Skip to comments.Tea Party Express picks Marco Rubio for VP (Article says Tea Partiers not TPX)
Posted on 07/18/2012 9:07:28 AM PDT by Perdogg
click here to read article
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.
As it should, but liberal always try to turn laws against nature by attempting to make it into something else.
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.
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.
You've just proved that you are delusional! You also proved that you don't understand simple English. Your response (Finally Youre 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!
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.
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.
Your post (84) was BRILLIANT!
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.
Your explaination may be right, but I wonder how many other items that effected the Founders personally were written? Any guess?
We’re dealing with a bunch of idiots here who cling onto one sentence in Minor to the exclusion of all the other evidence proving their error.
They also did not read the Declaration of Independence wherein it states, “Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.” They want us to believe we disregarded everything English and went with Vattel.
I posted the following in a previous thread but I’d like to repeat it here.
The framers were familiar with English common law and didn’t want to abandon it.
English common law was based upon Christianity, as is our present country, and their entire system of Government was based upon their unique view of natural law being issued directly from Jesus Christ as enforced by the English monarch.
And that in fact is where the phrase natural born subject originally came from it came from a Christian view of natural law. And in that Christian view of natural law (see Romans 13:1) God himself had established a natural order for the world. In that order, kingdoms and authorities were ordained by God himself. Kings derived their power from God and from the natural order that he had set up.
And if you were born under an authority, you had a duty to obey that authority (allegiance) as far as good conscience would allow you to. If the King said taxes were due, as a good citizen, you were to pay your taxes. (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and to God that which is Gods.)
In that view, all persons born within a kingdom were natural, born subjects of that Kingdom. Christians believe that God and God alone grants citizenship because God and God alone determines who is born where. Madison confirmed that belief when he said: “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.”
“You’ve just proved that you are delusional!” Rant, rant rant, rant....
And there you go again.....(Reagan)
No one ever claims that Vittel “wrote the Constitution.” He died in Europe years before the Constitution was written.
Besides, ‘Law of Nations’ predates the Constitution by over 30 some odd years... Sigh.
What is said is that the Founders used his book “Natural Law” as a referance work (historical fact), along with other author’s books (Blackstone’s ‘Commentary’), in writting the Constitution. People just point out that NBC is a term taken directly out of “Law of Nations” and that the Founders used it to mean what Vittel said it meant it.
Additonally, the USSC decision in Minor is important because the justice uses wording taken directly from Vittel, and re-afirms that NBC means ‘born in a country to parents that are it’s citizens.’ It’s a matter of language, legal understanding of that language, and just that simple.
Or is it your position that the Founder’s used the exact same term as Vittel, (who just explained the common, since Roman times phrase, and did not coin it) intended it to mean something other than what Vittel had said it meant, and then failed to define their (your?) new, and radically different definition of it?
Who knew? The Founders were shameless plaugerists of a common legal term, and, when using it in writing an important foundation document, setting forth the requirements for the highest office in the land, not only failed to define their ‘new’ term, but failed to tell anyone that they had re-defined this commonly in use term???
Heck Who knew!!!!!!.......Hey Jersey.....lololol....”get real”
“Oh, I see! Congress are a bunch of cowards, and judges are ignorant of the law. But you have it right! I cant stop laughing so dont mind this sudden ending.”
I don’t. Glad I could make your day.
And as to how a view of natural law can change...
Our founders insisted that all men were created equal - that there was no divine right of a “King” to rule in ways that did not recognize the natural rights of man - and that the natural state of man was to have liberty and equality - not to be ruled by some crackpot because of who his father was.
Our ‘positive’ law determines who is to be a citizen at birth according to our best understanding of natural law - sometimes from place (including time of residence), sometimes from parentage, sometimes from a combination of the two.
But what is clear from our Constitution is that there were only THREE types of citizens in our Republic - those that were born as citizens according to our understanding of natural law (sometimes place, sometimes parentage) born with natural allegiance to our nation - those that must be “naturalized” into that state of allegiance through a legal process and declared allegiance - and those who were citizens at the time of the founding.
As the third category is now an anachronism - we now have TWO types of citizens - those that were born with natural allegiance and were citizens at birth - and those who had to be naturalized.
No, I have only made an in-depth study of Hamilton.
Yes, Jackson, like the British West Indies born Alexander Hamilton, was eligible. Both were grandfathered in by this phrase “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,...”. After the adoption of the constitution neither would have been eligible under the identical scenario.
Tea Party Express did not choose to back Rubio, offer any kind of “endorsement,” or offer to campaign for him in anyway. They only released the results of a survey they conducted, which shows which VP “contenders” were popular among Tea Party Express supporters.
That doesn’t make any sense. Tea Party Express just released the results of a poll they conducted that surveyed what Tea Partiers think of some of the likely VP nominees. They didn’t endorse Rubio; they are just sharing information. You can read the full release here: http://www.teapartyexpress.org/4852/senator-marco-rubio-tea-party-choice-for-vice-president
Tea Party Express didn’t “pick” Rubio. The press release (http://www.teapartyexpress.org/4852/senator-marco-rubio-tea-party-choice-for-vice-president) is regarding a survey TPX conducted that asked supporters how they would rate all the potential VP candidates. Marco Rubio was the overwhelming favorite, and TPX did not “endorse” him or say they were going to “help” him get there in any way.
I hope you would reconsider this. Tea Party Express did not “choose” or “endorse” Rubio. They simply released the results of a survey they conducted, which asked supporters how they would rate the potential VP candidates. Rubio was the overwhelming favorite, and TPX was just sharing the information.