Posted on 08/27/2013 10:44:47 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
I never said that Jefferson had the exact same French citizenship status as a person who was born a French citizen. As far as him being an "actual citizen of France," Nathan Dane said he was. Nathan Dane said that Jefferson had been "naturalized in France and there made a French citizen." He further emphasized the bona-fine nature of Jefferson's French citizenship by saying that "had he gone there [he] would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen."
Now you can of course say (like the idiot DiogenesLamp says) that Nathan Dane, the distinguished Father of American Jurisprudence, was wrong. It takes a hell of a lot of ignorance and arrogance to do it, but you can do so if you like.
Oh, yeah. Well, Nathan Dane is wrong. William Rawle is wrong. James Bayard is wrong. All those who agreed with James Bayard (including the Great Chief Justice John Marshall) are wrong.
Well, the list of the most brilliant legal experts of the early United States, and the list of historical legal experts, and conservative legal foundations, and present-day judges, and Supreme Court Justices, who are outshined by the stunning brilliance of a bunch of birthers on the internet (who never attended their first law class) just gets longer and longer and longer, doesn't it?
At what point does it start to occur to you imbeciles... Hey, maybe it's not all the great legal luminaries of American history who are wrong? Maybe it's my own damn stupid theory.
Hmmm? Might that idea ever occur to you guys? Just a thought.
Dane is WRONG. Get it through your F****** head! Stop repeating the LIE that Dane is correct.
Proven wrong? You're an imbecile.
Just because you say something has been "proven wrong" doesn't make it so, pinhead.
It's been idiotically claimed that Dane didn't say Thomas Jefferson had been made a citizen of France. This is what birthers do. They will claim black is white and white is black in their headlong rush to promote their idiotic false claims.
I simply repeated Dane's words. Dane was clearly of the opinion that Thomas Jefferson had indeed been made a naturalized citizen of France, and that that naturalized citizenship was real.
Gosh, that shoots a hole in one of the main birther tenets, doesn't it?
Ah. So that doesn't mean the birthers are wrong. It means NATHAN DANE, KNOWN TO HISTORY AS THE FATHER OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE, is wrong.
Along with William Rawle, James Bayard, and other top experts of law from the early United States, of course.
You couldn't announce you were an idiot any more effectively if you donned this shirt:
I like that new signature of yours, self-portrait and all.
And you have been SHOWN that NATHAN DANE IS WRONG. What part of NATHAN DANE IS WRONG are you not comprehending? I am completely freakin astonished that once more you claim that "Nathan Dane said so" is some sort of defense. It is not a defense at all, because NATHAN DANE IS WRONG.
Now you can of course say (like the idiot DiogenesLamp says) that Nathan Dane, the distinguished Father of American Jurisprudence, was wrong. It takes a hell of a lot of ignorance and arrogance to do it, but you can do so if you like.
It doesn't take arrogance, it takes a single fact which proves it. Here you go again.
For some reason Jeffery is just not comprehending that his Nathan Dane theory *IS* DEFUNCT. The FACTS do not support NATHAN DANE. THE FACTS ARE AGAINST NATHAN DANE. NATHAN DANE IS INCORRECT.
Oh, yeah. Well, Nathan Dane is wrong.
Yes he is. Proven wrong above. Not the only source of this information either. Several other sources are available which proves Nathan Dane wrong about Jefferson having even Honorary French citizenship. Jefferson had NO KIND of French citizenship at all.
William Rawle is wrong.
Yes he is. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court told him so in 1804. They Unanimously voted AGAINST his argument that Slaves became citizens merely by being born in the United States.
James Bayard is wrong.
No, James Bayard is exactly correct. You just misrepresent what he means when he says "born a citizen". James Bayard only recognized one means of being "born a citizen" and it required having a FATHER who was a citizen. His son clarifies his position perfectly.
All those who agreed with James Bayard (including the Great Chief Justice John Marshall) are wrong.
No, John Marshall and Bayard are both correct. They don't agree with you though. You have simply LIED and MISLED people by asserting that they DO Agree with you when they absolutely do not.
Well, the list of the most brilliant legal experts of the early United States,
And here is that F***** lie again. No, the ones who agree with you WEREN'T Brilliant, they were second class ex post facto hearsay lawyers who had no idea what was the truth because they weren't there. Those who were there do not agree with you.
and the list of historical legal experts, and conservative legal foundations, and present-day judges, and Supreme Court Justices,
All mislead by an incorrect interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
who are outshined by the stunning brilliance of a bunch of birthers on the internet (who never attended their first law class) just gets longer and longer and longer, doesn't it?
Brilliance isn't the issue. It's KNOWLEDGE. Those who research something know more about it than those who don't. At this point, law School only serves the purpose of misleading people because it directs them to the rut of Precedent rather than independent thought.
Anyone attending Law School will be pushed into following the Herd by misinterpreting Wong Kim Ark as meaning something beyond what it says.
At what point does it start to occur to you imbeciles... Hey, maybe it's not all the great legal luminaries of American history who are wrong?
