Posted on 09/29/2011 8:43:31 AM PDT by Politics4US
Mark Levin says Rubio is a natural born citizen, and threatens to ban birthers on his social sites.
2nd, I am going to assume neither you or your BFF have actually read the congressional testimony regarding S. Res. 511 because if either of you had, you would see that they plead that (in their opinion) the Constitution is not a static document but rather it is merely a guideline for general interpretations and for that reason alone, Obama was qualified. Now why would they even bring up Obama’s eligibility if there was no question as to his birth qualifications?
When one is ignorant of history, especially the history of the heritage & lineage of the Judea-Anglo-Saxons who founded this great nation, they are all to quick to make their own laws or support those that do.
The really amazing thing is that FR allows people known to post on ultra leftist sites, as well as those who likely do because the repeat the exact same leftist bs tripe lying propaganda (verbatim!), and post no conservative comments ever, to stay on FR for years at a time.
That’s the amazing thing.
How strong is your stomach to deal with the putrid stench coming out of the courts?
Leftist LIKE that putrid stench. It’s nectar to them.
It’s not that these posters don’t “get it”, they’re on the other team.
These people just repeat the same talking points that have been proven to be untrue ad nauseum.
Proven to be lies for the last two and more years.
SJC is lying and harassing you.
I was going to say that maybe they can’t even smell the putrescence, since a person gets used to their own odor.
But these judges know they stink. There’s no judge in the world who doesn’t know that $20,000 meets the $500 minimum requirement. There’s no judge who doesn’t know that 1967 comes before 1978. There’s no judge who doesn’t know that legal cases aren’t decided by Twitter. There’s no judge who doesn’t know that literally cutting out words from sworn testimony is evidence tampering, or that it’s an ethics breach to hire as clerk for your most visible case somebody from the company representing the defendant in that case. This stuff is really, really blatant.
So blatant that I can’t help but think the judges MEANT it to be obvious that their cases were rigged.
That's not how the rule of law works. The oath is to protect and defend the Constitution.
Is this what passes for Conservatism in your world, Mr. Robinson?
Economics.
Economics as in paycheck, loyalties, agendas.
Yup.
Blade, this is a polite, honest attempt to find out why you said I was attacking you. My “attack” consisted of a simple, sincere request: show me one post you’ve made over the past year that is critical of Obama. It was not a gotcha or otherwise loaded/bad-faith inquiry. I don’t know your posting history. For all I knew, when I asked the question, you would hit me w a list of forty or fifty criticisms leveled squarely at the marxist in the Oval Office. If you had, I would have said, ‘thank you; that made for some fun and delightful reading’.
I still, to this moment, find it hard to believe that having belonged to FR an entire yr, you have yet to proffer even a minor criticism of Obama. That staggers me. But for you to call even the mere question an “attack”??? That is taking it too far. When you accuse someone publicly of attacking you, you should have a good example. To claim that being asked if you’ve ever criticized Obama is an “attack” - my cow; by that definition, if I type, ‘Hi, Blade’, *that* is an attack.
Let me illustrate the quandary. Suppose you belonged to thefogbow for a year. Somebody over there one day posted, ‘Hey, Blade, have you ever said anything good about Obama?’
Would you immediately start screaming, “Attack!”?
I can’t imagine you would. It’s a mere question. All you have to do is answer. To posit that anybody asking you a polite question is attacking you...that is weird. Hopefully you will answer and help me to understand what’s going on. As it stands, it just seems...odd.
This is kind of long, so if you want to save some time, you can find the same quote in the Indiana case, which I have just made as a separate page at my Birther website. Plus, I made it easier to read because I left out the first part that was not about Natural Born Citizenship, and I moved all the footnotes to the bottom sooo you could read the case without being interrupted:
Apparently you didn’t even get the point that was being made, which was that Vattel was cited as the best expert on citizenship. What did your friend say about that?
I am not going to bother her with that question because it is sooo simple to answer. ONE, the VENUS case was about war stuff which is fighting between two or more nations, so it would be INTERNATIONAL LAW stuff which who knows, maybe Vattel maybe wrote some good stuff about people who were caught in the crossfire.
TWO, even if Vattel was a expert, the American judges did not quote him very much in our American citizenship cases, because I didn’t even see him in the Minor case, and he was not talked about very much in Wong Kim Ark that I saw. Sooo, who cares???
THREE, only very sneaky Vattle Birthers who are trying to deceive people would go back to some 1814 case thingy and try to wiggle around 1898 cases (84 years later!!!) or 2009 cases.
An example of one of your non-sequiturs.
In that response, several of the Vattle Birther’s CONCEPTUAL problems become evident. First, while John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were wonderful Americans, Hamilton died in 1804 and John Jay in 1829. Poor Old Emerich D. Vattel died in 1767, 8 1/2 years before the Declaration of Independence.
What on God's green earth does their time of death have to do with anything? It would be one thing to accuse them of fathering children after they died, but you seem to be insinuating that their deaths must have some sort of effect on their ideas. It is well known that Benjamin Franklin received three copies of Vattel's book (published in the original french) from Charles Dumas in 1775. Using your line of thought, it must have been impossible for someone who is dead to have ideas that lived beyond their lifetime. Ever hear of a fellow called "Jesus Christ"? "Plato"? "Aristotle"?
While what any of these people said might be important to a court in determining intent,
No! You think?
to focus on them while ignoring or misinterpreting the subsequent legal history is DISINGENUOUS and MISLEADING. Because things were happening well after all these people died.
And this is the kind of statement which makes me want to beat my head against the wall and pull my hair out. A stupider misunderstanding of the salient point I cannot imagine. What happened after the founding era is IRRELEVANT to what were the meanings of concepts ratified in the founding era. Subsequent legal history is inconsequential regarding articles of the Constitution. Unless they are SPECIFICALLY repealed, Articles of the Document which CREATED THE COURTS are still in effect. Subsequent judges cannot rule them void, the articles have higher legal authority than does the judges. Congress cannot vote them void, the Document has higher legal authority than Congress.
You may not comprehend this (I have seen scant evidence that you comprehend anything more complicated than kitties and blue jays, and even then I consider that to be a meeting of the minds between equals.) but the ONLY thing which can abrogate a requirement of constitutional law is a Constitutional Amendment, passed by Congress and voted on by 3/4ths of the State Legislators of the existing states.
I am going to have to start ignoring your posts. I find myself tasting idiocy for hours after reading anything you have written.
Even Jesus picked Judas.
A common thread among all the anti-Vattel conservative intellectuals is that their explanation of their position always seems to be:
"Shut Up! That's why!"
I consider that to be a weak argument.
Because it is not inherent. It is subject to the whim of fate.
Consider this reductio ad absurdum. A large merry-go-round constructed on the border between the U.S. and Canada. Pregnant women get on... we give it a spin... and no one knows what the citizenship of their children will be. Not so for the jus sanguinus principle.
Consider another reductio ad absurdum. A world wide matter transmitting network. A pregnant woman goes into the room, something goes wrong and she gets "beamed" to cities all around the world, one after the other. What nationality is her child? Like Schrodingers cat, we won't know till we open the box. Again, not so for the jus sanguinus principle.
The theory that one's citizenship is determined by place of birth is no different from suggesting that other inherent characteristics should be determined by place of birth. Birth in a stable makes you a horse. Birth in the water makes you a fish. Birth in a hen house makes you a chicken.
Absurd. Natural characteristics are not decided by man made artificial boundaries. They are inherent.
Your theory would yield the bizarre conclusion that John McCain, born in Panama while his parents were serving in the nation's interest, has not sufficient allegiance to be considered loyal enough to be President, while Barry, born to a foreign father (so they say) and raised for many years in a foreign country with a foreign culture (not even English, Aussie, or Canadian) with not demonstrably reliable proof that he *IS* even born inside the borders, is.
Jus Soli was created by the English kings to lay claim to anyone born on their soil. It was a device to grab and hold servants to their perpetual allegiance. It does not serve the needs of a free people. That the colonies all utilized British law prior to our independence accounts for the fact that it has persisted as an idea since this nation's founding, despite the fact that "Subjectitude" and the implications thereof, was specifically rejected in not ONE, but TWO wars with England. Jus Soli was later invoked in 1868 for the purpose of granting citizenship to former slaves, because the slaves could not claim a birthright through jus sanguinus.
It has ever since been consistently misused against the interests of this nation, as the relatively recent phenomena of a President with dubious allegiance and "anchor babies" illustrates.
Proven to be lies for the last two and more years.
Agreed.
On the bottom of every forum page:
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.
Do you know why smart conservative people (like me!!!) tell you Vattle Birthers that??? It is because your arguments are TOTALLY STUPID and you are embarrassing us. That is why I wrote my very first anti-Vattle Birther Internet Article over a year ago. (Which was not just "shut up" but "Vattel Birthers Should Just STFU!!!) Which I am glad I looked up because of the linky thingys were broken.
Anyway, why I wrote it was because I would be on a thread somewhere just kicking Obotski all around the place with "Why wouldn't Obama cough it up unless he had something to hide???" and here would come some stupid Vattle Birther with that 2 parent stupid phony stuff and there would go the whole thread talking about something stupid from 17oo whatever that was way before the Wong Kim Art case thing. And, as usual, the Obots would gang up on the stupid Vattle Birther and just clobber him and tease him to death for being sooo stupid.
Sooo this got tiring. Because really just stop and think about it. Why, if the Vattle Birthers are right, are there just 1 or 2 conservative and republican lawyers in the whole country agreeing with you??? And no judges. Why is it Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, and now Mark Levin, and who knows who else telling you to knock it off with the stupid "Birther crap"??? Our laws are NOT secret, and everybody, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, can just go online and read it.
Why, if you are right, do you have to run like little scaredy cat girls from the Wong Kim Ark thingy and the Indiana thingy??? Because I have read the Indiana case thing like 10 times or more just this last week, and there is nothing wild or far out in there. They just quote Supreme Court stuff. Meanwhile, you Vattle Birthers are over there in Europe and Switzerland and France and Saxony digging up dead Europeans to back you up.
It is going to get even worse on now that Rubio and Jindle are being talked about, because now, I bet more and more conservative people are going to come right out and tell you "Knock off this stupid birther crap" and "There is no debate" and "This site is for "RATIONAL" people.
This should be your "sign" that you have become taken over by a CULT!!!
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.