Free Republic

in fact you are more at risk to get the flu if you take the flu vax. just came out this year, meta study of years of data

You should read the articles about this again. There was no meta study showing this. There was a meta study questioning efficacy rates, but only in certain groups. There was also an article about research done on ferrets that I think you're referring to about increased likelihood of flu which applied to only ONE year, 2009. The researcher's theory

That theory relates to the fact that the 2008 vaccine protected against an H1N1 virus that was related to — but not similar enough to — the pandemic virus to generate antibodies that would neutralize it. The thinking is that might actually have facilitated infection with the pandemic virus.

Note that the researcher also said

But in the meantime, Skowronski insisted the findings should not deter people from getting seasonal flu shots. "I do think it's important to clarify that our findings are unique to the pandemic," she insisted. "Pandemics are infrequent occurrences, but seasonal influenza recurs on an annual basis. It's a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality," — science's term for illness and death — "and the seasonal vaccine substantially protects against that severe outcome due to seasonal influenza."

Sorry, your post is garbage. you claimed "evil" and that those I cited were "excrement". You never rebutted a single court case I presented. You refused to answer whether Madison (who said similar things to some of the quotes from court cases) was lumped in with those you considered evil. I presented facts, you present insults.

The only magnificent thing about our founding ultimately is that the nation was founded on Yeshua’s gospel, but even that didn’t last when your kind got the vote. The hatred is obviously yours since you advocate turning the constitution into Charmin.

Unlike you, I think the founding of America is magnificent, and the Constitution, while imperfect as are all works of men, is an outstanding achievement. You are the one who wants "to turn the Constitution into Charmin" by claiming it says things that it in fact does not say.

So you draw no distinction between Justice Scalia and Ruth Ginsberg? You think that the Framers of the Constitution such as James Madison are evil and wished for tyranny and are excrement?

You sound like someone who has no appreciation for our magnificent history and Constitution, for the struggle for the rule of law rather than the rule of men, and yet calls himself a patriot.

I happen to respect the Constitution and its Framers. Go peddle your hatred for the origins of America elsewhere.

Agree completely. NBC to the Framers was very clear, they well knew what natural born subject meant, and transferred it, as several early legal writers (St George Tucker) and jurists pointed out.

Those who try to make it something else are reading something into the Constitution that was never there. As you say, if they want it in the Constitution, they will have to amend it.

Your posts are an insult to every patriot here. All of those that seek to place men under government are evil. Government is to be our servant, not our master. You obviously need a heavy hand above you, but functional men do not.

You seem to have some trouble understanding my posts, as well as understanding Common Law. You have decided noted jurists from Justice Scalia to those early in our history are "evil" without giving any reason why. It would seem you think anyone who has a different interpretation of NBC is "evil" in your mind and not a patriot. Do you include James Madison in that?

Step back, look at the evidence of what the Founders, Framers, and early jurists and legal historians meant by NBC. If you choose not to think, not to understand what our early history says, who is the better patriot?

While debate is fine if you actually have points to make or information to bring; if all you can do is spew insults, don't bother posting.

The fact that we have had evil men in high positions in our history is not legitimate support fot your quisling position.

More insults, shows how well you can frame your arguments.

Pray tell, which of the noted Justices or Framers I quoted are the "evil men" you had in mind?

Change your handle to “sometime thinker.” Sometime, I’m sure that you will think.

Nice. You can't rebut the direct quotes I have posted, so descend to insults. You are incorrect, but refuse to admit it. What part of "read some history" is too daunting?

Each and every clause of our constitution is a rejection of common law.

Not true; I suggest you do some reading on the history of the Constitution. English Common Law formed the basis of much of the Constitution. Justice Scalia, for one, disagrees with you, as do several other justices. Justice Joseph Story

And so has been the uniform doctrine in America ever since the settlement of the colonies. The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.

Chief Justice Howard Taft wrote

"The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted."

From the WKA case:

In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion [169 U.S. 649, 663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151."

[emphasis added]

See also See also 
Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844),

The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. [emphasis added]

The term “natural born citizen” is alien to common law; they had native born subjects. At the time natural born citizen was understood to mean one that was a citizen by birth regardless of where he was born because both parents were citizens.

Nope. See Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813)

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

We are not under English Common Law. We are not in England, we are not commoners. we are sovereigns. Our constitution has no provision for adoption of the laws of another nation; all of our laws must be passed by our legislative bodies.

You do realize that much of our law is based on English Common Law, don't you? That much of the Constitution was based on English Common Law? That Justice Scalia frequently cites Common Law, and said

use British law for those elements of the Constitution that were taken from Britain. The phrase "the right to be confronted with witnesses against him" -- what did confrontation consist of in England? It had a meaning to the American colonists, all of whom were intimately familiar with my friend Blackstone. And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time.

Cruz was born a dual citizen of the US and Canada. According to the original intent of the framers, he is disqualified.

