54 AM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

First, ad hominem attacks on a class of individuals, whose strongest motive is their wish for the Constitution to be obeyed, carries no effect with me, other than to diminish the credibility of the one who uses such tactics. This is not about “fantasy” or “being had” or “mumble mumble.” This is about good people with differing views of law and history trying to reconcile those differences and achieve a higher understanding of both.

Pushing past the ad hominem, I do not understand why you think your argument from friendship is persuasive. Any small hint uttered in court by a U.S. Justice is orders of magnitude more valuable, because it comes from the seat of authority. But instead you rely on an unproven and perhaps unprovable assumption that a person known to some of the founders was speaking for all of them on an issue of law that was already convoluted and uncertain in the minds of many first generation American jurists, with no evidence that they ever discussed the matter. In court this wouldn’t even rise to hearsay. Worthless.

For example, in law school, we had many conversations as students, with much variety of opinion, yet I would count myself a good friend to these people, even if there were some areas of the law we did not discuss, and even if in some of those unspoken areas we might prove later to differ. The friendship argument is a nullity, an argument from silence, and of no value in advancing the discussion.

Furthermore, I note that you are unresponsive to the grandfather clause argument. That is your choice. There are times I too simply ignore an argument, because I recognize that the judge is not interested, and wants to be convinced on some other basis. I try to accommodate my audience. It doesn’t always work. But if you just ignore key objections to your argument, you have no chance of persuading your audience at all.

Just sayin …


697 posted on 03/10/2013 12:59:09 AM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Domo for the Ping. Geez, I step out for a few, and nex thing you know, there’s a 700-post thread needs reading through.


698 posted on 03/10/2013 1:00:43 AM PST by Flotsam_Jetsome ("Obama": His entire life is Photoshopped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

You do NOT want my son to be president! lol!

Oh, boy.... that’s a thought! 8-/


699 posted on 03/10/2013 5:22:47 AM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
Fine. Rand Paul can make Cruz Attorney General. Works for me! Allen West can be VP.

And make Sarah Palin Sec. of State.

700 posted on 03/10/2013 5:30:46 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 601-650651-700701-750 ... 1,551-1,578 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson