Chin: Ted Cruz can be president, probably

There’s not the slightest evidence the Founding Fathers paid the slightest attention to his ideas of citizenship.

You - Of course it's true.

You're wrong as usual and in denial.

I gave you John Jay's letter to George Washington during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and Alexander Hamilton's rejected "Born a Citizen" submission for the requirement as President and Commander in Chief. I gave you Chief Justice John Marshall quoting in Venus and you stick your head in the sand.

But he DIDN'T CITE IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRYING TO DEFINE WHAT AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP WAS.

It's very obvious it is the definition that was and still is an American citizen then and now. We see the same cite in Minor who echoed Marshall in Venus and they did define who and 'WHAT AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP WAS' - then and now.

Minor v. Happersett:

"it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

That's not a citation of Vattel for defining United States citizenship.

Sure it is, see again LoL above the SCOTUS opinion defining the citizenship of Virginia Minor as a citizen in these United States. The same as Marshall said in Venus. Even you should see the connection. On second thought, find another sand hole for your head.

It is time for you to put up or shut up. Proved the readers with the exact quotation and citation in which Dane uses the phrase “honorary citizenship” and then proceeds to define the phrase. If you fail to do so, we must conclude you made false statements while knowing you had no credible source to support or substantiate those statements, i.e. you lied.

What on earth are you going on about?

I didn't quote Dane on "honorary citizenship." I quoted Dane saying that Thomas Jefferson's citizenship would put him good to go as a citizen of France, if he ever chose to go and live there.

I've already provided the quote, and a link to the source. You can search back through my history for it.

I gave you John Jay's letter to George Washington during the 1787 Constitutional Convention

...which said NOTHING but "natural born Citizen" and did not define the term.

...and Alexander Hamilton's rejected "Born a Citizen" submission for the requirement as President and Commander in Chief.

Which was not a "submission" at all.

There is NO EVIDENCE that Jay's "natural born Citizen" meant anything at all different than Hamilton's "born a Citizen." There's no record AT ALL that the Founding Fathers "rejected" Hamilton's "born a Citizen" "submission." THEY NEVER CONSIDERED IT.

I gave you Chief Justice John Marshall quoting in Venus and you stick your head in the sand.

No, I didn't "stick my head in the sand." I explained, pretty clearly, I think, exactly WHY the mere fact that Marshall quoted the passage of Vattel has absolutely nothing at all to do with any definition of United States citizenship.

It just doesn't. You can't find any judge in the country, or any real legal scholar, who will tell you it does.

Heck, I doubt you could find any college ENGLISH TEACHER in the country to tell you it does.

Because it is plain English that nowhere does Marshall say that he is in any way attempting to the define the meaning of a United States citizen, or the rules for US citizenship.

NOWHERE.

Are you not able to think honestly and analytically?

I gave you John Jay's letter to George Washington during the 1787 Constitutional Convention

There is NO EVIDENCE that Jay's "natural born Citizen" meant anything at all different than Hamilton's "born a Citizen." There's no record AT ALL that the Founding Fathers "rejected" Hamilton's "born a Citizen" "submission." THEY NEVER CONSIDERED IT.

Hamilton brought it to the Convention, and it's not there in the US Constitution is it? They went with "Natural Born Citizen" verbatim. the same as John Jay's letter.

Because it is plain English that nowhere does Marshall say that he is in any way attempting to the define the meaning of a United States citizen, or the rules for US citizenship.

You miss something? Like when I pointed out to you it is the same definition as in Minor v. Happersett defining Virginia Minor as a US citizen, a Natural Born Citizen.

Are you not able to think honestly and analytically?

honestly, and apparently you need lots of work in these areas.

PING to JeffWinston, TauFood and CpnHook

You birther bullshit artists just don't give up do you? You are right and everyone else is wrong and you belittle patriots like Jeff, Tau and the Captain who know the truth and respect the Constitution. You cite references that you know muddy up the water.

Well let me tell you something: obviously no one in authority gives two cents for all the knowledge you think you possess. You cut and paste useless trivia with the best of them. How about YOU citing just ONE case; one judge; or one lawmaker that actually supports your side that actually declares your piss-ant president not to be a NBC because THAT is the real issue here. You can’t do that so YOU FAIL big time. There is not now nor will there ever be a person of authority that will take your side. If obama was born in Hawaii as his forged birth certificate claims then he is NBC just like you wannabe blue bloods. Live with it!

It’s all your bullshit that is probably clogging up FR bandwidth or whatever that the site is not showing full pages right now. You want to keep banging your collective heads against a brick wall, knock yourself out. I find your pitiful arguments unconvincing but very amusing. The time and energy wasted is just astounding.

I’ve said many times that Vattel was given credence when it came to international law. He was a writer on the “law of nations.”

There’s not the slightest evidence the Founding Fathers paid the slightest attention to his ideas of citizenship.

* * *

Well, we knew [the Founding Fathers consulted Vattel]. They consulted literally dozens of other writers, too.

Prof. Donald Lutz undertook a study of the writings of the Founders and Framers to note the European and Biblical writers whom they referenced or cited most frequently. This compilation was used as a proxy to assess the relative influence these writers had on our "Founding Father" generation. Topping the list is St. Paul, followed by Montesquieu. Blackstone (who most explicitly uses the term "natual born" in a jus soli sense comes in third.

But, surely, readers here anticipate that Monsieur de Vattel will be nipping closely at Blackstone's heels. I mean, with all this commotion about Vattel and the Framers he must be #4 or so. Right?

But, hmm, not 4. Or 5. Ok, surely top 10. Hmm, not there either.

(Reading 0n . . . Reading on . . .) Hmm, this is odd, I'm not seeing his name. Oh, there it is. On this list of the most cited European writers Vattel comes in at . . . Number 30? __ Thirty??!?!! Which places Vattel a measely third among writers on the law of nations.

Holy, smokes. What is this bit I've read recently about a supposed "Vattel Revolution?" I read it at the time to mean Vattel near single-handedly caused an intellectual shift which shaped the political writings of our founding generation. I think upon further review "Vattel Revolution" just means that a few persons, taking "sampling bias" to new levels of fallacy, are trying to storm the gates and exalt Vattel from No. 30 to the top of the list.

"The herd" (as we are derisively termed") see what's happening and rightfully reject it as bogus, revisionist, result-driven history.

Here's the full list:

1. St. Paul
2. Montesquieu
3. Sir William Blackstone
4. John Locke
5. David Hume
6. Plutarch
7. Cesare Beccaria
8. John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon
10. Delolme
11. Samuel Pufendorf
12. Sir Edward Coke
13. Cicero
14. Thomas Hobbes
15. William Robertson
16. Hugo Grotius
17. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
18. Lord Bolingbroke
19. Francis Bacon
20. Richard Price
21. William Shakespeare
22. Livy
23. Alexander Pope
24. John Milton
25. Tacitus
26. Plato
27. Abbe Guillaume Raynal
28. Abbe Gabriel Mably
29. Niccolo Machiavelli
30. Emmerich de Vattel
31. William Petyt
32. Voltaire
33. John Robinson
34. Algernon Sidney
35. John Somers
36. James Harrington
37. Paul de Rapin-Thoyras

Source: Donald S. Lutz, "The Relative Importance of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought," American Political Science Review 189 (1984), 189-97. Cited here This study was cited and discussed here at Free Republic in 2004. It is noteworthy that back then, before the rise of Birthers, no one was hopping up and down trying to foster the notion of some "Vattel Revolution."

I’ve said many times that Vattel was given credence when it came to international law. He was a writer on the “law of nations.”

There’s not the slightest evidence the Founding Fathers paid the slightest attention to his ideas of citizenship.

* * *

Well, we knew [the Founding Fathers consulted Vattel]. They consulted literally dozens of other writers, too.

Prof. Donald Lutz undertook a study of the writings of the Founders and Framers to note the European and Biblical writers whom they referenced or cited most frequently. This compilation was used as a proxy to assess the relative influence these writers had on our "Founding Father" generation. Topping the list is St. Paul, followed by Montesquieu. Blackstone (who most explicitly uses the term "natual born" in a jus soli sense comes in third.

But, surely, readers here anticipate that Monsieur de Vattel will be nipping closely at Blackstone's heels. I mean, with all this commotion about Vattel and the Framers he must be #4 or so. Right?

But, hmm, not 4. Or 5. Ok, surely top 10. Hmm, not there either.

(Reading 0n . . . Reading on . . .) Hmm, this is odd, I'm not seeing his name. Oh, there it is. On this list of the most cited European writers Vattel comes in at . . . Number 30? __ Thirty??!?!! Which places Vattel a measely third among writers on the law of nations.

Holy, smokes. What is this bit I've read recently about a supposed "Vattel Revolution?" I read it at the time to mean Vattel near single-handedly caused an intellectual shift which shaped the political writings of our founding generation. I think upon further review "Vattel Revolution" just means that a few persons, taking "sampling bias" to new levels of fallacy, are trying to storm the gates and exalt Vattel from No. 30 to the top of the list.

"The herd" (as we are derisively termed") see what's happening and rightfully reject it as bogus, revisionist, result-driven history.

Here's the full list:

1. St. Paul
2. Montesquieu
3. Sir William Blackstone
4. John Locke
5. David Hume
6. Plutarch
7. Cesare Beccaria
8. John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon
10. Delolme
11. Samuel Pufendorf
12. Sir Edward Coke
13. Cicero
14. Thomas Hobbes
15. William Robertson
16. Hugo Grotius
17. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
18. Lord Bolingbroke
19. Francis Bacon
20. Richard Price
21. William Shakespeare
22. Livy
23. Alexander Pope
24. John Milton
25. Tacitus
26. Plato
27. Abbe Guillaume Raynal
28. Abbe Gabriel Mably
29. Niccolo Machiavelli
30. Emmerich de Vattel
31. William Petyt
32. Voltaire
33. John Robinson
34. Algernon Sidney
35. John Somers
36. James Harrington
37. Paul de Rapin-Thoyras

Source: Donald S. Lutz, "The Relative Importance of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought," American Political Science Review 189 (1984), 189-97. Cited here This study was cited and discussed here at Free Republic in 2004. It is noteworthy that back then, before the rise of Birthers, no one was hopping up and down trying to foster the notion of some "Vattel Revolution."

[Apparently, I’ve been taken off posting moderation. When I didn’t see “your post has been submitted” as before, I backed up and tried again. Apologies for the double-post.]

Correction: The title of the Lutz article is "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought."

I should know better than to copy someone else's citation to save a few keystrokes.

Bump for later read - this website if foobar again! Only loads up 1/8 or less of a regular page....about the size of a birther brain.

Jeff the Kook wrote:
Because it is plain English that nowhere does Marshall say that he is in any way attempting to the define the meaning of a United States citizen, or the rules for US citizenship.

Jeff is a kook. I've asked him several times, "If John Marshall isn't defining "natural born citizen" by reference to Vattel, then what sort of citizen is he defining?"

Jeff's answer is always crickets. He simply refuses to accept that the "natives or indigenes" are synonyms for "natural citizens."

Jeff is so dishonest he lies to himself. He thinks that by constantly repeating himself, he can convince non stupid/insane people to go along with him. This is just more evidence that He is stupid and/or insane.

Good effort, but do you really think evidence or PROOF will work on Jeff? Like I say, the boy's a kook.

I find it is often more satisfying to just make fun of him. He is intellectually dishonest, so no amount of reason or evidence will penetrate his shields of denial.

England at different stages in its history has employed jus sanguinis, jus soli, and an assortment of modified combinations of the two to comprise its nationality laws.

It has long been my opinion that England's most significant reason for adopting Jus Soli is because a Contrary verdict in Calvin's case (A Child born to Scottish Parents can't own English Land) would have DESTROYED the unification of the Kingdoms. James_I NEEDED the ruling to go as it did because had it gone the other way, the Scots would have looked upon English Law as regarding them as second class citizens, and I assure you they would not have tolerated it.

Angry Scots protesting a contrary Decision in Calvin's case Depicted below.

Even so, It took 14 judges over a year to figure out that "James Colville" (The actual name of "Calvin") was a Subject and entitled to inherit English land, and there was STILL one Dissenting Judge.

If it was so obvious, so cut and dried, why did it take so long and why was there still dissent? (By the Way, Lord Coke was appointed by the King to argue in Calvin's behalf. A tacit way of saying "Your King Wants this." )

English nationality law is a patchwork of kooky stuff because it isn't founded on an inherent and consistent natural principle. It was instead created as per what was desired by the Crown at the time. That we should follow this methodology is exactly the sort of nonsense to which only Lawyer types are susceptible.

You birther bullshit artists just don't give up do you? You are right and everyone else is wrong and you belittle patriots like Jeff, Tau and the Captain who know the truth and respect the Constitution. You cite references that you know muddy up the water.

Jeff is an idiot Kook. Tau Food is more honest, but he is severely affected by the Dominant herd mentality and is also rationalizing in my opinion. Cptn Hook, I suspect is a Liberal Troll. For some reason, they keep signing up here at Free Republic just to debate this one issue, as if the existence of people who disagree (and can prove it) is somehow intolerable.

obviously no one in authority gives two cents for all the knowledge you think you possess.

And that one sentence identifies you as an IDIOT. This is the argument that little five year old children make. It has been known as a fallacy (argumentum ad auctoritatem) for about FIVE THOUSAND YEARS, and it is proof that you are a person who has interjected your little child intellect into a discussion being carried out among far more knowledgeable and intelligent people.

At one time MOST of the authorities supported SLAVERY. Did that make them correct? At one time MOST of the Authorities thought the earth was flat. Were they correct? At one time most of the authorities thought heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects? Were they correct? At one time the Authorities thought the Earth was the Center of the Universe. A sole man thought differently; Galileo. He was right, and all of those "Authorities" were WRONG.

Most "authorities" today think that Abortion is good, Homosexuality is fine, MASSIVE DEBT is Wonderful, and Global Warming is going to kill us all! Tell me, are these "Authorities" correct about this because they are "authorities" and because there are so many of them?

You are a fool. You are a person that can't recognize truth unless some "Authority" pours it down your ear hole. You are a mindless sheep-zombie who cannot think for himself, and rather than just butt out of a conversation in which you are supremely over-matched, you pipe up with your little kindergarten CHILD argument about "no one in authority gives two cents for all the knowledge you think you possess."

From now on, I'm going to regard you as the "Voice of Authority" and it won't be a compliment. It will be a reminder of the fact that some people simply can't function in a free society which requires them to think for themselves. They must instead listen for their Masters voice.

Excellent post!

----

What also seems to escape them as they're beating us with Blackstone, is they're skimming right over some very important words

OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.1 Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Chapter X , William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England i

Sure, 'dominion' means all the land owned by the King, but Blackstone refines the further than just a tie to the soil - to be born in the 'ligeance', or Allegiance of the King, so the definition itself shows Alliegence to mean a political tie, not a physical one.

So the only way to be born 'into' the Kings Allegiance is if YOUR PARENTS ARE ALREADY THERE!

--------

Oh, sorry..... I wasn't yelling at you, Red :-)

And it's stuff like this that says "Liberal Troll". You signed up in march, made a beeline for Eligibility threads, and you come up with stuff no bystander would know about. (but which old troopers have seen countless times.)

Do you know who knows about arguments like this one you presented? Fogbow people. Liberal Eligibility people. Dr. Kookspiracy people.

So now let me slap down your stupid little argument by pointing out the Opinion of the US Supreme court in the Case of:

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. MULTISTATE TAX COMMISSION et al.

434 U.S. 452 (98 S.Ct. 799, 54 L.Ed.2d 682)

Some commentators have theorized that the Framers understood those terms in relation to the precisely defined categories, fashionable in the contemporary literature of international law, of accords between sovereigns. See, e. g., Engdahl, Characterization of Interstate Arrangements: When Is a Compact Not a Compact?, 64 Mich.L.Rev. 63 (1965); Weinfeld, What Did the Framers of the Federal Constitution Mean by "Agreements or Compacts"?, 3 U.Chi.L.Rev. 453 (1936). The international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel. 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826). In 1775, Benjamin Franklin acknowledged receipt of three copies of a new edition, in French, of Vattel's Law of Nations and remarked that the book "has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting . . . ." 2 F. Wharton, United States Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence 64 (1889), cited in Weinfeld, supra, at 458.
Vattel differentiated between "treaties," which were made either for perpetuity or for a considerable period, and "agreements, conventions, and pactions," which "are perfected in their execution once for all." E. Vattel, Law of Nations 192 (J. Chitty ed. 1883). Unlike a "treaty" or "alliance," an "agreement" or "paction" was perfected upon execution:

Obviously you prefer the opinion of Prof. Donald Lutz, but I doubt there is enough room up your @$$ for both your heads.

There you go again with the slimy dishonesty.

Yep. I thought this was a whopper

and the man who wrote the first comprehensive treatment of United States laws

The first volume of Dane's work [according to Wiki,] was published in 1823. Tuckers annotated Blackstone was published in 1803.

From the William and Mary Law Review’s The Legacy of St George Tucker
In 1790, Tucker succeeded Wythe, becoming the second law professor at The College of William and Mary, carrying out his duties between court terms and serving until 1804. Although he would eventually be eclipsed in prominence by Joseph Story and James Kent, Tucker was the most significant legal scholar of the early nineteenth century, particularly after publication of his five-volume edition of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in 1803.

---

And who called Dane the "Father of American Jurisprudence"?

The Wiki link leads to something called 'The Green Bag': An Entertaining Journal of Law whose aim was to publish articles that are brief, readable, and meant to provoke discussion.

Vattel differentiated between "treaties," which were made either for perpetuity or for a considerable period, and "agreements, conventions, and pactions," which "are perfected in their execution once for all."

Yep, yep, yep!

And in this case, he adds, the confederate states engage to each other only to exercise with common consent, certain parts of the sovereignty, especially those which relate to their mutual defense, against foreign enemies. But each of the confederates retains an entire liberty of exercising as it thinks proper, those parts of the sovereignty, which are not mentioned in the treaty of union, as parts that ought to be exercised in common. And of this nature is the American confederacy, in which each state has resigned the exercise of certain parts of the supreme civil power which they possessed before (except in common with the other states included in the confederacy) reserving to themselves all their former powers, which are not delegated to the United States by the common bond of union.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States [1803] Section XII

The section the Founders saw fit to title 'Powers of Congress' says nothing about 'citizenship'.....just Naturalization.

So now let me slap down your stupid little argument by pointing out the Opinion of the US Supreme court in the Case of: [U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission.]

If you know about matters like the Lutz study, then it's really inexplicable why after knowing such for so long your reply is so inept.

U.S. Steel is a case about the Compact Clause and state taxation of multinational corporations. So the Appellants were raising international law and treaty power issues. So, yes, Vattel is once again consulted as an "international jurist."

But does the Court say he was OVERALL the most quoted or influential European writer as to all matters, foreign and domestic? No. They assert he was quoted most on international law, but don't cite any study by which they arrive at that conclusion. Does it matter if Vattel was first versus third (Lutz) as to the Court's point? No.

But when it comes to citizenship, which involves a matter of domestic, rather than international, law, does the Court reach for its copy of Vattel? No!!They reach for Blackstone, et al. Vattel and "international law" were deemed irrelevant. See U.S. v Wong Kim Ark.

But we've been over this, and I corrected you once before. It's would strike me as amazing you can't resist making the same blunder. But then I realize you only have one argument to make, and you are stuck making it over and over, no matter how inept it is.

Yep. I thought this was a whopper

and the man who wrote the first comprehensive treatment of United States laws

Is there no limit to your ignorance? Or your arrogance in the midst of your ignorance?

I mean, really.

Do you understand what "comprehensive treatment" means? And do you understand what "United States laws" means?

Since you are apparently too dense to get that, I will spell it out for you.

A "comprehensive treatment" means a detailed and thorough look at something in its entirety.

And "United States laws" have to do directly with the laws of the United States.

Tucker's Blackstone was certainly one of the most important legal texts of the early United States.

This is, of course, a fact that you've previously brushed aside or minimized, when it didn't suit your stupid birther purposes. And you bring it up now, because you think in THIS instance it's useful for your stupid birther BS.

But I digress.

Tucker's Blackstone was certainly a mainstay of the legal profession. It's been said that for many American lawyers, Tucker's Blackstone was the ONLY legal training a starting lawyer received.

But it was NOT a COMPREHENSIVE TREATMENT OF UNITED STATES LAW.

In fact, it was Tucker's annotated version of BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND.

Did you happen to catch the title? You might want to read it again.

Yes, Tucker made comparisons between Blackstone's statements of what English law was, and what he perceived United States law to be.

But it was not, and was never intended to be, a "comprehensive treatment of United States laws."

So. The next time you get the urge to accuse someone of "slimy dishonesty," I suggest you first go get together your life savings, and buy a clue.