Your understanding of the original intent is incomplete. The Framers fear was that a wealthy or powerful foreign citizen, or one allied with a foreign power, would come to the US, get naturalized, and use their wealth and power to become president. For instance, James Madison said

The Ministers of foreign powers would have and make use of, the opportunity to mix their intrigues & influence with the Election. Limited as the powers of the Executive are, it will be an object of great moment with the great rival powers of Europe who have American possessions, to have at the head of our Governmt. a man attached to their respective politics & interests. No pains, nor perhaps expense, will be spared, to gain from the Legislature an appointmt. favorable to their wishes. Germany & Poland are witnesses of this danger. In the former, the election of the Head of the Empire, till it became in a manner hereditary, interested all Europe, and was much influenced by foreign interference. In the latter, altho’ the elective Magistrate has very little real power, his election has at all times produced the most eager interference of forign princes, and has in fact at length slid entirely into foreign hands.

Note that St George Tucker writes

That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, where-ever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreign connections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at first were probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in that country.

If you look it up, you will see that Holland was ruled for a time by Spaniards, appointed stadtholders by Spain, and the office – as Tucker mentions – became hereditary. So his (and other Founders’) concerns were not for those born of foreigners on US soil who are US citizens, but for foreigners born elsewhere who are not, but who might be naturalized only for the purpose of seeking the presidency. See what Joseph Story has to say on this:

It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.

This is well explained by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers #68

these most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

Showing that the chief concern was not US citizens born of foreign immigrants, but rather concern about foreign governments trying to insert their own officials into the US government.

As for dual citizenship, obviously Cruz has lived as an American all his life. As Americans, our laws should apply, and the fact that another country also confers citizenship should not be allowed to control American law. What of the countries (such as Ireland) that used to confer citizenship on grandchildren of citizens? Should their law control American choices?

From the WKA case:

In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion [169 U.S. 649, 663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151."

[emphasis added]

See also See also
Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844),

The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," ... The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. [emphasis added]

Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813)

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.

There was only one definition of natural born citizen at the time the founders wrote Article II. That definition is found in the The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

This is incorrect. Much of the Constitution is based on English Common Law, and the common law definition is quite different. You may be very sure that the Founders were conversant with English Common Law. So much so, that the Naturalization Act of 1790 said

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States [emphasis added]

Thus many of the Founders voted on this act, which said those born out of the limits would be considered as natural born. While the 1790 version would have excluded Ted Cruz because his father had not been resident in the US (to my knowledge), but it has been amended many times and the act in effect at the time of his birth had only a residency requirement for his mother, which she fulfilled.

So was the 1790 Naturalization Act. There are several, which deal with naturalization and also what qualifies for natural born or birthright citizenship. If you check the Congressional Annals on the debate in 1790, it mostly centers on naturalization terms, but has a brief reference on page 1159 "the case of children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III."

No, it is not still in force, it has, as I mentioned, been modified. I was showing that even very early in our republic, those born abroad to US citizen parents who met certain conditions were considered natural born. As far as I can tell, the 1940 requirements would apply to Senator Cruz. See the text here under "g". For children of one citizen and one alien parent born abroad, the citizen must have resided in the US for 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 14. I believe Cruz meets these requirement.

There is proof from very early in our republic that Cruz would be eligible. From the Naturalization Act of 1790

And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Subsequent laws have clarified and proscribed other conditions, but none of those, as far as I know, disqualify Cruz. His mother had lived in the US long enough so he is considered natural born.

(Been gone for a while due to medical issues - it feels good to be back!)

Okay, to insure clear communications I am going to make certain that you understand I am referring specifically to efforts to get a certified copy of his Original Hawaiian birth certificate placed in front of election officials. On what legal grounds is this inadequate?

Both the Republican governor of Hawaii (Linda Lingle) and the spokesperson for the DOH have said 0bama was born there. Many of those bringing up reasons why the released COLB and long form are forgeries have either been discredited themselves, or had their reasons discredited.

The legal grounds that are inadequate are printed right on the COLB: "this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

I had always thought we should pull at that thread and see what unravels, but there were those of you out there (and you know who you are) that were absolutely terrified and/or disdainful of touching this issue, and preferred to rely exclusively on a political campaign to save us from this Communist.

Not terrified, but recognizing that it rests on inadequate legal grounds, and exposes all involved to discredit and ridicule. Why do you think it's been ruled against so many times? Why do you think the Supreme Court won't touch it? Because it's legally ridiculous, and wanting it to be effective doesn't make it so.

Okay, ‘sometime lurker’, are you young or are you old? That is, were you around for when Ronald Reagan was a running the joke. The giggle of half the nation? It actually continued well into and through his administration, though somehow by his second term he pulled off the biggest landslide in modern times.

I'm on the older side, and I certainly remember President Reagan, and Sarah Palin is not Ronald Reagan.

Whatever the media narrative may have been, Reagan had thought deeply about many issues, studied them, was speaking about them during his time at GE, well before he ran for office. He was twice elected governor of California. Candidate Reagan's interviews were different from Candidate Palin's.

Agreed, Governor Martinez would be a good pick for the ticket.

You “don’t need any of your Game Change fiction ‘BS’.” but it’s out there and voters have seen it and remember it. And if you think that won’t affect some voters, you’re dreaming.

If you want to win, you have to have a candidate that can get the votes to win.