Posted on 02/27/2010 1:55:38 AM PST by Suvroc10
Of course! But we aren't talking about those things here. What we are talking about is the VERY CLEAR requirement that one be a "natural born citizen" to legally hold the office of president.
Except that none of them can provide a quote from any of the Founders saying, for example, that they perferred the Vatel definition to the Blackstone definition. None of them can point to where the Constitution defined natural-born citizen. None of them can point to where the Constitution identifies more than three classes of citizenship.
The actions of the founders themselves clearly do show which definition they preferred. Read some more!
So is this another one of those cases where nothing in the Constitution is implied except when you say it's implied in there?
No. Quite the contrary in fact!
Glad to hear that because it did provide citizenship for all those at that time who were neither natural born citizens nor had been naturalized. Isn't that right???
Yes. As opposed to a naturalized citizen, I understand that.
The actions of the founders themselves clearly do show which definition they preferred. Read some more!
Well I've read Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention and several histories of the convention, and none of them mentioned Vattel when discussing natural-born citizenship. None of them define the term. None of them indicate that any of them believed that there were more than two classes of citizenship. Congress has never defined the term. The Supreme Court has or has not, depending on your opionion. What I'm asking you is where, based on a clear reading of the Constitution itself, natural-born citizenship is defined or where the Constitution differentiates between it and other forms of non-naturalized citizenship.
No. Quite the contrary in fact!
Then point to it.
No it did not. It said all persons born or naturalize in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction are citizens. It still identifies two and only two forms of obtaining citizenship, and does not define a difference between natural-born citizen and citizenship at/by birth.
AS i have told you several times already the founders themselves made a VERY CLEAR distinction between a citizen and a natural born citizen in the Constitution with regard to qualifications for one to hold the office of president. Can you not read?
The evidence is overwhelming that our founders depended upon "continental law", of which Vattel was the most widely read interpretation. Look at the number citations by James Wilson, founder and justice, in his Philadelphia Lectures. Chief Justice John Marshall cited Vattel in The Venus, Jefferson's course Natural Law and Law of Nations used Vattel, as did James Wilson's course at Philadelphia College. The point is that Vattel was THE standard reference of the time and if the founders understanding of what the term natural born citizen meant is not relevant neither then is the Constitution.
So it's based on your opinion and not a clear reading of the Constitution? You're saying that the defintion is implied. Well thanks for clearing that up for us.
Nope! It is based on the very clear language of the Constitution and what the men who wrote it understood plain English words they used therein to mean!
Maybe you need to read Wilson's works? They're available online. Count the number of times he cites Vattel in his footnotes then the number of times he cites Blackstone. Look at volume 3 where he talks about citizens and birth and let us know if it resembles Vattel's description or Blackstone's.
Ahhhh thank you -- there's the rub: "subject to the jurisdiction", the diminishing and reinterpretation of which by the Gray Court in 1898 Wrong decision created that third class of citizen of which you are so proud -- the anchor baby.
Ahhhh, you're wrong yet again.
Good fo you to admit you’ve been disrespectful to me.
My post wasn’t directed to any particular person, just the stupidity of birthers in general because they don’t see the damage they do (or do see it and do it deliberately to drag down the uninformeds’ impression of the conservative movement). I was then attacked. Those posts attacking me were removed. Some were yours, weren’t they?
At any rate, you can’t argue the points fairly and logically so you’ve resorted to ad hominem attacks directly on me. That’s what the zero administration does - personally attack those with the valid argument.
Shame on you. You lose.
p.s. I’m a she, not a he.
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.