When Jeff quotes them. This is because he never accurately conveys their understanding. He simply reads it as though it agrees with him even when it doesn't. This is because Jeff is Deluded and tends to LIE to cover up the fact that his theories don't conform to the evidence.
Hmmm? Might that idea ever occur to you guys? Just a thought.
You don't have thoughts worthy of consideration. You are simply a propaganda bullshit artist who has long since gone past the time where someone should have whipped your @$$.
Just because you say something has been "proven wrong" doesn't make it so, pinhead.
No it doesn't. But because it has been PROVEN WRONG, I say so because unlike you, I tell the truth when I see it.
Three other people have told you that Nathan Dane has been proven wrong. Your allies, Nero Germanicus and Tau Food have chosen NOT to defend you on this. I dare say MOST of your allies will not defend you on this because it is indefensible. But you know what? I think i'll ask them.
You are a little pansy @$$ that seems to think NUMBERS = TRUTH, so If we get commentary from sufficient people, perhaps the NUMBERS of people will convince Jeffery that NATHAN DANE HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG.
I simply repeated Dane's words. Dane was clearly of the opinion that Thomas Jefferson had indeed been made a naturalized citizen of France, and that that naturalized citizenship was real.
You are a deluded little Pr***. The most reasonable thing anyone can do for you is to ridicule you to tears.
You cannot have it both ways.You’re either claiming: (A) Thomas Jefferson was granted some form of full French citizenship which entailed the right of abode and the obligation of allegiance to France with the duty of obediance to a sovereign French Government; or (B) Thomas Jefferson was granted Honorary French citizenship. Now which is to be, Jeff? Are you claiming A or B?
Jeff Winston has repeatedly claimed that Thomas Jefferson is a Naturalized Citizen of France based on what Nathan Dane wrote.
It is my position that Nathan Dane is incorrect about this, and that he was very likely duped by a false Claim made by the Albany Register during the Presidential election of 1808.
One of the pieces of evidential support for my position is below. (I have found other sources which claim this as well.) Here is another. And Another. And Another. And Another.
And from "Presidential Campaigns, Slogans, Issues, and Platforms":
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question I have for you is this:
Do you regard the above as sufficient evidence to disprove Nathan Dane's claim?
Jeff Winston has repeatedly claimed that Thomas Jefferson is a Naturalized Citizen of France based on his reading of Nathan Dane.
It is my position that Nathan Dane is incorrect about this, and that he was very likely duped by a false Claim made by the Albany Register during the Presidential election of 1808.
One of the pieces of evidential support for my position is below. (I have found other sources which claim this as well.) Here is another. And Another. And Another. And Another.
And from "Presidential Campaigns, Slogans, Issues, and Platforms":
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question I have for you is this:
Do you regard the above as sufficient evidence to disprove Nathan Dane's claim?
So, I haven't really studied anything concerning how France might have viewed Jefferson or what honors the French government may have bestowed upon him. There existed a Constitutional exception covering Jefferson's NBC status, but even had there not been such an exception, my focus would be on Jefferson's relationship to the United States, citizenship choices that Jefferson may have made, etc. How the government of France viewed Jefferson or what honors it may have showered upon him would hold no relevance to me in terms of his eligibility to be selected as our president.
For those who are interested in this kind of thing, I think the tiny Republic of San Marino once conferred some sort of citizenship on Lincoln. Maybe I'm wrong. Actually, maybe it was that the City of San Marino made him "Mayor for the Day" or something. ;-)
In any event, I think that these "dual citizenship" concerns will become relevant when we have a candidate who can be shown to have applied for foreign citizenship or in some way affirmatively accepted that status. Jefferson, Lincoln, Cruz - they all seem to me Americans without any conflicting loyalties.
Once again, I consider all of you to be my allies. I sincerely think that each of you has uncovered a great deal that is of historical and analytical value. If nothing else, it's interesting and when the waitress brings that third round of drinks, we will now be armed with the kind of informational ammunition that might impress and amaze our real world friends and associates.
Or, maybe not. Don't forget to leave a tip! ;-)
FWIW, I don’t think Jefferson was a naturalized citizen of France. To me, someone naturalizes because they want to live in that country as a citizen, and will remain there unless they later change their mind. I don’t think Jefferson ever had the intent to spend his life in France. The same would apply to other leading American citizens of the time.
I haven’t researched it, but that is how I view it.
Jeff Winston wrote:
I simply repeated Dane's words. Dane was clearly of the opinion that Thomas Jefferson had indeed been made a naturalized citizen of France, and that that naturalized citizenship was real.
Jeff Winston has repeatedly claimed that Thomas Jefferson is a Naturalized Citizen of France based on his reading of Nathan Dane.
It is my position that Nathan Dane is incorrect about this, and that he was very likely duped by a false Claim made by the Albany Register during the Presidential election of 1808.
One of the pieces of evidential support for my position is below. (I have found other sources which claim this as well.) Here is another. And Another. And Another. And Another.
And from "Presidential Campaigns, Slogans, Issues, and Platforms":
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the above sufficient to prove that Thomas Jefferson was NOT a citizen of France?
All I ask is a fair hearing of the evidence. A Yes or no answer would be appreciated.
And still you cling to them, instead of clinging to what our Founders actually said and did. That's idiocy, and it's idiocy to a strong degree, my friend.
We have:
And although this is some of the clearest and starkest evidence that birthers are wrong, it's really only the beginning. There's plenty more, which has been discussed and presented ad nauseum already.
So this is the difference between you and me, pinhead. The actual evidence very clearly supports what I've said. So clearly, in fact, that it's not at all a stretch to say that DiogenesLamp is broadcasting his idiocy.
You, on the other hand, have no such clear evidence, but feel free to call someone else an idiot just because he disagrees with your own delusional opinion.
Both of your split personalities no doubt.
I dunno. It sounds like Jefferson was made a Citizen of France in the same sense that Anne Frank was made a Mormon.
Please leave me off next time. Thanks.
Justice Bushrod Washington:
1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates "strangers" and the latter "subjects," and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them.
Why miss the point? Neither adversary in this or the myriad other cases cited on FR was a Presidential candidate.
Extrapolation from these cases certainly makes an interesting intellectual exercise, the wildly differing conclusions of which neither can bind nor guide any one. The SCOTUS has been asked to interpret Art.II specifically in regard to eligibility for the office of President.
They have, by their own admission, dodged the issue. That's all.
First of all - The burden of proof is the requirement of those that make unusual claims.
Without a decree signed by Jefferson indicating his intention to become a French citizen, you have gone well beyond any requirement.
Secondly, don’t waste too much time arguing with Fogblowers. Wasting your time and annoying you is their goal. (They will argue in circles, and call in comrades. It is in their playbook.)
For the past 2 years, DiogenesLamp has subjected others (particularly myself) here to his bullying, ridicule, personal attacks, and outright physical threats.
I have asked for help, again and again, from Jim and the moderators here, and every time they have simply turned a deaf ear.
Once again, DiogenesLamp has stated that I should have my "ass whipped."
Jim, I need to know some things.
1. Are you actually committed to our Constitution and the truth?
Because numerous, numerous false postings by this poster which contradict and twist the words of our early legal experts, our Founders, our history and our law have been patiently and meticulously documented over the past two years. Still he is allowed to freely spin documented BS at this site with absolute impunity. It is certainly not an overstatement to say that almost every word he writes is false propaganda. And I can absolutely 100% document and explain why to you or anyone else who wants to know why.
2. Are you actually committed to the rules you have set out for FreeRepublic?
The debate on this issue has long exceeded the bounds of civility and good taste. Yes, I myself have called others "idiots." When doing so, however, I have generally given a factual reason as to why they are acting in such a way that they deserve such an appellation. And I learned long ago that the management here was not going to stick up for me against the constant insults and slander of the birthers, and that if anyone was going to do so, I would have to do so myself. About the only way to effectively do that, ultimately, has been to fight the fire with fire.
From the very beginning, anyone who disagreed with the birther mob has been falsely labeled an "idiot," a "troll," an "Obot," a "traitor," and worse. We have been slandered and insulted at every turn. This is in spite of the fact that not one Founder or Framer, not one major Constitutional scholar of any note from any point in history, and not one major conservative commentator or legal foundation has ever stated that a person has to be born on US soil of two citizen parents in order to be natural born citizen or eligible to the Presidency, and many of our most authoritative voices in history have directly and absolutely contradicted the birther claim.
This ugliness goes beyond mere name-called and false accusations that those with the historic understanding of the Constitutional term are "liars." DiogenesLamp, early on (about 2 years ago) remarked that if I could be taken out and shot, he would cheer. He has followed this up on multiple occasions with statements that I deserve an "ass beating," or that he would "whip my ass" if he got the chance.
If this is not a blatant abuse of FreeRepublic's posting policies, I don't know what is. And yet my appeals to Jim and the moderators for help have so far been met with nothing but silence.
I cannot help but think that if I had made such physical threats against others, I would have been banned long ago. It seems to me that there is a fondness for birthers here that allows them to get away with things that would not be tolerated for a moment in those of us who actually prefer a sound and honest interpretation of history and law. Perhaps that is a misperception, but based on my long experience that is my perception at this point.
Jim, I am requesting that you enforce your own policies. Why would a poster who repeatedly makes threats to "beat someone else's ass" be tolerated? Why is a poster who has previously said if another member of FreeRepublic could be taken out and shot, that he would cheer, tolerated? Why would such a poster not be banned?
Jim, I am requesting that this poster be removed so that FreeRepublic may return to sanity. I really see no alternative to this, since he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is completely incapable of any civility at all.
This is about my last resort. If DiogenesLamp is allowed to continue his rampage here, then I suppose I will simply be forced, for my part, to leave this place to the crazy people.
If you doubt my conservative convictions, if you don’t like the way I manage my own website you can always post elsewhere! You got some gall there Jeff.
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.