Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Jeff Winston
There is only "presumption of fact" if I don't have evidence to back the facts. But I do.

The evidence of which is only your word for it.

Which was, rather, my point.

-----

Would you rather be stuck on wrong, stubbornly denying reality? Or would you rather know the truth, and be on the side of the truth?

I'd rather have someone give me the courtesy of presenting their evidence like an adult, not dancing about attempting to play some type of childish, demented 'gotcha' game.

And wipe off that projectionist brush of yours. You're confusing fear with utter disgust.

701 posted on 03/10/2013 6:08:45 AM PDT by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies ]


To: MamaTexan
I'd rather have someone give me the courtesy of presenting their evidence like an adult, not dancing about attempting to play some type of childish, demented 'gotcha' game.

The point is, your position seems to be that you are going to cling absolutely to your claim that Vattel was the source of the "law of nations" phrase in the Constitution, EVEN IF it is shown CONCLUSIVELY that:

1. The phrase isn't just "law of nations," it's "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations."

2. Vattel was only ONE writer, out of a bunch, on the "law of nations."

3. A MUCH better-known writer than Vattel wrote a VERY well known book with an entire chapter entitled, "OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS."

4. That writer was quoted 16 times by the Founding Fathers for every 1 time that they quoted Vattel.

5. Vattel never said a word about Felonies or the high Seas, and only mentioned Pirates once in his whole book, whereas the far better-known author discussed ALL of the above in his chapter on Offences Against the Law of Nations.

6. I can even show conclusively that, yes, the Founders purchased that author's book for use in the Senate.

All of that would be absolutely compelling evidence that the other author I mention is FAR, FAR more likely - in fact, I think we could say almost certainly - the source of that phrase in the Constitution rather than Vattel.

And yet you adamantly refuse to simply say that you are willing to go by the evidence.

That is about like being on a jury and saying, "I don't care whether the DNA evidence says this man is innocent. I'm going to vote that he's guilty."

It's not a huge thing I'm asking of you. Just a commitment to GO WITH THE EVIDENCE. Are you so married to your belief that that is so hard?

716 posted on 03/10/2013 9:00:33 AM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 701 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson