Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tea Party Express picks Marco Rubio for VP (Article says Tea Partiers not TPX)
Tampa Bay.com ^ | JULY 18, 2012 | Amy Hollyfield

Posted on 07/18/2012 9:07:28 AM PDT by Perdogg

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-176 next last
To: allmendream
That is a rather bizarre view of the law and not one consistent with the Constitution, natural law, or U.S. law.

No, you're bizarre because you don't recognize the facts. What I have written about is consistent with US law and what has been recognized as natural law.

U.S. law should always reflect our best understanding of natural law. That is why women are currently seen to have the natural right to vote - women voting is in no way unnatural - they have the natural right to be free and to participate in representative government.

They have right by man who made an Amendment. That's called artificial as in being made. Funny (not really) that which you say is a "natural" right was not recognized for 133 years after the US Constitution was adopted, or in English common law until 1918 that OBots and liberals love to talk about.

So Dream, you going to vote for Obama in November?

101 posted on 07/18/2012 12:34:09 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Hey CON CON, you quoting that idiotic Ankeny Indiana court ruling? LoL.

I notice that you liberals always avoid the threads of Obama being a total fraud, but always glum on these NBC type threads to BS the facts.


102 posted on 07/18/2012 12:39:56 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Wrong - one is either a citizen through the natural act of being born - or one must be “naturalized” through a legal process. This is recognized by U.S. law, by Vattel, and by English law.

That you think women voting is unnatural speaks volumes.

Women have a natural law right to equality under the law.

Do you think people have a natural law right to hold other people in slavery? Is it the natural state of humanity to be held in slavery?

103 posted on 07/18/2012 12:41:23 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; seekthetruth; Bushbacker1; MinuteGal; flaglady47; seenenuf; Bob Ireland

This thread and comments is perfect example of the level of stupidity that has now swamped FR. You either believe in the US Constitution or you don’t. If you don’t then pack up and leave this great country.

We all have a responsibility to read and understand the US Constitution and it is absolutely clear if you take 10 minutes to actually read the Constitution you will Rubio is definitely NOT NBC nor is Jindal.

But the selection of either of them is the perfect example of how the GOP has been flooded with traitors as well.

Teddy Roosevelt set on this path about 100 years ago when the Bull Moose party failed...the progressive party was launched and both parties were infected with them with the absolute stated goal in 100 years the American people will really have no choice, no matter which party they will get a f’ing progressive.

Anybody but Obama but I cannot in good conscience support any ticket that is going to flagrantly disregard the Constitution just like the Democrats did.

Aren’t conservatives the ones that are supposed have principles and ethics?


104 posted on 07/18/2012 12:44:46 PM PDT by surfer (To err is human, to really foul things up takes a Democrat, don't expect the GOP to have the answer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Do people have a natural law right to keep and bear arms?

Or is that just a “positive law” instead of a “natural law” because it is recognized in our 2nd Amendment?

Was that a law given to them by men who made an Amendment, or is it a recognition of a natural law right that always existed and was given by God?

105 posted on 07/18/2012 12:46:19 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Hey CON CON, you quoting that idiotic Ankeny Indiana court ruling? LoL.

No, I'm quoting John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment.

106 posted on 07/18/2012 12:48:31 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
That you think women voting is unnatural speaks volumes.

What has always spoke volumes has been your liberal mindset.

Anyone who has looked or knows of your posting history would see that.

A case in point of your liberal mindset, Now, I suppose I believe in human slavery? The machinations and twists and turns of your liberal mind.

Is it the natural state of humanity to be held in slavery?

So again, are you going to vote for Obama as president as you did in 2008?

107 posted on 07/18/2012 12:48:46 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

“U.S. law is consistent - one is either born a citizen or naturalized as a citizen.’

You are correct.

As far a the subject vrs citizen debate, we must realize that while the Founders used British Common Law (unwritten law...traditonal law) they did not creat a carbon copy of British government/monarchy. The Founders went far afield and borrowed ideas from many of the then popular jurists and political theorists of the 18th century. One cannot just look at traditional British Law at say Ah Ha! There are great divides between our Republic and the British Monarchy of the time.

One fundamental difference is that of the relationships between a subject and a goverment and a citizen and a government.

The Government (The Crown) claims all born in it’s juristruction to be “subjects.” They are responsible to the government.

In the Founder’s Republic, the Government is responsible to it’s citizens, who may be either born or naturalized (citizens by application and acceptance.) Like I said a fundalmental diffference.....

The term NBS, and it’s common law meaning, while similiar in wording has no resemblence in meaning to the Founder’s intent in their usage of the centuries old term NBC and it’s modern 18th century definition as articulated in the legal tomes of the day.


108 posted on 07/18/2012 12:53:25 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
I voted for Palin, and plan on voting for (gag) Romney. Thanks for asking.

My posting history is entirely conservative.

The law doesn't give rights - women were not “given” legal equality via laws passed by men - their natural law right to equality was FINALLY recognized - a right given by God.

It seems you think the law gives rights via man made largess, rather than recognizing rights that have always existed.

That you don't understand this means you are not now and never were a conservative - just a reactionary blowhard.

You are also wrong and increasingly irrelevant.

Don't go away mad - just go away.

109 posted on 07/18/2012 12:54:23 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
No, I'm quoting John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment.


You are CON CON? LoL.

Well, I see you forget something:


John Bingham, the “father of the 14th Amendment also said this:

"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)) "

And John Bingham said this during the passing of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) "

110 posted on 07/18/2012 12:55:06 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

“Copies of which were in the library, in French AND English, where the constitution was written.”

Don’t forget that many of the Founder’s could both speak and write in French, so a translation was only needed by a few......


111 posted on 07/18/2012 12:56:05 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“de Vattel is not the constitution.”

His writings were before the US Consitution and nation was formed, and were in French.

Who here has read them in French, including context, and can even explain what he was writing about?

When he used the oft cited description for NBC, he was simply stating that was the definition for his native Switzerland, and then said other countries followed different practices.

Nothing more.


112 posted on 07/18/2012 12:56:23 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Don't go away mad - just go away.

I'm not going anywhere. And suuure you voted for Palin. Your mind is not consistent with conservatism.

That you don't understand this means you are not now and never were a conservative - just a reactionary blowhard.

You like to put that to a vote on FR between who is the lib here? LoL.

I don't understand? Oh I understand completely. I under John Bingham who I quoted above.

113 posted on 07/18/2012 1:00:23 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: exit82

“All of that being true, they are still not natural born citizens of the United States, as their parents were not citizens at the time of their birth.”

In which article or amendment of the Constitution will that be specifically found?


114 posted on 07/18/2012 1:00:59 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
And if Bingham isn't enough for you, what about Attorney General Pierrepont, in 1875?

"Under the treaty, and in harmony with American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler the father abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor), and that by virtue of German laws the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one natural, the other acquired. .... Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of 21, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States..... I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of 21 years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father."

How about William Rawle, who was U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania starting in 1791 (is that close enough to 1789 for you?):

"The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. ... [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. 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. .... Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that ... no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us."

And, of course, you ignore Lynch v. Clarke, which, though not a Federal court decision, is of course the decision closest in time to Ratification (and thus closest in time to the framers' understanding of the clause):

"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. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen"

The point, of course, is that you birthers are simply wrong when you say that there is no evidence that the NBC clause does not require two citizen parents.

115 posted on 07/18/2012 1:01:40 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: faucetman

Andrew Jackson served as the 7th President of the U.S. He was born in 1767. His parents immigrated from Ireland in 1765. Given your interpretation of “Natural Born Citizen”, was he eligible to be President?


116 posted on 07/18/2012 1:09:18 PM PDT by college_kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

So is our right to keep and bear arms a natural law or a “positive law” because it is in an Amendment ‘written by men’?

Do you think rights are given by men, or is it the duty of men to base laws upon their best understanding of natural law to recognize rights given by God?

Is slavery consistent with the natural law? You apparently think natural law dictates that women be kept in a legally subservient position. I mean if men “give” them the right to vote and next thing you know they might run for Vice President!


117 posted on 07/18/2012 1:14:28 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

“It does not say the last fourteen yrs consecutive either which would have made Jefferson ineligible in 1800.”

Jefferson was grandfathered in.....see the exception in Article II

I have always wondered about the 14 year residence requirement. Could it mean that the Founders intended that a future President have spent his entire adult life in the US? 21 years old (adult) + 14 years in residence = 35 years old the minimun age to be President.....HMMMMM

If you were 55 years would you need to have lived in the US since age 21 a total of 34 years???? Maybe the Founders weren’t keen on providing charts???? All in all the 14 year requirement is odd.....


118 posted on 07/18/2012 1:14:43 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
Steinkauler the father abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor), and that by virtue of German laws the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one natural, the other acquired. .... Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen.

Ummmm CON CON. I've seen it all...covered just about everything.

When young Stienkauler was born, his father was a US citizen and his father also renounced his German citizenship when he was naturalized a US citizen. Young Stienkuhler was born in the United States. Combine the two and that makes him an NBC.

It is the same as Ms Elg, that Supreme Court (Elg v. Perkins, 1939) said she was an natural born citizen because her parents were US Citizens who renounced their Swedish citizenship, before they gave up their US Citizenship. Elg at the time was born to 2 US citizen parent and born in the United States.

The point, of course, is that you birthers are simply wrong when you say that there is no evidence that the NBC clause does not require two citizen parents.

No I'm correct as usual. :-)

119 posted on 07/18/2012 1:18:22 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

Click the link. The Republic you save may be your own.

120 posted on 07/18/2012 1:21:14 PM PDT by RedMDer (https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/default.aspx?tsid=93destr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So is our right to keep and bear arms a natural law or a “positive law” because it is in an Amendment ‘written by men’?

It is positive law for sure. Do you think it is a natural law? If so, cite source. I'd like to see.

Is slavery consistent with the natural law?

No, it's not part of natural law village liberal. It has been part of man-made laws.

You apparently think natural law dictates that women be kept in a legally subservient position.

I never said anything of the kind.

121 posted on 07/18/2012 1:25:12 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
When young Stienkauler was born, his father was a US citizen and his father also renounced his German citizenship when he was naturalized a US citizen. Young Stienkuhler was born in the United States. Combine the two and that makes him an NBC.

But you birthers keep saying that NBC means undivided loyalty. How can that be, if "he has two nationalities"?

And what about Lynch v. Clarke?

122 posted on 07/18/2012 1:25:42 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
But you birthers keep saying that NBC means undivided loyalty. How can that be, if "he has two nationalities"?

Well did young Stienkualer renounce his US citizenship like daddy? I don't think so. There is a cut off point, and he met it according to the US Supreme Court.

It's like when you libs and OBots love to say, "What if" Castro made everyone in the United States a citizen of Cuba by law? We would all have duel nationalities! An absurdity.

The obvious answer to that question is did we take Cuban oath allegiance? The obvious answer is NO.

And what about Lynch v. Clarke?

What about Bingham's quotes from the Congressional Record that I posted to you?

123 posted on 07/18/2012 1:37:43 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

John Adams:


124 posted on 07/18/2012 1:41:13 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” John Adams

I like that quote.

125 posted on 07/18/2012 1:44:37 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
What about Bingham's quotes from the Congressional Record that I posted to you?

There seems to be a conflict between the two Bingham quotes - the one I posted suggests that parents are irrelevant, the one you posted suggests the opposite.

In any event, I've never said there is no evidence suggesting that the citizenship of the parents matters. You are the one who seems to think that anyone who disagrees with your view of the NBC clause is a liberal 0bot.

126 posted on 07/18/2012 1:47:41 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
So do you still maintain that the right to keep and bear arms is a “positive law” instead of a “natural law”?

If so your view of natural law is at odds with our founders.

They thought we had a natural right to keep and bear arms that the 2nd Amendment recognized, but did not bestow.

Similarly women have a natural right to equality under the law, it was not a law passed by men that gave them that right, the right has always existed and was finally recognized and put into effect.

127 posted on 07/18/2012 1:50:21 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Red Steel

“Rubio was born a citizen of these United States according to U.S. law, which should always reflect our best understanding of natural law.”

If “born on the soil” is NOT a criteria for natural born citizenship (as Congress declared in Senate Resolution 511 for McCain), Rubio was ALSO born as a “natural born” citizen of Cuba, since both his parents were still Cuban citizens when he was born. If what I have read is correct, Rubio was born in ‘71 and his parents were naturalized in the US in ‘75.

If the whole natural born citizenship discussion revolves around Vattel, he also said that citizenship follows the father - making Rubio a Cuban citizen, Jindal an Indian citizen and Obama a British Subject, and, at best, dual-citizens in the US.

Since the whole purpose of putting the natural born citizen phrase in the Constitution was to ensure the President only had ties to the US to avoid foreign entanglements (intrigue), how could Rubio be a natural born citizen of the US and at the same time be a natural born citizen of Cuba and not violate this precept of the Constitution?

He can’t. If he’s a natural born citizen of Cuba he can’t be a natural born citizen of the US. Rubio is, at best, a citizen under the 14th amendment. I say, at best, because, strictly speaking, as he was born to Cuban citizens he was not born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, according to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. He was born a Cuban citizen in the US subject to the jurisdiction of Cuba.

Now, in fairness, I don’t know whether the Rubios were here when Rubio was born, as refugees or as green card holders. If green card holders, Rubio may have been born subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore a dual-citizen since his parents were still legally Cuban citizens. I just don’t know the details of his parent’s immigration status at the time of Rubio’s birth.


