Posted on 02/15/2016 7:07:25 PM PST by musicman
“Not worth the time and effort. Sad to say, despite the fact that some are swayed. Can’t be helped; I blame the educational system for the poor reasoning powers of much of the citizenry. Schools ought to teach how to cut through crap; they used to, but nowadays, not so much.”
John, you are beyond hope! This is the most incoherent post I’ve read all day. We were (or at least I was) discussing what a female constitutional lawyer said about “natural born” using the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as references, and all you can say is “Schools ought to teach how to cut through crap?” I’d say that for sure the edcational system failed in your case!
There is nothing 'originalist' about you. You yourself claimed you are an evolutionist. Subverting the 'original intent' of natural born US citizen is absolutely no different than the abhorrent finding of Roe v Wade. Truth finding and honestly are not 'legal' trademarks in this generation.
First, it’s too short to get anywhere interesting.
But there are substantive problems as well. Basically, what she does is ignore jus soli (right of soil) entirely, which puts her at odds with almost every Vattell fan whose ever posted on FR, and with Scalia and aa few of the founders, who specifically spoke of jus soli favorably.
Now focusing on jus sanguinis, the right of blood, she is able to dispatch Rubio, because his parents were not citizens. So boom, she’s done with Rubio.
Ted is a different problem. He’s got a jus sanguinis claim, born to a citizen mother. To defeat Ted Cruz, she relies on her belief in the sole capacity of the father to transmit citizenship to the child. As she states it, this was based on a view of marriage in which the woman had no legal existence apart from her husband, and thus had no natural right or power to transmit citizenship by blood to her child.
And frankly, yes, her view that this defective understanding of female social status could never change, simply because it is what the founders believed, is a bit clownnish, because it means that similar misunderstanding of the rights of blacks could never change, because some of the founders held an inferior view of blacks. Bizarre nonsense. Modern feminism is an unhealthy overreaction to problems of the past, but the view of women as full legal persons in their own right is a vast improvement over the views of that time, and really more consistent with the Judeo-Christian understanding of the elevated social status of women as taught in Scripture.
All this shows her to be quite the lightweight. You can’t neglect jus soli in a discussion of natural born citizen. It is the dominant rule. Jus sanguinis is the exception. Valid, but not the dominant theme. That she has this backwards is a big red flag. No consistent Vattellian should be using her as a reference.
But that she also believes US law is committed to a doctrine of male-only transmission of jus sanguinis citizenship and can never edit the operation of that principle, as US law in fact has done, shows she does not understand basic issues in the natural born problem domain.
For example, internationally, the forms of citizenship acquisition and transmission have always been editable by the sovereign, and often by statute. Britain did it. France changed it a couple of times. No, we aren’t copying France, thank goodness, but the principle is there: A sovereign nation has the natural right to determine who shall be it’s citizens.
So while I would not be inclined to use harsh words to describe her efforts, they are definitely weaker than many a fine poster on either side of the subject whom we have seen on these pages.
Peace,
SR
You are intentionally misrepresenting what I have said. I am NOT subverting anything and while I am an originalist, I do not claim to be a magician or a seer, as you apparently do. If you are not interested in honest discussion and debate, I am not interested in engaging with you further.
You can continue to read and comment on my posts if you wish, but I will not be replying. You are proof positive that truth finding and honesty are rare commodities in this age.
I watched the video. It wasn’t easy, but I did so. And I gave you my assessment at a summary level.
Sure, I could dissect it, but why bother? It wasn’t presented at a level intelligence and research sufficient to render it of interest.
Thank you, very informative.
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.