Levin: the birther tactic is crap, here's the relevant statute

It didn't matter where Obama was born, it doesn't matter where Ted Cruz was born, it didn't matter where John McCain was born, it didn't matter where George Romney was born. The phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. If one of your parents was a US citizen, which is the case in all four examples, you are a natural born US citizen.

This has been Levin's contention all along. Dishonest leftists, such was Pruto and whoisyourdaddy may want to do a little research, before spouting our their Alinskyite lies. Can either of you provide a link where Mark Levin said Obama couldn't be President because he wasn't a natural born US citizen?

I still don't think Obama was born in Hawaii, but it is a moot point, because at least one parent was a US citizen (and with the possibility of Frank Marshall Davis being his real dad, perhaps both). By birth status, he has every right to be the president.

I think the idea that the Framers deliberately chose to follow Swiss law rather than English common law,

You are misstating what I said. I am referring to natural law philosophy not any sort of statutes.

On the point of overthrowing the monarchy and instituting a Republic, English common law is quite clear. You may not do it.

and to model the U.S. after Switzerland, is unserious.

You aren't taking it seriously because you don't want to consider it. In 1776, there were only two Republics in existence. The United States and Switzerland, which was actually a collection of city states bonded together. (Which is why they used the word "city denizens" to describe membership in their nation.)

The dominance of English legal concepts throughout our country's formation is inarguable.

It is inarguable regarding day to day normal applications of civil and criminal law, but you extrapolate these concepts to the creation of a government completely at odds with the foundational principles of English Law (that the King is the ultimate ruler) and these principles break down at that level.

The USA nation cannot form without rejecting these particular English law ideas, even though it embraces all the rest of English law for it's day to day operations.

You may be unaware of this, but shortly after the nation was formed, there was an effort by the founders to distinguish between the parts of English law we kept, and the parts we rejected. (Corruption of Blood, Debtor's prison, etc)

I used to have a quote from James Madison in which he pointed out that a distinction needed to be made between what parts of the common law should be kept and what parts rejected.

We did not embrace all of English law fully. We kept most of it and banished the rest.

Citizenship is one of those areas where we did not accept their meaning or their foundation, and this is demonstrable in the fact that we changed the very word that had been used to describe the relationship between the individual and the state.

So, I'm bowing out.

You actually lasted longer than I expected, so Kudos for that.

Till next time.

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.