128 posted on 07/18/2012 1:50:36 PM PDT by Larry - Moe and Curly (Loose lips sink ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

oops, make that Samuel Adams not John Adams. My mistake.

The founders thought our Revolution itself was based upon natural law, not positive law, that Americans were seeking “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”.

The Declaration didn’t “give” Americans the right to our revolution against England - it recognized a right that was always there and was bestowed by God.


129 posted on 07/18/2012 1:56:29 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
You are the one who seems to think that anyone who disagrees with your view of the NBC clause is a liberal 0bot.

They have a great propensity to gravitate to these arguments like the effects of gravity on a neutron star.

Many have been zotted for the liberals that that they are.

Off the top of my head the zotted - Non sequitur, Parsifal, Michael Michael, James777, LorenC, Curiosity, MilspecRob, and I'd say well over a hundred more liberal trolls have been zots who have click on these threads over the last 4 years.

130 posted on 07/18/2012 2:02:18 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction” — St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in Blackstone Commentaries, 1803


131 posted on 07/18/2012 2:04:16 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

“Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic?”

“You start off semi~OK, but.....”Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens.”

......then go to heck in a hurry! (what’s race got to do with anything???....and what about yellow, red, and brown skin?) Citizen at birth does not always equal Natural Born Citizen. It’s not a matter of law, the Founders did not coin the term, it’s a matter of language. The Founders used a term in common 18th century political lexicon.....

Question??? If all born citizens are “natural born citizens” why even use that term? Why use the word “Natural?” Why not just say born citizens? I think you are missing something here....and it looks like a very large pink elephant sitting in the middle of the parlor.

Don’t you find it curious that a book by Vittel, that is documented to have been in the Founders possession, uses and defines that exact term, “Natural Born Citizen,” and the author gives a rational explaination why they, the NBCs, those “born in a country to citizen parents,” are the very foundation of any society?

Explain how the Founders could think it unnecessary for the President of the new nation they were forming,to be a NBC, a term that they read in “Natural Law...The Law of Nations” and the exact term they used in writting Article II’s eligibility requirements? If the Founders definition of NBC was different than Vittel’s, why didn’t they define it in the text of Art II to avoid confussion to the common definition of the term?

Ponder this.... “All natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens.......” Comment?


132 posted on 07/18/2012 2:08:49 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker

The Constitution is not a dictionary of terms.

Where does it define “letters of marque”?


133 posted on 07/18/2012 2:21:45 PM PDT by exit82 (Pass the word: Obama is a FAILURE!! Democrats are the enemies of freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner
“You start off semi~OK, but.....”Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens.”

I start off OK? I was quoting John Bingham.

134 posted on 07/18/2012 2:22:59 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
If so your view of natural law is at odds with our founders.

No, I said it was at least positive law as in the Second Amendment.

Natural Born of children born of citizen parents has been acknowledge as natural law going back a long time to the days of Justinian. The contemporary legal scholars Vattel and Blackstone of 18th century wrote about it and agreed that citizen parents is the bases of being natural born, and they were much read by the Founding Father's of the US Constitution.

Similarly women have a natural right to equality under the law, it was not a law passed by men that gave them that right, the right has always existed and was finally recognized and put into effect.

Equality now to have the right to vote. They have a right by man made law as I posted above. You show me where that natural law was understood by the classical scholars of natural law said it was natural law for women to have a right to vote? Like it or not this world is of patriarchal societies throughout time where the families and women have followed their husbands and fathers. It still is despite liberals trying to change nature.

In the Supreme Court opinion 1874 Minor v. Happersett, it was held that the women and Virginia Minor did not have the right to vote. It was not until the 19th Amendment passed by man made by man.

135 posted on 07/18/2012 2:31:25 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Here's some truth about English law.

Vattel's Law of Nations was at the foremost and the contemporary thinking of the time for the Founding Fathers of the Constitution.

Emerich deVattel speaks of the Laws of England in The Law of Nations; Section 215 Of the children of citizens born in a foreign country:

"In England however, being born in country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws [artificial, man made] have decided this question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations.

By the law of nature alone, children follow the conditions of their father, and enter into all their rights(section 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnith any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him...."

To reiterate, the Natural Born Citizen clause is about natural law and has nothing to do with English Common law.

136 posted on 07/18/2012 2:38:54 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

You said “it is positive law for sure”. Although I can see why you now feel the need to lie about it. Your understanding of natural law is lacking.


137 posted on 07/18/2012 2:41:06 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: svcw
Until a few years ago, natural born citizen was understood to mean not a naturalized citizen...

Really? Only until a few years ago?

Then why did Thomas Paine write in chapter 4 of The Rights Of Man in 1791 that "natural born citizen" meant not a "foreigner" or "half a foreigner?" Why did he write that a "foreigner" or "half a foreigner" did not have a "full natural or political connection with the country?"

It sounds like the understanding went all the way back to the ratification of the Constitution.

-PJ

138 posted on 07/18/2012 2:43:37 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
No lie lib. I said positive law for sure as in the 2nd Amendment, but that did not mean I also excluded natural law.

Your understanding of natural law is lacking.

No, It's well above the liberal mindset that you have. Your understanding of the NBC clause is totally lacking.

139 posted on 07/18/2012 2:52:53 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

So positive law is, in this case and others, a recognition of natural law. Your ignorance of the natural right to arms notwithstanding, the existence of a positive law is meant to reflect an understanding of natural law. It is not a case where it is one or the other. The right always existed. The law recognizing it had to be written.


140 posted on 07/18/2012 3:50:57 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So positive law is, in this case and others, a recognition of natural law.

No liberal, as usual, you read into things that are just not so. Positive law which is any law passed by man, however, as in the natural born citizen clause, it is directly construing or speaking directly about natural law that the Founding Father's of the US Constitution meant it to be. Natural law is the intent and meaning behind A2S1C5. The purpose of A2S1C5 was to prevent split allegiances for the president who hold highest office in the land. The right to self defense as quoted, I've always believed is a natural right to kick the poop out of any attacking liberals against one's well being. What gave me pause, is it a natural right to bear firearms. It certainly is a US Constitutional right to bear and have firearms to protect against liberal and authoritarian tyranny.

141 posted on 07/18/2012 4:15:18 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
the existence of a positive law is meant to reflect an understanding of natural law.

As it should, but liberal always try to turn laws against nature by attempting to make it into something else.

142 posted on 07/18/2012 4:35:38 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

If only your knowledge matched your ignorant fanaticism. Don’t go away mad. Just go away. Irrelevant ignorant and deceitful as is typical of birthers.


143 posted on 07/18/2012 4:46:42 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Don’t go away mad. Just go away. Irrelevant ignorant and deceitful as is typical of birthers.

I'm not mad you lib troll, and I'm not going anywhere. You should be the one who goes away like the reams of your other fellow liberal Afterbirthers. You know, the lying libs like Michael Michael and Non Sequitur.

144 posted on 07/18/2012 4:51:56 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner
Yes it is settled law, just not in the way you think it is.

You've just proved that you are delusional! You also proved that you don't understand simple English. Your response (Finally You’re right!!!! Yeah! the parents of a NBC citizen need not themselves be NBC., but they must be citizens.) comes out of the blue. I never said what you claim I'm right in saying.

I just asked you to prove your case. You can't. YOU FAIL.

You and your sort have cried wolf too many times. You embarass yourself and are too ignorant to realize it.

In simple language; no one outside your little circle believes you. Vattel did not write the constitution and I can't find his signature on it anywhere!

145 posted on 07/19/2012 1:31:15 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Larry - Moe and Curly

Oh, I see! Congress are a bunch of cowards, and judges are ignorant of the law. But you have it right! I can’t stop laughing so don’t mind this sudden ending.


146 posted on 07/19/2012 1:35:58 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner

My theory is that the 14 yr period was selected in order to allow Alexander Hamilton to be eligible. He arrived in the colonies at the end of 1772 so 14 yrs gives him a little leeway. He was also on several of the more important committees at the Constitutional Convention.


147 posted on 07/19/2012 1:36:28 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go. Sarah herself supports Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Your post (84) was BRILLIANT!


148 posted on 07/19/2012 2:00:13 PM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: New Jersey Realist
Thanks.

If one good thing comes of this idiocy it would be a renewed interest in the philosophy of natural law and a recognition that rights come from our Creator and not from Government.

Just because something is spelled out in law doesn't make it a ‘positive law not a natural law’. All written laws should, in a Republic, reflect our best understanding of natural law.

The natural right of women to legal equality is something that has always existed irrespective of any law that recognized this natural law.

The natural right of people to not live in slavery is something that has always existed - the natural state and natural yearning of mankind is for liberty - irrespective of laws that made it illegal.

The right to keep and bear arms is not something granted to us by the U.S. Constitution - it is a natural right that has always existed - the first natural right as some would have it - the one that enables all the others to be preserved and protected.

149 posted on 07/19/2012 2:12:54 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

Your explaination may be right, but I wonder how many other items that effected the Founders personally were written? Any guess?


150 posted on 07/19/2012 2:20:26 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-176 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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